|
Post by RudeAlert on May 13, 2017 18:52:38 GMT -8
All of this! Seven whole fucking pages because one side of this argument just can't accept that their way is not the only way. This is a prime example of One-True-Wayism.
If you don't like dice-fudging or any kind of narrative or setting alterations just don't fucking do it! How fucking hard is it to wrap your head around that incredibly simple notion.
I like using simple similes to make my points because it's usually the only way to make sure everyone gets the message so here goes:
- I don't like mushrooms so I don't cook foods with mushrooms. To me mushrooms are gross (an obvious subjective opinion) so I don't eat them.
- You like mushrooms so you do include them in your meals because for you they are a valued part of a tasty dish (an other obviously subjective opinion).
So I ask you, "anti-cheaters" which one of us is right? Me and my dislike of mushrooms or you and your liking for mushrooms. And keep in mind, by your own logic and approach to "debate" there can only be one true and valid opinion. So which is it?
And don't try to weasel out of it by claiming that mushrooms and food preferences are different from gaming preferences because they're not. A preference is a preference whatever the subject may be. And if you're going to counter with something about groups and such, what if my whole family doesn't like mushrooms so I abstain from including mushrooms in our family meals? Would THAT be wrong because YOU love mushrooms. Is it literally impossible for you to accept that there are people in the world who have opinions that differ from yours? One of you claimed that they've been accused of "being sad" or other some such. I have no doubt that that had nothing to do with your gaming preferences but with what frankly looks like a pathological obsession with being "right" and being literally incapable of dealing with the reality that not everyone agrees with YOU.
It's so ridiculously simple: You like approach A, other people like approach B. So don't use approach B because you don't like it, and the other people won't use approach A because they don't like it.... How much simpler could it be stated? Seriously!
|
|
|
Post by RudeAlert on May 13, 2017 19:05:06 GMT -8
Actually, something just occurred to me, since this terminology is incredibly biased and based on an incredibly loaded term, if this conversation is to continue, or reoccur in the future, I propose a more fair terminology:
Absolutist: Rules and dicerolls are unalterable divine law!
Subjectivist: Meh, rules and dicerolls are cool and all but as long as everyone's having fun who cares?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 21:52:58 GMT -8
First the mystery question. Why don't you already know if its possible to fail or not? If its not possible, why are you asking for dice rolls? I strongly subscribe to the GUMSHOE systems strain of logic in that all essential clues should not be gated behind rolls (or in gumshoes case, spends). Not doing this creates a clue bottleneck that acts as a point of failure, which you must be okay with if you include it. Following up on that uncommonman 's idea of just making the failure into a further adventure is a valid one. Maybe if you don't unravel the clues in time the assassin strikes, but reveals themself in their escape. Now its a chase or a hunt to bring the regicidal maniac to justice. Addressing Probie Tim 's example of fudging I would say to cool your jets before you call that clear cheating by definition. I don't think it was done to gain an advantage. It wasn't done dishonestly, but instead in the open. Being done in the open, the entire group could have objected if it were unfair. Given the amount of prep they had done, by your request, it would seem to me more unfair to kill them in the first session. To me this is the kind of fudging that is permissible, not the actions of a cheater. The important thing to remember is that it is gaming by consensus. Anyone could have come up with some reason why that character didn't die. As long as everyone agreed, it would be kosher. I do want to take this moment to inject a little bit of system matters. I would never push my players for in depth backgrounds in a game where I know anyone could go down to a lucky crit. I myself have played in games where I put in effort and was rewarded with a string of swift ends. Suffice to say that I didn't keep up the level of effort for long before I had 'Bob the Bushi', who was built with the sole goal of surviving sword blows. Maybe some people can keep that kind of enthusiasm up, but I can't. What I mean to get at is that there is a good reason why battletech pilots have only two stats (pilot and gunnery), you know, since they might die at any time in any number of ways and they are one of many that a player must track. The more effort required to create a character, the more reverent you must be when it comes to lethality and risk. This is something that the player must manage as well. Effort isn't plot armor against bald faced bad decisions. Overall though, meatgrinders and detailed characters don't mix.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on May 14, 2017 7:51:23 GMT -8
To me this is the kind of fudging that is permissible, not the actions of a cheater. Thank you, @stevensw. That has been my whole point throughout this entire ordeal, that sometimes - albeit rare and under specific circumstances - dice fudging is OK. As the GM you need to have the authority to look at situations like that and make that call, and there should be enough trust between the players and GM to allow it to happen, and that it's not cheating.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on May 15, 2017 6:28:17 GMT -8
God damn it Probie Tim and @stevensw are agreeing !??! What the hell am I supposed to do while eating my popcorn! I miss CreativeCowboy and say-lorn (don't want to spell it correctly might just summon "it". I was really hoping this was going to be the next **CENSORED** thread.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on May 15, 2017 6:29:24 GMT -8
Oh i just about peed myself when I saw the "auto CENSORED" kick in. Well played Stu Venable! Well played.
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on May 22, 2017 22:08:17 GMT -8
So I'll inscribe the satanic runes on the ground, sacrifice the goat, chant the dark chant, and resurrect this thread.
It seems on this topic, like many topic, is one where the conversation is about where you draw the line. Where does GM Fiat break the implicit agreement of fairness the person running the game have with the players. Some believe that dice are absolute, some believe that managing the expectations of the table and pursuit of fun means that sometimes dice results aren't absolute, some believe that dice are meaningless.
So the question I have is 'Can GMs roll dice if they are meaningless."
One point that was brought up is "Why Roll dice in the first place if you're going to ignore the result" and the answer to that to me has always been Because rolling dice creates tension.
So we're all in agreement that much of the game functions via GM fiat. Bob is stabbed in the neck by Jan so Bob dies. No one has any problem with that happening off screen or in narration. No one has any problem with this being accomplished without dice.
So how do you feel about deciding the outcome of an event though GM fiat and then rolling dice to give the illusion of randomness. Is that cheating? What about randomly rolling dice that have no meaning?
|
|
|
Post by zoomfarg on May 23, 2017 2:02:31 GMT -8
So I'll inscribe the satanic runes on the ground, sacrifice the goat, chant the dark chant, and resurrect this thread. Dammit! Who put this goat on top of the horse?? But actually I had been noodling another post for a couple days, about the "why bother rolling if you're gonna ignore the result" issue. When I've fudged dice, I've never rolled them knowing I was gonna fudge them. However, a few times, when the dice stop rolling, a little voice in my head goes: "Dammit... this is gonna be boring." And boring is the last thing I want at the table. So I fudge the dice and note things I could do differently to avoid similar situations in the future. IIRC it's always been combat, and only to change successful enemy dodge rolls to speed things up.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on May 23, 2017 2:40:49 GMT -8
So I'll inscribe the satanic runes on the ground, sacrifice the goat, chant the dark chant, and resurrect this thread. Dammit! Who put this goat on top of the horse?? But actually I had been noodling another post for a couple days, about the "why bother rolling if you're gonna ignore the result" issue. When I've fudged dice, I've never rolled them knowing I was gonna fudge them. However, a few times, when the dice stop rolling, a little voice in my head goes: "Dammit... this is gonna be boring." And boring is the last thing I want at the table. So I fudge the dice and note things I could do differently to avoid similar situations in the future. IIRC it's always been combat, and only to change successful enemy dodge rolls to speed things up. You say you fudge dice because the combat was boring but wasn't there a risk of the PC's getting hurt/dead? If there wasn't that risk why did you have a combat (with dice rolls) in stead of just talking?
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on May 23, 2017 16:03:24 GMT -8
So the question I have is 'Can GMs roll dice if they are meaningless." If the dice are meaningless, I don't roll them; every die roll I make as a GM has some meaning. rolling dice creates tension I agree; when the GM rolls dice, players get tense. It's fun to watch.
|
|
|
Post by zoomfarg on May 23, 2017 17:18:15 GMT -8
You say you fudge dice because the combat was boring but wasn't there a risk of the PC's getting hurt/dead? If there wasn't that risk why did you have a combat (with dice rolls) in stead of just talking? Plenty of perfectly good reasons But no sense in enumerating them just to be accused of badwrongfun. There was still plenty of risk in the combat (it was GURPS, after all). A couple fudges just sped it up.
|
|
|
Post by chronovore on Jul 7, 2017 22:45:29 GMT -8
I've been thinking about GM agency and I still feel that the GM is unfair to the players if he start changing things to "make a better story". If the badies fail a roll it's unfair to say thay succeed, you can choose not to roll but once the dice hit the table you have to follow the roll. If you have decided that there's 10 guards you can't remove half to let the PC's have a easier time to be kind, that is in my opinion cheating the players of a possibly fatal fight.
Imagine if the players started acting the same way and lied about their rolls or added skills and items just because they felt like the story should be better that way. If you want to play a more narrative game play a game with those kind of rules where you can spend "faith points" to change the outcome of rolls and add items. This is, pardon my French, just frenchingly ridiculous. Here's the deal: when a Player makes their character, there is a hard set of on-paper definitions about what the PC can do. The PC has skills and attributes and bennies or whatever, and there are numbers attached to them, which affects what the PC will be able to put on the table during the game. The GM, by and large, has no limitations what they can put on the table. We make it up beforehand. So if I have a situation where I expect a fight, and I put in 10 guards to make a "challenging" fight, but instead the NPCs I've made turn out to be overwhelming, I'm going to adjust on the fly. I'm going to reduce their to-hit, their HP, and maybe even off one of them by faking a critfail on a defense roll. Because I fucked up when I made the NPCs and planned the encounter. Are you saying that you'd rather I put all 10 guards in, had a TPK, and then said, "Yeah, sorry guys! I know you put a bunch of effort into making your PCs, but I felt it would be dishonest to change the encounter afterward." Another example, the Ranty-DM mentioned in this week's HJRPG (s19 e16? 15?), and also in this thread: happyjacks.proboards.com/post/70795/thread…had put together an encounter for our group in the sewers as we left a heist location. Now, this is a bit meta-game-y but stay with me: Our party had just finished two sessions of the heist, and had NO OPPORTUNITY to even take a Short Rest, so we had used up all our magic and abilities during the previous sessions. The DM, apparently fearing we'd be bored with a simple "You made it!" decided to populate our pre-scouted, hidden escape route with essentially random monsters. But we'd split the party as part of our Kiss Off/egress, and the DM straight up said, "I planned this around four PCs, not three, so let's see how this turns out." This same DM has said "It may be dramatically interesting for PCs to randomly die, who knows?" so he's not the type to bend dice rolls — but he did make an encounter which he acknowledged may have been overpowering for us. Read this as: He had something specific in mind for us, but the PC's team profile changed, and he was unwilling to adjust it based on the changed dynamic. According to you, this is good and correct, yes? According to me, this is failing to adapt to the current situation, and put everyone's time and investment at unnecessary risk.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on Jul 7, 2017 23:03:58 GMT -8
I've been thinking about GM agency and I still feel that the GM is unfair to the players if he start changing things to "make a better story". If the badies fail a roll it's unfair to say thay succeed, you can choose not to roll but once the dice hit the table you have to follow the roll. If you have decided that there's 10 guards you can't remove half to let the PC's have a easier time to be kind, that is in my opinion cheating the players of a possibly fatal fight.
Imagine if the players started acting the same way and lied about their rolls or added skills and items just because they felt like the story should be better that way. If you want to play a more narrative game play a game with those kind of rules where you can spend "faith points" to change the outcome of rolls and add items. This is, pardon my French, just frenchingly ridiculous. Here's the deal: when a Player makes their character, there is a hard set of on-paper definitions about what the PC can do. The PC has skills and attributes and bennies or whatever, and there are numbers attached to them, which affects what the PC will be able to put on the table during the game. The GM, by and large, has no limitations what they can put on the table. We make it up beforehand. So if I have a situation where I expect a fight, and I put in 10 guards to make a "challenging" fight, but instead the NPCs I've made turn out to be overwhelming, I'm going to adjust on the fly. I'm going to reduce their to-hit, their HP, and maybe even off one of them by faking a critfail on a defense roll. Because I fucked up when I made the NPCs and planned the encounter. Are you saying that you'd rather I put all 10 guards in, had a TPK, and then said, "Yeah, sorry guys! I know you put a bunch of effort into making your PCs, but I felt it would be dishonest to change the encounter afterward." Another example, the Ranty-DM mentioned in this week's HJRPG (s19 e16? 15?), and also in this thread: happyjacks.proboards.com/post/70795/thread…had put together an encounter for our group in the sewers as we left a heist location. Now, this is a bit meta-game-y but stay with me: Our party had just finished two sessions of the heist, and had NO OPPORTUNITY to even take a Short Rest, so we had used up all our magic and abilities during the previous sessions. The DM, apparently fearing we'd be bored with a simple "You made it!" decided to populate our pre-scouted, hidden escape route with essentially random monsters. But we'd split the party as part of our Kiss Off/egress, and the DM straight up said, "I planned this around four PCs, not three, so let's see how this turns out." This same DM has said "It may be dramatically interesting for PCs to randomly die, who knows?" so he's not the type to bend dice rolls — but he did make an encounter which he acknowledged may have been overpowering for us. Read this as: He had something specific in mind for us, but the PC's team profile changed, and he was unwilling to adjust it based on the changed dynamic. According to you, this is good and correct, yes? According to me, this is failing to adapt to the current situation, and put everyone's time and investment at unnecessary risk. If a GM has miscalculated the encounter I don't think its wrong to change the NPC's stats but if you change the encounter you are doing a disservice to the players. Miscalculated as in you wanted to make a tough fighter but accidentally made the world greatest fighter. And to just adding encounters to have an extra fight is the opposite of what I think should be done. What I am trying to say is that if the GM has decided that a place is guarded by 12 guards he shouldn't remove 25% if you are missing one of 4 players this session.
|
|
|
Post by chronovore on Jul 8, 2017 0:26:51 GMT -8
If I landed on Go To Jail in Monopoly and decided the roll that put there was one digit higher or lower to avoid the outcome, I would be called a cheater. It's a dick move. And it is cheating. Odd. You play Monopoly with a GM? Because, unless you do, you're committing a false equivalence fallacy. Monopoly is a game between equal players, RPGs are games with two distinct participant types: the GM and the Players. There is never an assumption that the Players are able to arbitrarily mandate a rule, but there is always that assumption with the GM. Rule Zero robs the "this is cheating" argument of validity. It's a subjective thing, up to each GM and her group. People who try to reduce it to an objective ruling are operating with a limited understanding. All of this! Seven whole fucking pages because one side of this argument just can't accept that their way is not the only way. This is a prime example of One-True-Wayism. If you don't like dice-fudging or any kind of narrative or setting alterations just don't fucking do it! How fucking hard is it to wrap your head around that incredibly simple notion. I like using simple similes to make my points because it's usually the only way to make sure everyone gets the message so here goes: - I don't like mushrooms so I don't cook foods with mushrooms. To me mushrooms are gross (an obvious subjective opinion) so I don't eat them. - You like mushrooms so you do include them in your meals because for you they are a valued part of a tasty dish (an other obviously subjective opinion). So I ask you, "anti-cheaters" which one of us is right? Me and my dislike of mushrooms or you and your liking for mushrooms. And keep in mind, by your own logic and approach to "debate" there can only be one true and valid opinion. So which is it? And don't try to weasel out of it by claiming that mushrooms and food preferences are different from gaming preferences because they're not. A preference is a preference whatever the subject may be. And if you're going to counter with something about groups and such, what if my whole family doesn't like mushrooms so I abstain from including mushrooms in our family meals? Would THAT be wrong because YOU love mushrooms. Is it literally impossible for you to accept that there are people in the world who have opinions that differ from yours? One of you claimed that they've been accused of "being sad" or other some such. I have no doubt that that had nothing to do with your gaming preferences but with what frankly looks like a pathological obsession with being "right" and being literally incapable of dealing with the reality that not everyone agrees with YOU. It's so ridiculously simple: You like approach A, other people like approach B. So don't use approach B because you don't like it, and the other people won't use approach A because they don't like it.... How much simpler could it be stated? Seriously! Great. Now I want to kiss you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 1:59:10 GMT -8
"One True Way" has become the new version of metagaming. Its something you say to someone you don't like. It's gotten really old.
Rule zero is not a thing in all rpg's. To suggest that it is really makes you look like you are the one with the "true way". When I suggest that cheating is not okay, its because I believe in fairness. I'm not interested in playing with someone with a god complex. We all have our role to play in the gaming group and ideally we'd be partners in making the best game possible. Tell me, would you dictate to your partner how things are going to be? Would you insist upon making decisions for them that they were vocally against because you knew better?
All we have in an rpg are our choices. I made the bed, now I want to sleep in it. I don't make choices for your npc's, so why do you get to do so for my character? Thinking that you know better is arrogant. Being correct just provides confirmation bias. It doesn't mean you will be right next time or that I would appreciate what you did if I knew about it. It's sneaky and underhanded. You may be trying to do a good thing, but the ends do not justify the means. If you really wanted to do right by me you would have asked my opinion instead of going behind my back.
To answer the question about rolling for nothing to create tension, I think it's bogus and undermines your ability to create real tension. It assumes that the players care that you are rolling in the first place. You are just as likely to get players to tune at as tune in when you start rolling with no purpose. Your players are smart, they are liable to figure you out, in which case you are now the barking dog with no bite.
If you want to create real tension you can save the dice roll until it matters and tell them so. "Hey, go ahead and roll to see if you notice you are being tailed. If you fail, they are going to ambush you." Do I have your full attention yet? Everyone is going to be glued to the result of those dice. If you decide to roll in secret you'll give the sense that you aren't being straight with your players and it may come off as you coddling or screwing them. Give them a roll with real stakes. Do't ask for it until you are ready to reveal what is going on. You can always narrate to create tension. The dice roll is the cherry on top of the narration sunday. Using fake dice rolls to create tension is a crutch that may undermine you in the long run. Learn to create tension without it and you will be much better off.
|
|