Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

[Cluedrew]

So many peeps complaining about DMs that are missing the key thing wrong.

...

... ... ...

Which is? The play style mismatch? How different uses of the same would lead to an extra argument? People getting angry on the internet? Something actually related to Talakeal's topic?

OK asking about what the key thing wrong actually is, is in fact a serious question. Then it kind of got into venting about internet debates.

[War_lord]

...

... ... ...

Which is? The play style mismatch? How different uses of the same would lead to an extra argument? People getting angry on the internet? Something actually related to Talakeal's topic?

OK asking about what the key thing wrong actually is, is in fact a serious question. Then it kind of got into venting about internet debates.

It's Malifice, so I'm going to assume the key problem is that there exists players and DMs (to Malifice, these two groups are entirely adversarial and free from crossover, DMs only ever run and players should shut up and be grateful) out there that would argue against his authoritarian approach to the game instead of falling on their faces worshipping him as the one true DM whose game we should all aspire to "play" in (to the extent that something he brags about pre-determining the outcomes of is played).

[Satinavian]

This thread is hilarious.

So many peeps complaining about DMs that are missing the key thing wrong.

So now, when you are out of arguments, the discussion itself is silly. What a surprise.

[Kardwill]

And one of the GM's jobs at the table is deciding when that is.

Which is fine and good, because as a GM, I can decide when to roll (and how to define that roll. "Roll for Climb, if you miss you'll fall, if you fumble you'll die" and "Roll for climb, if you miss the bad guy will escape with the hostage" are VERY different rolls, even when the starting situation in the same in both), and when not to.


One of the most important advice I heard when I stopped fudging was : Ask for a roll only if you can think of an interesting result for a success, and an interesting result for a failure. If you can't think of an interesting failure, then just narrate a success. Or the opposite."

For example, if I really really need the BBEG to escape, then I just say to the players he escapes (and usually give them a Fate point or some other bennie for their partial victory), I don't pull a "lucky" critical dodge from behind my screen like I used to do.

And if I want the players to find a clue, I won't ask for a roll, but just give them the clue. Or if I ask for a roll, the failure will mean that they succeeded at a cost or with a complication ("96 out of 70%? Okay, you find the key to the secret vault in Lord BadWrong's desk drawer, but when you happily show it to the other investigators, you hear a teapot crashing on the ground and notice a frightened maid at the door, looking at you. The servants should not be in this part of the mansion at this hour of the night, and yet here she is. What do you do?")

Not the easiest advice to put into practice (It went against my long experience of illusionist GM with lots of useless rolls), but I think it's a solid one.

[Florian]

This is getting a bit tedious and the RL assumption barbs don't help, like, at all.

As mentioned earlier, the root problem is with the dual role of the GM position: Judge and adversary.
If we want to be exact, it´s actually a triple role including facilitator as the third axis, if we're not talking about an extremely neutral sandbox setup, using pre-existing first or third party material.

The individual approach to gaming will pretty much define how we weight one/all of the three axises and govern how exactly the "GM toolbox" will look like.

For example, in a truly competitive game, "fudging" is a no-go, but please don't try to tell a cohesive story from start to finish. The opposite is true when talking about playing a story from start to finish, having "game over" states dictated by the rules is counter-productive and Rule Zero gives the GM the tools to deal with it, aka "fudging", amongst others.

That is why it is important to have a clear picture of your own gaming style and be able to communicate what it is and what it entails.

[Koo Rehtorb]

For example, in a truly competitive game, "fudging" is a no-go, but please don't try to tell a cohesive story from start to finish. The opposite is true when talking about playing a story from start to finish, having "game over" states dictated by the rules is counter-productive and Rule Zero gives the GM the tools to deal with it, aka "fudging", amongst others.

Fudging is basically a tool for railroading. Please stop trying to say that it makes for better stories, though. It makes telling the exact story the GM wants to tell easier, certainly. It is not helpful if you're playing an RPG to make an emergent narrative.

[Florian]

Fudging is basically a tool for railroading. Please stop trying to say that it makes for better stories, though. It makes telling the exact story the GM wants to tell easier, certainly. It is not helpful if you're playing an RPG to make an emergent narrative.

Story =/= Railroading =/= Emergent Narrative. Learn, grasshopper.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Story =/= Railroading =/= Emergent Narrative. Learn, grasshopper.

I am getting the impression that the non-English RPG scene is dark and full of terrors. One day we will civilize the dark continent and teach you all how to play properly. One day.

[Satinavian]

I am getting the impression that the non-English RPG scene is dark and full of terrors. One day we will civilize the dark continent and teach you all how to play properly. One day.

No, we have just other hangups and certainly other dominant games. But it is neither better nor worse and we have pretty much the same (divided) attitude towards fudging. (But at least we got mostly rid of this rule-0 nonsense due to not playing that much D&D)

[Florian]

I am getting the impression that the non-English RPG scene is dark and full of terrors. One day we will civilize the dark continent and teach you all how to play properly. One day.

*Laugh*

No, the most important thing when you engage in totally different angles to go at this hobby is that no-one is really right or wrong. Soccer, Rugby and American Football sound suficially similar to outsiders when you try to explain them, but when you understand them, you know the details and why they are not the same, should not be treated as the same and feel quite differently.

[Kardwill]

For example, in a truly competitive game, "fudging" is a no-go, but please don't try to tell a cohesive story from start to finish. The opposite is true when talking about playing a story from start to finish, having "game over" states dictated by the rules is counter-productive and Rule Zero gives the GM the tools to deal with it, aka "fudging", amongst others.

My games are purely cooperative and very, very story-centric (although we might have a different definition of "story", maybe). I find competitive gameplay frustrating and boring. And yet, I'm a strong advocate of the "dice on the table, no GM screen" school.
Cooperation with the players to create a fun story is what drives me to GM. And in this venture, dice is not an enemy of the story, but a tool. Used properly, they will help shape the story, not destroy it. Just like player decisions, they can create complications and opportunities even in a simple story, if you're willing to use their input for inspiration rather than struggle against them. Sure, it won't be the exact story you imagined before the game, it will take some unexpected twists and turns, but as you said, story=/=railroad.

I agree with you on the idea that having a "game over" out of nowhere is counter productive. I know some players like this kind of anticlimatic gameplay, but I hate it. I always fall in love of my player's characters, I want to see how their personal story will unfold, I imagine tons of stuff that I want to throw at every one of them, and having one of them snuffed in a random car crash because "fumble, lol" feels like a missed opportunity.

But that's the reason why :
a - I don't GM anymore games whose rules "dictate a game over". Either I play games that are better suited to my GM style (For example, I loved Runequest, but nowadays, I can't play it anymore, because the game is a meatgrinder where I had to fudge all the time to keep the players alive. Those damn fumble and critical rules...), or I houserule it so that it will be a better fit (a system of "heropoints", or a simple "0 hp = KO/wounded unless finishing strike" can be pretty solid tools to prevent random character death, for example)
b - I don't ask for dice rolls that could create a result that I really don't want to happen. Instead, I offer a failure state that will play into the story rather than cut it short (rather than drowning, the PC who missed his swim check is swept by the rapids and end up in a dangerous place, for example). Or I don't roll at all. Want a player character captured? I won't play a combat with fudges all around, instead I start the game by asking the player what his character was doing when he was kidnapped, and tell him he just came to his sense in Lord Badguyo's evil fortress.
For combats, that means mostly using them sparingly and coming up with failure states that are different from the usual (and boring) "You are all dead" : The evil wizard finished his rituals, the goblins sounded the alarm, the PCs have been captured or lost face, they had to retreat while the princess got captured, the space station is falling apart and civilian crewmemberss are dying, etc...


Important note : That doesn't mean that illusionism or light fudging are badwrongfun that you should be ashamed of. I really, really dislike it, but I was an illusionist GM myself for 20+ years so it would be pretty hypocritical to say you shouldn't do it.
BUT : I have to strongly disagree when anyone says it's the only way to GM a storycentric game. It's an easy and widespread way to do it, sure, but there are other ways for a GM to tell really cool stories while "playing honest". You just have to play a game that allow your playstyle (and that can be as simple as houseruling crit hits out of your favorite game), rather than fight against it.

[Malifice]

It's Malifice, so I'm going to assume the key problem is that there exists players and DMs (to Malifice, these two groups are entirely adversarial and free from crossover, DMs only ever run and players should shut up and be grateful) out there that would argue against his authoritarian approach to the game instead of falling on their faces worshipping him as the one true DM whose game we should all aspire to "play" in (to the extent that something he brags about pre-determining the outcomes of is played).

I'm a tyrant who runs adversarial games now am I?

Get off it mate. I'm anything but.

The key problem in this thread is from adversarial players making demands of the DM, based on nothing more than gamist waffle.

The DM isnt out to get you. He isn't an obstacle that needs to be defeated. Hes there to work with the players and enable them to tell a story, have fun, be challenged and be entertained.

Quite frankly some of the whiny players in this thread would be more than welcome to find another table based on some of the attitudes expressed. I certainly wouldn't want to play in a game where my character was killed off for no other reason than the dice said so.

I have a feeling that those of you whining about fudging have played with some adversarial or **** DMs, or alternatively are the kinds of whiny players that I long ago learnt that I dont want to share my spare time and weekends hanging around with.

Lets just work off an assumption that my players are mature adults who play the game for fun, and I'm a good and collaborative DM who they trust and rate highly, and the lot of us as a group trust and work together in a non antagonistic way, instead of throwing down accusations of tyranny and so forth.

[Satinavian]

I have a feeling that those of you whining about fudging have played with some adversarial or **** DMs, or alternatively are the kinds of whiny players that I long ago learnt that I dont want to share my spare time and weekends hanging around with.

That is exactly what War_lord wrote about. Most of the people disagreeing with you so strongly here are DMs.

[Malifice]

That is exactly what War_lord wrote about. Most of the people disagreeing with you so strongly here are DMs.

And I would never play in a game that was run by the kind of DM that would slaughter a PC (who had done nothing wrong) over nothing more than a series of bad rolls that the player had no control over.

One guy above was genuinely arguing that he would TPK a party to finish a 3 year long campaign, simply because the dice told him to.

That's not a DM I want to play with quite frankly.

I am not a slave to the dice when I DM. They're a tool, and I wield ultimate discretion over those random results. Im not about to murder a PC who is contributing to the game and the story for no other reason than I flipped a coin and it came up heads.

Of course, Im not going to tell the Players that either because it kills all feeling of suspense and tension. I want the players to feel challenged and a sense of danger lurking around every corner, without running my game like a lottery where the prize is 'TPK'.

[Kardwill]

And I would never play in a game that was run by the kind of DM that would slaughter a PC (who had done nothing wrong) over nothing more than a series of bad rolls that the player had no control over.

And my point is you do NOT have to fudge to avoid random kills. And you do not have to lie to your players about the fact a goblin might one-shot-kill them to create tension (Most of us GMs are not as subtle as we think we are, and the players are not that gullible : If they had some games with you, they already know you won't kill them with this goblin), because there are other ways to do it, like changing the system, thinking about real stakes for that "useless" combat, and/or forcing them to use a limited ressource so that bad luck still "stings" without completely screwing them.

You want to fudge to create a false tension? Sure, do it, it's a pretty overused tool in the hobby (although I tend to think it's a lazy one), I did it too for years, and most players assume the GM is going to do it anyway. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and telling you to stop right now (although we still might have strong opinions about it)
But if you're saying people who don't fudge can't have a proper cooperative game, you're mistaken : In my case, rolling in the open forced me to play along with my player's decisions and actions (because I couldn't "dodge away" their story-breaking moves anymore, I had to be up-front about it, so I tried not to), and the result was a far more cooperative game than the "storytime" games I did earlier.

[Malifice]

And my point is you do NOT have to fudge to avoid random kills.

You're DMing. Your group have been together for 6 months, and have advanced from 1st to 10th level. They're now at the midway point of a campaign, They're invested in your game, with detailed backstories, great teamwork, fully working with the plot etc. Its the dream campaign.

The players are having an easy time of it in a particular dungeon so far, so you decide to throw a random encounter at them to spice things up and drain a few resources.

During the encounter, the players roll poorly and your dice are on fire. Natural 20 after natural 20.

After a few rounds, the PCs are all down, dead or dying barring the Paladin (on 1 HP). He hits the monster (just) and deals 7 hit points damage.

You look down at your notes and see the monster has 15 hit points remaining. The Monster goes next and you know it has a Fireball up its sleeve, that even if the Paladin saves, he will still die (half damage is more than enough to wipe him out).

The Monster is a Demonic undead horror and its notes say it eats the PCs (destroying their souls) if it wins.

What do you do when the Paladin tells you he dealt 7 damage?

1) Write it down, shrug, and then TPK the party, ending the campaign on that note?

2) Decide it's a crap move ending a campaign on a pointless death to a random monster, adjust those HP remaining of the monster to '1 less than what the Paladin just did in damage', and then (faking disbelief and pretending to be upset that your monster didn't TPK the party) declare to the players 'The monster clutches his wounds, his eyes open wide in shock, and he drops motionless to the ground.'

I sit firmly in Camp number 2, and I wouldn't go near a campaign with a DM who runs his games like option 1.

Feel free to disagree; it's all subjective. But I dont murder PCs due to chance. I dont let gravity dictate to me the story we (the players and I) are all contributing to. Im not a slave to my dice, and neither is the fun of the table at which I play.

[War_lord]

For example, in a truly competitive game, "fudging" is a no-go, but please don't try to tell a cohesive story from start to finish. The opposite is true when talking about playing a story from start to finish, having "game over" states dictated by the rules is counter-productive and Rule Zero gives the GM the tools to deal with it, aka "fudging", amongst others.

The goal of a traditional TRPG is not to tell a cohesive story, it's for your players to have fun playing roles. Cohesive stories are for books, or tv, or film, because those mediums have a single author. Trying to tell a cohesive story in a TRPG is like five people trying to write five different fantasy stories on one google document, it's frustrating and messy. Sure, it can be cohesive in the retelling, but that's because memory softens the hard edges of collaboration.

So GMs who are fixated on pretending to be authors just take everyone else's write permissions away, with railroading. As a player, I'm not interested in your story, I'm interested in the group's story. If you want to tell your story, write a book. As a DM, it's the same, I'm not interested in telling my story, I'm interested in how the players engage with what I give them. If I just wanted to tell a story, I'd write that instead of DM notes.

Dice fudging is identical to the quantum Ogre problem, because in both cases the illusion of choice is justified under the rational that "well if I just told them that it's predetermined, they'd get fed up with me". But that's not an excuse, that just shows why it's wrong to mislead them as to what they're in for.

Of course, Im not going to tell the Players that either because it kills all feeling of suspense and tension. I want the players to feel challenged and a sense of danger lurking around every corner, without running my game like a lottery where the prize is 'TPK'.

But there is no suspense and tension, there is no challenge or danger. The only danger is that you might screw over someone whose character you don't like and then blame it on your dice. If the players want a challenge, give them a challenge. If they want a cakewalk where they just watch the story beats, give them that. Video Games have difficulty levels to solve this exact issue. Just be upfront about it.

What do you do when the Paladin tells you he dealt 7 damage?

1) Write it down, shrug, and then TPK the party, ending the campaign on that note?

2) Decide it's a crap move ending a campaign on a pointless death to a random monster, adjust those HP remaining of the monster to '1 less than what the Paladin just did in damage', and then (faking disbelief and pretending to be upset that your monster didn't TPK the party) declare to the players 'The monster clutches his wounds, his eyes open wide in shock, and he drops motionless to the ground.'

I sit firmly in Camp number 2, and I wouldn't go near a campaign with a DM who runs his games like option 1.

Feel free to disagree; it's all subjective. But I dont murder PCs due to chance. I dont let gravity dictate to me the story we (the players and I) are all contributing to. Im not a slave to my dice, and neither is the fun of the table at which I play.

That's a false dichotomy.

I pick number 3: Be honest with my players and ask how they'd like to proceed with the game. If nobody at the table is happy with the result we can write this session off as if it didn't happen, we can restart the game with new level 6 character, we can treat the fight as if the players won it, I can plan for the next session where the players fight their way out of a soul prison. There are probably even more solutions I'm not considering. What I will not do is lie to grown men and women out of some narcissistic assumption that I just know better then them what they want out of the evening they've given up to be here.

Christ, if having actual fail states in a game infuriates you all so much, there are tens of indie systems out there that focus on "collaborative storytelling" with little to no clear fail states. Not my cup of tea, but it's an option.

Why is the internet full of GMs who will try any way to resolve an issue other then "talk to the people at the table grown-up to to grown-up"?

[Kardwill]

--> Malifice : You forgot some of the answers

3) I am not in this situation because I don't GM a game where random mooks can TPK because of lucky dice. (Seriously, if you don't want chaos and randomness destroying your game, don't play a game with crits and fumbles, or play a game where the players can regain control of their "luck" when things go bad : Fate/bennie/hero points, concession and "lose on your own terms" rules...)

4) Since the paladin knows how critical this roll is, he burns all his fate/hero/bennie/whatever points he has in this strike to take down then enemy (and I'll probably drop hints like "2 points, mmh? You sure it's all you've got?" if he's stingy. Or I'll flat-out tell him how much damage he needs to deal, and let him tackle the problem)

5) The paladin goes down, the PCs are captured (happens all the time in fictions like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit, etc) and I adjust the story so that this event plays into my bigger story (that "random encounter to spice things up" was not so random after all, they acted on the order of the BBEG or some other faction I want to introduce my players to). Maybe one of them was left for dead (like the paladin, blown out of the building by the fireball) and has to track them down and free his companions? In short, I'm the GM, so I can turn this disaster into an interestng story-meat without negating it.


You're playing a game that don't mesh with your style and can alter/destroy your campaign in a way you don't want. Simply change game, houserule your favourite system, or change the stakes of the combat, and your problem will be gone.

EDIT : Missed the "will permadeath the characters if it wins", but seriously, even if I decide to put such a dangerous abomination for a random mookfight, there are ways to reshape the defeat. Even a demonic canibalistic horror can drag prisoners into its lair (for torture, for "putting in the fridge" because it already ate a merchant caravan, for feeding its brood, for bragging rights and offering to its king...).

And if everything else falls apart, well, there is the possibility of admitting my mistake for once and making an honest ruling ("Oh, I didn't think a single soulscavenger would slaughter your party. This is awkward... Fred, isn't your paladin the heralded Chosen One of Lady Lightbringer? And Alice, your lost sister was a monster hunter, right? What do you say either of these potentials fires up right now?")

[Malifice]

So... 'Contrive some reason why the PCs did not, in fact, die in the encounter despite the dice saying they did' is fine?

As is 'let the dice fall where they may, but then retcon the whole encounter or session after talking to the players'?

Please explain to me the difference between that, and fudging the dice? Its the DM exersizing his judgement to keep the players alive after a ****ty encounter where they only failed due to bad rolls.

In the dice fudging example (unlike with a retcon or contrivance), the players are none the wiser about the DM's hand in operation. As far as they're concerned they've just had a really hard and challenging encounter that they only just managed to overcome. In addition, the 'fourth wall' is preserved, the story continuity isnt broken, there is no bad feelings (the players didnt have their characters fail and die, only for a few minutes later for the DM to offer a retcon or obvious story contrivance to undo the encounter or otherwise bail them out).

And @War Lord; for the last time - stop accusing me of being a tyrannical DM. Firstly, you dont know me. Secondly, read my posts. I fudge dice rolls for the benefit of the players, not in some obscure effort to screw them over or 'beat them'. It's not a competition, or some kind of game of favoritism.

If a player like that demanded I roll in the open and let the dice fall where they may, I'd politely tell him players dont tell me how to run my games. From where I sit, my dice are a tool. I'm not beholden to the results of a roll, any more than I'm beholden to use the exact stats from a manual for a monster, or prohibited from changing things on the fly as I DM. While I'll often roll 'in the open' in any event, my rolls behind the screen are for my eyes only.

If he's not OK with that, then that's fine. He can go play elsewhere, hopefully in a group that's better suited to his play style.

[War_lord]

So... 'Contrive some reason why the PCs did not, in fact, die in the encounter despite the dice saying they did' is fine?

As is 'let the dice fall where they may, but then retcon the whole encounter or session after talking to the players'?

Please explain to me the difference between that, and fudging the dice? Its the DM exersizing his judgement to keep the players alive after a ****ty encounter where they only failed due to bad rolls.

Because you have consent to void the outcome. Consent is the important term here.

In the dice fudging example (unlike with a retcon or contrivance), the players are none the wiser about the DM's hand in operation. As far as they're concerned they've just had a really hard and challenging encounter that they only just managed to overcome. In addition, the 'fourth wall' is preserved, the story continuity isnt broken, there is no bad feelings (the players didnt have their characters fail and die, only for a few minutes later for the DM to offer a retcon or obvious story contrivance to undo the encounter or otherwise bail them out).

But there is a retcon, the dice had a result, and you changed that result just because you personally didn't like the outcome. And for the last time "they don't know I'm a liar" doesn't redeem you, lying to your (ostensible) friends "for their own good" is a crappy thing to do, in 99% of contexts. You care about your game "story" (and incidentally, no one in this thread is J.R.R Tolkien, get over yourselves) more then being a decent human being.

And incidentally, what are you going to say if they do find out you've been lying all along, for months or even years? "Oh sorry, I just assume you're too stupid know the game you want to play" ?

And furthermore, how is it wrong to give the players an out of a game over, but it's totally okay to lie to them to avoid a game over they might be okay with? Why are you so obsessed with making decisions for people?

And @War Lord; for the last time - stop accusing me of being a tyrannical DM. Firstly, you dont know me. Secondly, read my posts. I fudge dice rolls for the benefit of the players, not in some obscure effort to screw them over or 'beat them'. It's not a competition, or some kind of game of favoritism.

I don't know you, but I have read your posts and that gives me a very clear picture. And it's not a flattering one. You fudge dice rolls for your benefit, because you have decided that a 1, or a 5, or a 20 makes for a better "story", without ever consulting any of the adults at the table about what is a "benefit" to them. If a player suddenly decided it was okay for them to tell you they rolled a 20 when they rolled a 2 for the good of the "story" would you just roll with it?

The problem is that you're lying to people, that's an issue that transcends the game.

From where I sit, my dice are a tool. I'm not beholden to the results of a roll

Why are you rolling if you like whatever result you come up with better?

any more than I'm beholden to use the exact stats from a manual for a monster, or prohibited from changing things on the fly as I DM.

You aren't, but that's not what's happening here, what's happening here is that you're presenting your players with the illusion of choice and consequence while lying to them about it, knowing they won't appreciate it if they catch you. It's the Quantum Ogre.

Linear, risk free games that are focused on a pre-baked narrative are fine, if that's what the table has agreed to. But you're robbing them of the choice.

If he's not OK with that, then that's fine. He can go play elsewhere, hopefully in a group that's better suited to his play style.

But you actively deceive your players as to what your play style is, you have a table of people who believe that you're rolling honestly and that combat is consequential, meanwhile you're doctoring the results so that things only develop the way you want them to. You yourself fully admit that you don't tell people you do it because you feel they wouldn't be having fun if you were honest with them

[Pippa the Pixie]

And I would never play in a game that was run by the kind of DM that would slaughter a PC (who had done nothing wrong) over nothing more than a series of bad rolls that the player had no control over.

One guy above was genuinely arguing that he would TPK a party to finish a 3 year long campaign, simply because the dice told him to.

That's not a DM I want to play with quite frankly.

But why? The whole point of the Game and the whole point of dice rolls is random things will happen and sometimes they will be bad things.

So why the ''oh well if the rolls are bad and I loose I don't want to play the game?" Really what is the point of the game or even rolling? Should the DM just ''roll 10" or something?

I am not a slave to the dice when I DM. They're a tool, and I wield ultimate discretion over those random results. Im not about to murder a PC who is contributing to the game and the story for no other reason than I flipped a coin and it came up heads.

Of course, Im not going to tell the Players that either because it kills all feeling of suspense and tension. I want the players to feel challenged and a sense of danger lurking around every corner, without running my game like a lottery where the prize is 'TPK'.

Well, guess you should really play a storytelling game with no dice, or at least no mechanics for character death.

And why not tell the players the dice don't matter? Or even YOU will decide when the dice do and do not matter?

You're DMing.

I think the flaw here is it's an extreme example. The random encounter just happens to be a super powerful character obliteration monster? Maybe just use 'goblin bandits'?

And really, I'd point out that this is a lot on the players. After just two rounds of '20 max damage' THAT is where smart players RUN. The players that just have their characters stand their like '90's video game characters deserve to have the characters die.

[GrayDeath]

I debated with myself long and hard if I wanted to post in this topic, both because the string of arguments is only tangentially relevant to Talakaels original Topic and due to the fact, as is almost normal when different playstyles clash on the Internet, it has become rather heated.

Story =/= Railroading =/= Emergent Narrative. Learn, grasshopper.

I am getting the impression that the non-English RPG scene is dark and full of terrors. One day we will civilize the dark continent and teach you all how to play properly. One day.

Quoted for funn-ness. ^^



Now, if we would all cool down a wee bit, then we could come to agree on at least the following three things.

1.: If you fudge or not (or even NEED to do so) heavily depends on factors that have nothing to do with your overall "Type" of DM (unless of course you never roll^^), or the Style of your DMing. Its centered around another assumption.
The one that you can gain something from doing so (because, as little as some people might be willing to admit that, I for one have only ever met one DM who fudged because "the palyers ruined my story", everybody else claimed believably to do so FOR the players).
Which,d epending on the preferences of the Players, can be true or not.

This leads to

2.: If you do not want the luck of the dice (alone) to decide your Story/the Parties Fate, then you should not be playing Systems with a large a possible Influence of Luck as for example all iterations of D&D.
Lets face it, the D20 and most of the central mechanics are still a holdover from its Semi-wargaming roots. It was never meant to be played with a Story focus. It still CAN be done, but its clear its not really...easy.

Which leads to

3.: Choose your System accordingly to the game you want to play, add a fitting group agreement/Gentlemans agreement for extreme cases, and ENJOY:


if one acknowledges/does these three things, there is no more reason of harsh namecalling or anecdotal/hypothetical examples to convince other people that only oneself is right.




On another note however, I would never outright lie to my players when making the Session 0 Gentlemans agreement. Or forgive GM`s doing so to me.

InGame however, depending on the Characters rolls, I lie to them. A LOT. ;)

[Malifice]

Because you have consent to void the outcome. Consent is the important term here.

I didnt need the players consent to put the encounter there in the first place did I?

Why do I now need their express consent to pull a punch and avoid killing all their characters?

Im happy to assume they dont want to have their characters randomly killed off in a meaningless encounter due to nothing more than what amounts to a coin toss going against them.

If I'm wrong about that, they can feel free to go to another table where they can get their characters randomly killed as often as they want.

But there is a retcon, the dice had a result, and you changed that result just because you personally didn't like the outcome.

No, I changed it because my players dont like the outcome. I dont need them to tell me they dont like a pointless TPK of a bunch of characters they've been playing for a long time, and have a connection to to a random encounter, for no other reason than bad dice rolling.

The problem is that you're lying to people, that's an issue that transcends the game.

No it doesnt. DMs lie, obfuscate and misdirect all the time. The DMG tells us to. Magicians do it as well.

For example, I intentionally often act a little disappointed when the Players defeat one of my harder encounters. I'll look a little dejected and say 'Man, you guys steamrolled that one. I was sure that encounter was going to be the end of you all'

Spoiler alert. Im lying. Im intentionally manipulating them into feeling good about 'overcoming the DMs killer encounter'. Im acting... Im faking it. It's all a big show. Im really actually happy they have overcome the encounter, but am only pretending to be a little peeved, to maintain the illusion of difficulty, to make them enjoy the session more in the knowledge that they triumphed despite 'my best efforts'.

I'll continue to look a bit dejected and surprised at how skillful they were until they leave (still congratulating themselves and patting each other on the back and retelling the story of how they overcame the DMs killer encounter') and then when the last one is gone, I'll sit back and finally have a chance to smile.

Its all showmanship. Just like when I roll a dice, and dont even look at the result, pretend to look something up, sigh, look really worried, roll again, frown and look even more worried, look up and ask them 'So what are you all doing now..."'

Get it yet? As DM my job is to ensure my players are challenged, have a good time, have fun, are engaged with the story, co-operating and so forth. I'm there to entertain them. I have no issue with maintaining a level of directive control and management over the collective story. Im not going to sit there and sit by while a coin toss makes the whole thing go up in flames.. Im not a player. Im not a protagonist. Im the conductor, and they're the orchestra.

That (their fun and entertainment) takes priority over 'the dice rolled a 6 so therefore everyone has to die and that sucks, but what can I do about it' or any other concern. I can do something about it, and I will.

You can feel free not to in your games. Enjoy pointless TPK's 'because the dice came up a 7'. I just think that kind of game would suck badly.

[Kardwill]

So... 'Contrive some reason why the PCs did not, in fact, die in the encounter despite the dice saying they did' is fine?

As is 'let the dice fall where they may, but then retcon the whole encounter or session after talking to the players'?

If you're talking about the "miracle if everything else failed" I put in my edit, well, as I said, it's kinda awkward, but it's a last ressort, if something went very wrong. And nowadays, it never happens, because I play games that don't allow senseless PC killings. Or rather, if it happens, it's player-initiated and overseen by the rules (the "lost sister coming to the rescue" would be a pretty simple aspect-invoke in FATE, for example)
So I just put it here for completion's sake, but yeah, I mostly use the other options

If you're talking about the way I put other consequences than death to a lost fight, though, then no, you're completely wrong. In the games I GM, unless I say it out loud (when putting up stakes before the roll in some systems or for tense scenes, for example), the dice NEVER says a PC is dead. And thus I never have to fudge.
The dice says a PC has lost, and bad stuff will happen, but I get to decide what this "bad stuff" is. It may be death, it may be capture, it may be the destruction of their hometown or the loss of property or a debilitating wound, or not being able to fight in the final boss battle, or having to find another way in, or whatever. Or it may simply create a complication that will enrich the story.

Death is only one possible stake, and it's the boring one, because I don't really want to enforce it. And I don't ask for a dice roll if I'm not willing to commit to its result.

And those results are not that contrived. I mean, the fiction we love are full of it. Luke get one-shot by the wampa in "empire strikes back", and then wakes up in the monster's freezer. The dwarves in "The Hobbit" get a TPK by the spiders, and are put to sleep and put into cocoons rather than eaten on the spot. Conan routinely gets clobbered, only to wake up tied to a torture post or delivered to some princess' bedchamber. None of those "GMs" fudged to give the heroes an auto-win, they just decided that defeat can happen in a good story, but killing the hero at the first defeat was boring.

In the case you spelled out, though, you did put the PCs in a fight where the only stake was "kill or be killed", and then fudged to take the "be killed" option off the table, rendering the fight completely stakeless. And I know why that happens, because I did the same numerous times : You want to create an illusion of danger to ramp up tension, to tell the players they are in a dangerous place. But apart from this illusion, this combat is useless. Nothing can happen, and thus the story does not gain from that combat. You could just as well narrate it without a dice roll.
With my lower stakes, though, things do happen, and there is a possibility of "losing". My players know that death will rarely be on the table, sure, but they also know that there will be consequences, that losing will pull the story in a new direction, one where they may have to grieve loved ones, overcome additional adversities or see their objectives compromised. That they may fail to save the kingdom. And so, the tension around the table gets real. :)

Again, not saying illusionism is badwrongfun as long as the players are okay with it. But I think you're completely overlooking the fact that there are games out there where the dice does not enforce brutal results, but creates exciting story opportunities.

[War_lord]

I didnt need the players consent to put the encounter there in the first place did I?

Why do I now need their express consent to pull a punch and avoid killing all their characters?

Im happy to assume they dont want to have their characters randomly killed off in a meaningless encounter due to nothing more than what amounts to a coin toss going against them.

If I'm wrong about that, they can feel free to go to another table where they can get their characters randomly killed as often as they want.

You've never asked them if they wanted you to, in fact you've admitted they wouldn't like it if you did tell them you've been predestining things for however long you've been running that game.

No, I changed it because my players dont like the outcome. I dont need them to tell me they dont like a pointless TPK of a bunch of characters they've been playing for a long time, and have a connection to to a random encounter, for no other reason than bad dice rolling.

Why don't you tell them then. It's really weird to insist they're okay with you fudging the dice when you've previously said they want to be challenged by the game. If they don't want a challenge, why pretend there is one?

No it doesnt. DMs lie, obfuscate and misdirect all the time. The DMG tells us to. Magicians do it as well.

I don't, I never have, and I never will. My job is to arbitrate the game.

For example, I intentionally often act a little disappointed when the Players defeat one of my harder encounters. I'll look a little dejected and say 'Man, you guys steamrolled that one. I was sure that encounter was going to be the end of you all'

Spoiler alert. Im lying. Im intentionally manipulating them into feeling good about 'overcoming the DMs killer encounter'. Im acting... Im faking it. It's all a big show. Im really actually happy they have overcome the encounter, but am only pretending to be a little peeved, to maintain the illusion of difficulty, to make them enjoy the session more in the knowledge that they triumphed despite 'my best efforts'.

I'll continue to look a bit dejected and surprised at how skillful they were until they leave (still congratulating themselves and patting each other on the back and retelling the story of how they overcame the DMs killer encounter') and then when the last one is gone, I'll sit back and finally have a chance to smile.

So, either your players aren't the brightest, and don't understand that if you wanted them dead that's a trivial task. Or, and I like this one better, you're not half as brilliant as you think you are, and they're humoring you.

Seriously, if I was in another persons game, and they kept acting like they wanted to meatgrind us, and no one ever died, I'd assume they're either incompetent or assumed we were. It's not flattering either way.

Its all showmanship. Just like when I roll a dice, and dont even look at the result, pretend to look something up, sigh, look really worried, roll again, frown and look even more worried, look up and ask them 'So what are you all doing now..."'

Get it yet? As DM my job is to ensure my players are challenged

But they are, objectively, not being challenged. You are bailing them out of anything that looks like it might derail the novel you're writing.

have a good time, have fun, are engaged with the story, co-operating and so forth. I'm there to entertain them. I have no issue with maintaining a level of directive control and management over the collective story. Im not going to sit there and sit by while a coin toss makes the whole thing go up in flames.. Im not a player. Im not a protagonist. Im the conductor, and they're the orchestra.

Why bother rolling then? Hell, why are they turning up just so that you can "conduct" without their knowledge? Would they continue to turn up if you forwarded them this conversation?

That (their fun and entertainment) takes priority over 'the dice rolled a 6 so therefore everyone has to die and that sucks, but what can I do about it' or any other concern. I can do something about it, and I will.

You can feel free not to in your games. Enjoy pointless TPK's 'because the dice came up a 7'. I just think that kind of game would suck badly.

People have already explained several ways to deal with it, including being honest with your players about you ignoring the dice when you feel like it.

Your DMing style is the equivalent of one of those awful AD&D dragonlance modules, a glorified theme park ride.

[Kardwill]

3.: Choose your System accordingly to the game you want to play, add a fitting group agreement/Gentlemans agreement for extreme cases, and ENJOY:

Oh yeah, I was completely burned out of GMing, until I switched to games that fit my style, and started doing that "session zero" stuff to ensure that everyone will have fun during the campaign rather than try to guess what the players want.

[War_lord]

Yeah, so many issues are caused by GMs who try to twist D&D to be something it's not (a medieval life simulator, a social combat game, a storytelling tool etc.) instead of just adding another system to their library.

[Mr Beer]

Yeah, so many issues are caused by GMs who try to twist D&D to be something it's not (a medieval life simulator, a social combat game, a storytelling tool etc.) instead of just adding another system to their library.

Yep. This was a legit issue 30 years ago when there simply wasn't a dozen functional systems for nearly any style of game. These days...sheesh try something different if you don't want to play another D&D campaign.

[Kardwill]

Yep. This was a legit issue 30 years ago when there simply wasn't a dozen functional systems for nearly any style of game. These days...sheesh try something different if you don't want to play another D&D campaign.

To be fair, RPG is a hobby largely spread by oral culture and repeating what we learnt from our favorite GMs during our formative games, so we tend to assume we are playing the "normal way", and identifying what we really want to play can be challenging. For example, we can love the idea of a dangerous game ("hey, if you roll 97 on the fumble table, you one-shot-kill another character! Gritty!") but secretely dislike what it means to actually have that danger during game ("Err, I just rolled a 97. Sorry, Jim. Damn!")

For me it happened when I read some systems that solved problems I didn't even knew I had, by changing mecanics I thought essential to RPGs ("A game without HP? How do they track the death of a character?"). That "wait a minute, you can do THAT?" moment is the thing I now avidly seek when I read or try a new game

[Cluedrew]

To Kardwill: Oh yeah, I read almost every free/quick-start rules I can get my hands on to see what they do.

The biggest jump for me was not so much the direct solving of problems, I guess I was expecting that, but the first time I came across a system that thought about the whole idea of role-playing differently that D&D, Vampire and the old juggernauts. It was quite the awakening.