What happens when you think everything is a level-appropriate encounter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

Changing the rules (in advance, transparently) is acceptable.
Inventing new rules to fill a gap is acceptable.
Declining to engage certain rules because they're not applicable is acceptable.

Pretending you're engaging the mechanics when you're actually not is never acceptable.

In my mind you were using the first three to try to justify the fourth, which I object to, because I don't view them as similar, let alone the same.

---

Personally I think there are situations where number 4 in rare circumstances is useful I respect that you don’t I just disagree. If done well and rarely. Here's a very simple example it was years ago when I was a less skilled dm it was the last fight in the last session and the player died to a foes death throes and he was visibly bummed so I said wait do you have this ability (I no longer no remember ability) which I knew he had and said oh then actually your passed the check and you’re at -9. Now I fudge I cheated the power didn’t actually apply but it was a homebrew power and it could have and his survival dramatically improved his enjoyment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yukitsu

To be fair, I've found it equally valid to every other option in CoC since just about everything I see done results in death or insanity, including getting the tools the DM wants you to so you can progress, and conversely I've had no trouble so far with the mentality of it always being valid in shadowrun with the caveat that yeah, sure it's sometimes a really bad idea but it's still as good as a lot of the others on the table. Paranoia is a bit like CoC in that I don't think there is supposed to be any "correct" way to play it, or if there is, knowing about it is cheating so frankly I again don't think it's ever any worse than any other solution out there. Pendragon I admit I outright don't know however.

---

Cheating at Paranoia gets you killed by Friend Computer. I mean after a fashion the whole point of Paranoia is random death and hilarity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

Changing the rules (in advance, transparently) is acceptable.
Inventing new rules to fill a gap is acceptable.
Declining to engage certain rules because they're not applicable is acceptable.

Pretending you're engaging the mechanics when you're actually not is never acceptable.

---

I accept that these flat statements are how you would make your judgment calls. But they don't come from the rules, and you can't claim that doing it differently is opposed to the rules. So please recognize that these statements mean only what is "acceptable" or not to Koo Rehtorb, not general acceptability to either the rules or the community of D&D players.

I judge acceptability of my judgment calls by how much my players approve, not how an internet stranger does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

Pretending you're engaging the mechanics when you're actually not is never acceptable.

---

Oh, agreed. I would never defend that. But you're doing that, and I'm not.

In every version of D&D I've ever played, the possibility of making a rare exception is indeed part of the mechanics. If you leave that out, and mindlessly apply the basics without judgment calls, then you are pretending you're engaging the mechanics when you're actually not.

[More accurately, you are engaging most but not all of the mechanics. Similarly, it would be more accurate if you accused me of engaging the basic mechanics virtually always, and applying the exceptional mechanic very rarely, as an exception.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

In my mind you were using the first three to try to justify the fourth, which I object to, because I don't view them as similar, let alone the same.

---

No, I'm using the rules as published to justify it, against your contention that the rules as published are "a bunch of absolutely terrible GM advice that have done a lot of harm to the hobby as a whole" and "cheating in D&D".

I am also using personal experience and several incidents to show why I agree with those rules. But the justification for the way I run the game is in the actual rules.

I have also admitted, more than once, that a poor DM can use that part of the rules to hurt a game, and I've warned about doing it unless you're sure.

But according to the 3.5e DMG, the idea that the DM has "ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook" is not violating the rules, or cheating. It is the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awa

Personally I think there are situations where number 4 in rare circumstances is useful I respect that you don’t I just disagree. If done well and rarely. Here's a very simple example it was years ago when I was a less skilled dm it was the last fight in the last session and the player died to a foes death throes and he was visibly bummed so I said wait do you have this ability (I no longer no remember ability) which I knew he had and said oh then actually your passed the check and you’re at -9. Now I fudge I cheated the power didn’t actually apply but it was a homebrew power and it could have and his survival dramatically improved his enjoyment.

---

Believe me. I understand, and I sympathise. I hate it when PCs die. People who aren't hardened to it usually get upset and it sucks and I usually miss the characters and it sucks more and it's misery all around.

But every time you give in to that and let a character live illegitimately it weakens the game as a whole. It taints all the PC accomplishments because they didn't win according to the rules, they won because you felt sorry for them and let them win. Sure you can get away with it now and then without damaging the game too much probably, if you're careful and subtle. But believe me, people get a feeling for it sooner or later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay R

I accept that these flat statements are how you would make your judgment calls. But they don't come from the rules, and you can't claim that doing it differently is opposed to the rules. So please recognize that these statements mean only what is "acceptable" or not to Koo Rehtorb, not general acceptability to either the rules or the community of D&D players.

I judge acceptability of my judgment calls by how much my players approve, not how an internet stranger does.

---

I always forget to do this because it seems silly to me. In any and all statements I make I accept that I am a fallible human being and my statements could be wrong.

That's not the same thing as believing that any and all preferences and opinions are equally valid. In my subjective opinion as a fallible human being and not the God Emperor of Tabletop Gaming, I believe I am right about this and other people are wrong. I'm not saying it's right for me and my group, I'm saying it's right for all groups everywhere. Obviously I could be mistaken, but that's what I'm saying.

And obviously other random people on the internet have no particular reason to take my disapproval of their ways to heart.

Quote:

---

In every version of D&D I've ever played, the possibility of making a rare exception is indeed part of the mechanics. If you leave that out, and mindlessly apply the basics without judgment calls, then you are pretending you're engaging the mechanics when you're actually not.

No, I'm using the rules as published to justify it, against your contention that the rules as published are "a bunch of absolutely terrible GM advice that have done a lot of harm to the hobby as a whole" and "cheating in D&D".

But according to the 3.5e DMG, the idea that the DM has "ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook" is not violating the rules, or cheating. It is the rules.

---

Yes, all that's fair and deserves a reply.

I've never claimed that RPGs are perfect or all have flawless rules. I've specifically said that it is well within the group's rights to change rules if they need to, so long as they do it in advance. In my subjective opinion as a fallible human being and not the God Emperor of Tabletop Roleplaying, if you don't change rules like that then you are messing up and damaging your game. I think it's very unfortunate that a bunch of early games built **** rules like that into them. I think it's even more unfortunate that **** rules like that have seeped into the hobby from there and led to people thinking that's the way gaming should work. It is especially frustrating when people take those experiences from D&D and mess up other better games with them that don't have those particular **** rules.

you may note that I indicated it was the last battle of the last session of the campaign their was no game to cheapen. In fact when I made that decision the game was literally over and we were packing up. It made the player leave happy and made the last session more fun for him, it made the game better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

I've never claimed that RPGs are perfect or all have flawless rules. I've specifically said that it is well within the group's rights to change rules if they need to, so long as they do it in advance.

---

By contrast, I think they have the right to do it their way, under their own conditions.

And of course that means I think you have the right to change the rules your way, under your own conditions.

And that's what you've done. Since you have changed the rules to disallow the DM's final authority over the printed rules in advance (which are your conditions), I accept your right to change them that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

In my subjective opinion as a fallible human being and not the God Emperor of Tabletop Roleplaying, if you don't change rules like that then you are messing up and damaging your game.

---

I trust that you will understand that I'm more interested in the opinions of people who have actually played my games, just as I have more interest in the opinions of movie critics you have seen a movie than those who have not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

I think it's very unfortunate that a bunch of early games built **** rules like that into them. I think it's even more unfortunate that **** rules like that have seeped into the hobby from there and led to people thinking that's the way gaming should work. It is especially frustrating when people take those experiences from D&D and mess up other better games with them that don't have those particular **** rules.

---

OK. Well, evidently in your subjective opinion as a fallible human being you have declared that the game I run and that my players enjoy and clamor for is made up of **** rules.

------------

I think we've both carefully explained our positions, and everybody reading has had every opportunity to evaluate our positions. Thank you for an interesting discussion. I think neither of us has anything new to say on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

Believe me. I understand, and I sympathise. I hate it when PCs die. People who aren't hardened to it usually get upset and it sucks and I usually miss the characters and it sucks more and it's misery all around.

But every time you give in to that and let a character live illegitimately it weakens the game as a whole. It taints all the PC accomplishments because they didn't win according to the rules, they won because you felt sorry for them and let them win. Sure you can get away with it now and then without damaging the game too much probably, if you're careful and subtle. But believe me, people get a feeling for it sooner or later.

---

Don't be silly, the PC's only win because the GM let's them. It's called level appropriate encounters. If the GM would just throw something random in the PC's path then they would die really, really quickly. There is no illegitimate living and even though you save a PC through GM Fiat it doesn't dirty the game or make it cheaper. Roleplaying doesn't even have to be about winning and the price for losing doesn't have to be death.

The Rules aren't all and everything, you can run a very fast and lose games with minimal of rules and just make things up as you go along. If you want to run and advesarial game with extra attention to rules then you can do so but it is not the only way to play the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay R

I trust that you will understand that I'm more interested in the opinions of people who have actually played my games, just as I have more interest in the opinions of movie critics you have seen a movie than those who have not.

---

As I believe I indicated in that very post.

Quote:

---

OK. Well, evidently in your subjective opinion as a fallible human being you have declared that the game I run and that my players enjoy and clamor for is made up of **** rules.

---

"Made up of" seems like something of an exaggeration. The existence of a few bad rules doesn't immediately destroy any and all quality in it. It won't make a good game terrible. It's not a binary state. I'm sure you all have a perfectly lovely time.

Quote:

---

I think we've both carefully explained our positions, and everybody reading has had every opportunity to evaluate our positions. Thank you for an interesting discussion. I think neither of us has anything new to say on the subject.

---

Certainly. Enjoy your gaming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RazorChain

Don't be silly, the PC's only win because the GM let's them. It's called level appropriate encounters. If the GM would just throw something random in the PC's path then they would die really, really quickly. There is no illegitimate living and even though you save a PC through GM Fiat it doesn't dirty the game or make it cheaper. Roleplaying doesn't even have to be about winning and the price for losing doesn't have to be death.

The Rules aren't all and everything, you can run a very fast and lose games with minimal of rules and just make things up as you go along. If you want to run and advesarial game with extra attention to rules then you can do so but it is not the only way to play the game.

---

And obviously I disagree strenuously.

I dislike the "level appropriate encounter" style of gameplay that modern D&D is shifting towards, but even with it it's not like PCs don't have a chance of success and failure based on their tactics and dice luck. If you're throwing level appropriate encounters at groups then the groups more proficient at playing the game will succeed far more frequently than the ones that are less proficient. And getting better at playing the game and beating those level appropriate encounters fairly is far more satisfying than the DM changing the rules to give you victory instead.

“I dislike the "level appropriate encounter" style of gameplay that modern D&D is shifting towards, but even with it it's not like PCs don't have a chance of success and failure based on their tactics and dice luck. If you're throwing level appropriate encounters at groups then the groups more proficient at playing the game will succeed far more frequently than the ones that are less proficient. And getting better at playing the game and beating those level appropriate encounters fairly is far more satisfying than the DM changing the rules to give you victory instead.”

Beating encounters fairly can be fun but as I've mentioned in a previous post sometimes it can also be a giant boring slog. Most but not all of my stories on this idea all come from the same dm who ran monsters as is. I have played with a number of dms who just blindly used random encounter tables and while we almost always won the thing I remember most about his games was the tedium of fighting high defense low offense monsters. Yes we won but we were bored while we did it, after I left the game I heard there was one instance latter when the players just told him no the encounters done or we are.

People play the game for different reasons some people are more interested in the story then the fights and for them a little fudging to keep them on track if done rarely and subtly may bring more long term enjoyment than dying because of a bad roll on a random encounter table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awa

People play the game for different reasons some people are more interested in the story then the fights and for them a little fudging to keep them on track if done rarely and subtly may bring more long term enjoyment than dying because of a bad roll on a random encounter table.

---

Exactly

One of the groups I play with has been playing together for a long time so we know each others styles. Of the 5 players (when I am DMing) I know that

A – Likes political plot
B – wants the plot to revolve around some convoluted back story of his & will try and steer any plot that way
C – wants to kill things
D & E are more flexible

So I try to give them all something and I am happy to fudge die to keep the story going. Deaths are rare (but do happen). I know as a FDM I could kill them all on whim and so don’t see any need to kill then on an (un)lucky die roll

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awa

Beating encounters fairly can be fun but as I've mentioned in a previous post sometimes it can also be a giant boring slog. Most but not all of my stories on this idea all come from the same dm who ran monsters as is. I have played with a number of dms who just blindly used random encounter tables and while we almost always won the thing I remember most about his games was the tedium of fighting high defense low offense monsters. Yes we won but we were bored while we did it, after I left the game I heard there was one instance latter when the players just told him no the encounters done or we are.

---

Yes, that sounds unpleasant.

Consider the possibility that you were playing the wrong game. If you're finding that you're bored engaging in tactical fantasy wargaming then perhaps do not play the RPG that is about tactical fantasy wargaming. Play, instead, an RPG that is about the things that you prefer to be doing. You will probably have a better time.

the problem wasn't tactical combat, i like tactical combat fine if its interesting, but randomness is not always the best way to get interesting combats particularly if random encounter tables are used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awa

the problem wasn't tactical combat, i like tactical combat fine if its interesting, but randomness is not always the best way to get interesting combats particularly if random encounter tables are used.

---

Sure. Then it's clearly a GM problem.

There's nothing saying anyone has to use random encounter tables, particularly poorly designed ones, they're just a tool. If you enjoy tactical combat but don't enjoy this particular tactical combat then the GM is probably bad at designing interesting encounters. It's not a problem that's going to be solved by the GM also cheating at those boring encounters.

Fudging those encounter tables rolls so we didn't have to do the same boring fight 3 times in a row would have increased my enjoyment of the game dramatically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awa

Fudging those encounter tables rolls so we didn't have to do the same boring fight 3 times in a row would have increased my enjoyment of the game dramatically.

---

Again... there's nothing forcing a GM to use random encounter tables at all except maybe when you're playing 1st edition? I think they're a useful tool for portraying the wildlife of a particular region and representing the danger of travel, but they rapidly stop being relevant when the party is strong enough that travel isn't really dangerous to them any more. If you're a party of level 15s and you roll "some goblins" on a table there's nothing wrong with the GM saying "Some goblins attack and you kill them"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

Again... there's nothing forcing a GM to use random encounter tables at all except maybe when you're playing 1st edition? I think they're a useful tool for portraying the wildlife of a particular region and representing the danger of travel, but they rapidly stop being relevant when the party is strong enough that travel isn't really dangerous to them any more. If you're a party of level 15s and you roll "some goblins" on a table there's nothing wrong with the GM saying "Some goblins attack and you kill them"

---

They're a useful tool in dungeon crawls as they put a cost on time-intensive operations.

The use in hexcrawls and the like is similar.

But, again, "encounter" doesn't have to mean "roll initiative". And if the results of the encounter are obvious... why not just say that and move on with it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kyoryu

They're a useful tool in dungeon crawls as they put a cost on time-intensive operations.

The use in hexcrawls and the like is similar.

But, again, "encounter" doesn't have to mean "roll initiative". And if the results of the encounter are obvious... why not just say that and move on with it?

---

So, to clarify, older versions of D&D make a distinction between encounters in a dungeon and wilderness encounters. Traditionally, dungeon encounters are "level-appropriate", and a player can make a guess at how powerful an opponent is based upon the floor of the dungeon on which they're encountered. The 1st level of a dungeon is typically appropriate for a party of 1st-2nd level, the 2nd level for a party of around 2nd-3rd level, etc. That is not to say that a party won't encounter more powerful (or weaker) threats on any given level. Encounters in dungeons are also in smaller numbers: on the 1st level of a dungeon goblins are encountered as wandering monsters in numbers ranging from 2-8 (Moldvay Basic, p. B36).

Compared to the wilderness, however, the typical dungeon is a place of relative safety. As originally conceived, wilderness travel is *much* more dangerous than dungeon exploration, both in terms of frequency of encounters *and* size of encounters. For instance, a wilderness encounter with goblins has them numbering 6-60!

In addition, random encounter tables for dungeons are usually crafted with "level appropriate" encounters in mind. p. B29 explicitly states that a monster's HD is generally equivalent to the dungeon level on which they normally appear (so, a 3 HD monster is typically encountered on the 3rd level of a dungeon, in the amounts listed in the Number Appearing entry). The rules go on to state that "it is useful to limit monsters to 2 dungeon levels lower or higher than their Hit Dice," and recommends changing their numbers based on this. So, a 3 HD monster encountered on the 1st level of a dungeon would almost always be encounter singly, while it would be encountered on the 5th level of a dungeon it would be encountered in *greater* numbers than normal.

There are no such restrictions on wilderness encounters, however. A party is just as likely to encounter a dragon as a herd of horses, or a group of fire giants are as likely as a band of elves. However, where older versions do provide some hope for our hapless low-level party is with the reaction roll. Every time an encounter occurs the DM makes a reaction rolled, modified by the party leader's Charisma modifier. The reaction roll is made using 2d6, and according to the table on p. B24 an encounter *only* occurs on a result of a 2. Even a roll of 3-5 yields a result of "hostile, possible attack", which leaves the door open for savvy adventurers to extricate themselves from a potentially deadly situation through bribery or begging instead of battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yukitsu

The problem I have with high, high power encounters is that if I can't meaningfully interact with them, why are they even in the game? It's just you talking at me about things that I'm not supposed to do anything about. You could have skipped it to something that's interesting or that I could actually do something about instead of wasting 10 minutes talking about that jouster that I can't possibly beat. (not that I think the OP really did that or that I'd really mind that much)

Similarly, you wouldn't want to litter the world with low levels since they get back hand slapped and you end up just wasting the time of the group.

They both can be interesting for setting up some sort of tone to the world or emphasize some kind of narrative point or to show players they're in a place they don't need to be in anymore, but when overused, both over and under powered encounters are a negative experience for the party and I personally hate it when they're in the world just to add "realism" to it.

Think about it this way: The party probably saw dozens of people along the road, and almost none of them warranted the DM commenting on it. If the players can't actually do anything relevant to the jouster, I wouldn't feel it necessary to even mention it since the only thing it can do is bait a player into getting their character killed.

A lot of people on the other hand love this kind of thing (almost all that vocally advocate for it are DMs though), but this is just me going and answering what the worst that can happen is.


vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Sorry, but I almost get the feeling you didn't even read the entire post, nor the one I was responding to.

---

A few sessions ago, I had my party encounter a fight between a 13th level sorcerer and 3 members of the wizard's guild: 2 7th level wizards and a 10th level. I was trying to introduce a sub plot where the party had the option of siding with one or the other. The party was 7th level. Instead of waiting for all the facts, and without ever being engaged by either party, the PCs charge into battle attacking the sorcerer without getting the facts. (It didn't help that the sorcerer had cast summon monster 6 to call forth an erinyes to engage the lower levels while he dealt with the 10th level, but even so this was a very unexpected turn of events.)

The sorcerer clearly had the players AND the wizards outmatched with access to dimension door and summon monster 6, he was able to more than match everyone involved.

I was NOT planning on combat taking place, just describing the fight with the sorcerer summoning a few monsters to deal with the wizards and getting out of there. The plot had been that basically the wizards guild members felt that sorcerers were not "proper" spell casters and that he needed to be run out of town. A lower level such member had attacked the sorcerer a few weeks ago and had been slammed into a wall and knocked unconscious with a single telekinesis spell, and basically his "big brother" was out to teach this uppity punk a lesson.

The city guard was going to hire the party to hunt down the wizards, while a representative of the wizards guild was going to approach the party and hire them to sneak the offenders out of town in their caravan. But the party did not like the fact that they were pretty much helpless against the sorcerer, and one PC called it "GM masturbation" and they refused go with either.

It was supposed to be a fun little side quest I made to break the monotony of traveling through the crown of the world (Jade Regent adventure path)

Anyways, the point I am trying to make here, is even if you make it painfully obvious that this is NOT an encounter that the party should enter, they may very well enter it anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

And obviously I disagree strenuously.

I dislike the "level appropriate encounter" style of gameplay that modern D&D is shifting towards, but even with it it's not like PCs don't have a chance of success and failure based on their tactics and dice luck. If you're throwing level appropriate encounters at groups then the groups more proficient at playing the game will succeed far more frequently than the ones that are less proficient. And getting better at playing the game and beating those level appropriate encounters fairly is far more satisfying than the DM changing the rules to give you victory instead.

---

Well I usually don't play D&D or games with levels so to me nothing is "level appropriate". I don't play RPG's for the combat minigame with that said I am a consummate strategist, a student of military history, a fan of Sun Tzu, Von Clausewitz, Zhuge Liang, Jomini and Machiavelli. I usually get my strategy fix through computer games or strategy board and miniature games where my objective is to win. So if I pit my players, who are more interested in roleplaying than playing a combat minigame, against an equal force guided cohesively by a mind immesurably superior in strategy and tactics then their disjointed band of adventures is going to lose....badly. So my objective is to make the players satisfied about their characters performance when they end up in combat when the odds are clearly with them the whole time. My job is to make it appear that they win over the bad guy by the skin of their teeth. Now I don't have to change any rules for that to happen but I might have to make ruling instead of using precious gaming time to search for an obscure rule and bog the game down, I might allow a healer or a party member save a dying character with a potion allowing for a extra death save that doesn't exist in the rules.

Also you might run rules light games where a whole combat encounter is just narrated through a single die roll and it is up to the GM or players to interpret the results of the roll.

If the players aren't master tacticians I am not going to punish them for it by killing their characters anymore I am going to kill them if they are bad at the roleplaying part of the game.

Me: The king takes your akward stammering as a sign of guilt and has you beheaded. You're dead, now roll up a new character.

Player: But this is unfair....It wasn't level appropriate roleplaying encounter.

Me: Git gud..Noob.


That saying not all encounters are "level appropriate". No more than if I'm driving in a safari I'm not going to jump out of the car and try to wrestle a lion just because I encounter one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RazorChain

So if I pit my players, who are more interested in roleplaying than playing a combat minigame, against an equal force guided cohesively by a mind immesurably superior in strategy and tactics then their disjointed band of adventures is going to lose....badly.

---

If your players are interested in roleplay over a combat minigame then the solution is to play an RPG that isn't about combat minigames, as I think you indicated you were doing? If your players agreed to play an RPG that is about combat minigames then they're either indicating that they're interested in getting better at combat minigames, or they're indicating that they aren't aware that there's a wide variety of different games that might suit their playstyle better.

If there's a huge skill difference then it's also certainly reasonable to give them easier than standard encounters to make up the difference and help them learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

If your players are interested in roleplay over a combat minigame then the solution is to play an RPG that isn't about combat minigames, as I think you indicated you were doing? If your players agreed to play an RPG that is about combat minigames then they're either indicating that they're interested in getting better at combat minigames, or they're indicating that they aren't aware that there's a wide variety of different games that might suit their playstyle better.

If there's a huge skill difference then it's also certainly reasonable to give them easier than standard encounters to make up the difference and help them learn.

---

There is also the problem that if the PC's are fighting a ragtag band of goblins....then the GM kinda has to act like ragtag band of goblins and not like Jan Zizka. It would be strange if the all the foes would suddenly disregard their own safety just to concentrate all their migth, magic and firepower toward one PC knowing that if they drop him they have weakened the party and then dropping the PC's through "focus fire".

So the GM's objective cannot be to "win" the encounter but to make an interesting encounter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RazorChain

There is also the problem that if the PC's are fighting a ragtag band of goblins....then the GM kinda has to act like ragtag band of goblins and not like Jan Zizka. It would be strange if the all the foes would suddenly disregard their own safety just to concentrate all their migth, magic and firepower toward one PC knowing that if they drop him they have weakened the party and then dropping the PC's through "focus fire".

So the GM's objective cannot be to "win" the encounter but to make an interesting encounter.

---

None of this is counter to the statement that the GM should not break the rules of the game. Playing dumb monsters dumb and smart monsters smart doesn't mean you're trying to let them win.

The GM's objective is to try to "win" the encounter, with all of the resources available to the creatures they're using at the time. Intelligence is one of those resources. Doing less cheapens the experience. If your group isn't looking for that particular experience, play a different RPG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

The GM's objective is to try to "win" the encounter…

---

No, the GM's objective is to run a fun game session that holds the focus of and entertains their crop of easily-distracted players.

I don't like to fudge rolls as a DM, and don't do it often, but I will unashamedly do so in the following circumstances:

A) I screwed up the CR/XP budget maths and made an encounter way too strong for my players. In which case, I'll probably lop some HP off the monster(s), have it miss some attacks it should have hit, and "roll low" on damage sometimes. (By the time its obvious that the enemies are too OP, its generally too late to change their AC without the players noticing.) I don't have a problem with player death or TPKs if they happen during a genuinely balanced encounter or my players were being dumbasses, but I'm not going to let my own ****-ups kill a player or a campaign.

B) The fight is just dragging on forever and both the players and I are going to blow our brains out if it doesn't end soon. In that scenario, all I can really do is artificially reduce the enemy's HP. Sadly, the one edition where I found myself having to do this all the time - 4E - also made it the hardest to hide from the players, thanks to the Bloodied mechanic.

In both cases, the important thing is that the players never know it happened. I'll never fudge a player's own roll (ie. "No wait, you actually made that death save"; " I'll just rule that that 5 was a hit."). Is it dishonest way of DMing? Probably. I don't really care.

Its not something I do much, but I'm confident that the times I have fudged stuff, its been to the benefit of the game. And I will keep doing so when such situations occur in the future.


As for what happened in the OP: personally, if I were DMing, I probably would have telegraphed a bit more strongly how powerful the NPC was, but I think the DM was in the right. Any player who picks a fight with a random NPC without finding out how strong they are first can't complain when they turn out to be super powerful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

Fudging dice rolls is universally bad.

If you don't want to kill people by accidentally misjudging a combat encounter there's other options. Like taking the PCs captive, or another group attacking and distracting the first one, or just relying on the PCs to have the good judgement to flee when they're outmatched.

---

I'm afraid I completely disagree with this. Both as a player and a DM, I find saving the PCs via Deus ex Machina cheapens the experience far more than fudging some roles, not least because the players are actually aware that the Dues ex Machina happened.

Which doesn't mean that I won't do such a thing when narratively appropriate or the whole party ets knocked put. I've gotten plenty of use from the "you all regain consciousness in a cage" out in the past, when plausable. (If a player fails their death saves or the enemies are wolves or ghouls or something, then, sorry, they're dead, nothing I can do.) But I think fudging some rolls and HP counts on the sly is definitely the lesser of two evils here. There's only so many times the players can wake up in chains or get rescued by the calvary before they start rolling their eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

The GM's objective is to try to "win" the encounter, with all of the resources available to the creatures they're using at the time. Intelligence is one of those resources. Doing less cheapens the experience. If your group isn't looking for that particular experience, play a different RPG.

---

I think a better way to word this, while keeping the same idea, would be: "In an encounter [if the GM's objective is to run a verisimilitudinous game] a GM should play NPCs such that they are always trying to 'win', to accomplish whatever goal they have, and use all available resources".

I hope I interpreted what you're saying correctly; I just think the "GM should try to 'win' an encounter" statement carries a meaning you didn't mean to communicate (namely, that the GM is looking to defeat the players).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RazorChain

Well I usually don't play D&D or games with levels so to me nothing is "level appropriate". I don't play RPG's for the combat minigame with that said I am a consummate strategist, a student of military history, a fan of Sun Tzu, Von Clausewitz, Zhuge Liang, Jomini and Machiavelli. I usually get my strategy fix through computer games or strategy board and miniature games where my objective is to win. So if I pit my players, who are more interested in roleplaying than playing a combat minigame, against an equal force guided cohesively by a mind immesurably superior in strategy and tactics then their disjointed band of adventures is going to lose....badly. So my objective is to make the players satisfied about their characters performance when they end up in combat when the odds are clearly with them the whole time. My job is to make it appear that they win over the bad guy by the skin of their teeth. Now I don't have to change any rules for that to happen but I might have to make ruling instead of using precious gaming time to search for an obscure rule and bog the game down, I might allow a healer or a party member save a dying character with a potion allowing for a extra death save that doesn't exist in the rules.

Also you might run rules light games where a whole combat encounter is just narrated through a single die roll and it is up to the GM or players to interpret the results of the roll.

If the players aren't master tacticians I am not going to punish them for it by killing their characters anymore I am going to kill them if they are bad at the roleplaying part of the game.

Me: The king takes your akward stammering as a sign of guilt and has you beheaded. You're dead, now roll up a new character.

Player: But this is unfair....It wasn't level appropriate roleplaying encounter.

Me: Git gud..Noob.


That saying not all encounters are "level appropriate". No more than if I'm driving in a safari I'm not going to jump out of the car and try to wrestle a lion just because I encounter one

---

I am similar actually tactically. When I run a D&D game, it is amazing how long combat takes and how much I have to nerf their opponents... which is fine for low intelligence creatures such as the standard thug or goblin. But when I play creatures to the full extent of their high intelligence and use their environment to their advantage, combats that are supposed to be half an hour start taking huge amounts of time, even when the party is supposed to be able to easily overwhelm the attackers.

It's amazing how much you can frustrate the party with just a few simple applications of even the most basic of strategies. My current players were quick to catch on though, which is good. They now have answers for a good number of the strategies I have used.

Yet even still, they complained when I had the intelligent undead who were commanded "kill at least one of their group no matter the cost" coup de graced a paralyzed character when the undead was at 1 hitpoint, had not used its area effect ability and had 4 characters it could get with its area effect... but not kill a single one with it. (Though they are 7th level, they have access to resurrection once a month... but when they use it, they open themselves up to being tracked)

So even just simple tactical decisions become huge.

Just a simple question, have you tried war gaming? The place I play at is also the largest war gaming site in the entire city, so there are a LOT of very tactical gamers around that add a fair amount of challenge to the RPGs I play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCountAlucard

No, the GM's objective is to run a fun game session that holds the focus of and entertains their crop of easily-distracted players.

---

Okay... you're ignoring context. I was clearly talking about in the context of a certain circumstance. The GM has more than one objective in a game.

Beyond that, though, I still kind of object to the assertion that the job of the GM is to be a cat wrangler. It's insulting to both the GM and the players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asha Leu

I'm afraid I completely disagree with this. Both as a player and a DM, I find saving the PCs via Deus ex Machina cheapens the experience far more than fudging some roles, not least because the players are actually aware that the Dues ex Machina happened.

Which doesn't mean that I won't do such a thing when narratively appropriate or the whole party ets knocked put. I've gotten plenty of use from the "you all regain consciousness in a cage" out in the past, when plausable. (If a player fails their death saves or the enemies are wolves or ghouls or something, then, sorry, they're dead, nothing I can do.) But I think fudging some rolls and HP counts on the sly is definitely the lesser of two evils here. There's only so many times the players can wake up in chains or get rescued by the calvary before they start rolling their eyes.

---

I think people are misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say "Every time the PCs lose a fight, save them with narrative." I said, "It is an option" Obviously it should only happen when narratively appropriate. Most of the time you should probably be relying on the PCs being cunning enough to have the means and will to retreat from a losing fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PersonMan

I think a better way to word this, while keeping the same idea, would be: "In an encounter [if the GM's objective is to run a verisimilitudinous game] a GM should play NPCs such that they are always trying to 'win', to accomplish whatever goal they have, and use all available resources".

I hope I interpreted what you're saying correctly; I just think the "GM should try to 'win' an encounter" statement carries a meaning you didn't mean to communicate (namely, that the GM is looking to defeat the players).

---

I think I worded it clearly enough, but yes that's also a fine way to put it.

You can also save the PCs by fudging a die roll. It's a rule in the books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkstar

You can also save the PCs by fudging a die roll. It's a rule in the books.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

I've never claimed that RPGs are perfect or all have flawless rules. I've specifically said that it is well within the group's rights to change rules if they need to, so long as they do it in advance. In my subjective opinion as a fallible human being and not the God Emperor of Tabletop Roleplaying, if you don't change rules like that then you are messing up and damaging your game. I think it's very unfortunate that a bunch of early games built **** rules like that into them. I think it's even more unfortunate that **** rules like that have seeped into the hobby from there and led to people thinking that's the way gaming should work. It is especially frustrating when people take those experiences from D&D and mess up other better games with them that don't have those particular **** rules.

---

Already covered this.