The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 479
  1. - Top - End - #241
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2018

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    This thread seems to have moved on from when I last looked at.
    I apologize if this has already been said, but Iíll throw my 2 cents in. As a player, my concern when I hear a GM say that they insist/depend/rely on fudging is that it negates my choices. If youíve already decided which battles we win and which we lose, then why donít you just tell me the story? This is slight hyperbole, but itís what I hear when somebody insists that fudging is necessary. It starts to take the risk vs reward out of the game for me. I may be misinterpreting things though.

  2. - Top - End - #242
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    I think there was actually some Mike Mearls quote about wanting to see the system running a game instead of the GM. Beyond that, purely personal opinion, something is already wrong when you have a competition-focused player in a team-oriented game, itīs time for the boot when said player then actually tries to sue the system to get into competition with the GM, whose job is an entirely different matter. Case of bye-bye and be done.

  3. - Top - End - #243
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AMFV's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    Well if we're just going into me teaching you good GM practises at this point... Don't call for rolls when you aren't going to immediately make a decision based on the result of that roll. If you fail a bluff then you're going to know about it because the vizier sighs, annoyed, and casts White Fire on you. If you fail a stealth roll I will narrate forward until the results of that failed stealth roll become painfully apparent to you.
    If you are rolling in the open, the players will know immediately that they failed that stealth roll. That's the point you haven't even addressed. I mean if the Vizier is reacting violently to being lied to, then they'd know immediately but there are plenty of cases where somebody who has seen through your bluff isn't going to call you out right there and then. That's the advantage of rolling in secret, the players don't know what's going on, they don't know if they've failed or succeeded at their stealth check, hell if you're dropping dice often enough without them being actual rolls they might not even know when an actual roll is being made. Which is pretty crucial.

    Also it allows you to roll for players in circumstances where they might not be aware of things. For example perception checks to notice hidden doors, objects, or creatures; Sense motive checks to discern lying, those are situations where the player's characters might have to make a check, but it's better for them if they don't know that there is a check being made.

    The fact that you can't envision a scenario where somebody knows that they're being lied to and doesn't want to immediately reveal that they know is a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    Well we're broadening the scope of this now (and being absurd in the process because comparing someone drunk driving to someone wanting the GM to not be **** is pretty funny). But yes, if you hid a drunk person's car keys you should probably still be telling them "Hey. You're drunk. I took your keys. I'll give them back when you're sober." over lying and pretending you have no idea what they're talking about.
    You have either never taken keys from a drunk guy, or you really like fighting drunk guys. You definitely should not tell them till the morning. Period. Because what's going to happen is that because drunk people cannot make decisions or think, they're going to want to get those keys.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    To be blunt, fudging is railroading. Fudging is saying "What I want to happen is more important than the rules of this game". If I can't trust you to play the game fairly then I don't see any point in using any of the rules at all. We can just sit down and listen to you tell us a story about what happens. It invalidates the entire game. If you fudge dice you are not trustworthy in any way and you're just wasting my time.
    What if those rules allow for the DM to alter those rules? Most of the games I've discussed do have sections for that, both for the DM setting difficulty classes as necessary or altering challenge numbers or whatever the equivalent in the system is. I'm not fudging the game I'm altering the results of one or two rolls.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    The fact that some people care a great deal about this should be apparent to you by now. So let me say this again. If you fudge dice I will not play with you. This, in fact, makes lying about doing it a big damn lie.
    Not really. Seriously you are blowing this out of proportion. There is no money on the line, there is no real danger, it's a game. And also as I've said, you probably would not realize that I was fudging rolls, I very rarely do, and if you were playing with me, I wouldn't tell you, because it is already covered under both rule zero and the DM's ability to alter the rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    Playing systems that don't suit your needs.

    In my mind the desire to fudge dice usually comes from a system/expectations mismatch. Generally the system is harsher or more about gaming skill than weaving a story than what you are actually looking for. Fudging rolls is a bandage on that wound.
    No, fudging rolls is a way to deal with capricious fate, which is a thing that you can't always deal with. I've had sessions where I haven't rolled lower than a 15 as a DM, that screws players, every encounter is much harder than it's intended to be, and I've seen multiple 20s rolled in a row. That's something that is sometimes okay, but often is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by LankyOgre View Post
    This thread seems to have moved on from when I last looked at.
    I apologize if this has already been said, but Iíll throw my 2 cents in. As a player, my concern when I hear a GM say that they insist/depend/rely on fudging is that it negates my choices. If youíve already decided which battles we win and which we lose, then why donít you just tell me the story? This is slight hyperbole, but itís what I hear when somebody insists that fudging is necessary. It starts to take the risk vs reward out of the game for me. I may be misinterpreting things though.
    Fudging isn't about negating your choices though, particularly not fudging in an encounter table (which is what was being described upthread). Also most people who fudge die rolls do not do so often. Like I think for me I average around one fudged roll every three or four sessions, maybe. It doesn't come up often.
    My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.

  4. - Top - End - #244
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by LankyOgre View Post
    This thread seems to have moved on from when I last looked at.
    I apologize if this has already been said, but Iíll throw my 2 cents in. As a player, my concern when I hear a GM say that they insist/depend/rely on fudging is that it negates my choices. If youíve already decided which battles we win and which we lose, then why donít you just tell me the story? This is slight hyperbole, but itís what I hear when somebody insists that fudging is necessary. It starts to take the risk vs reward out of the game for me. I may be misinterpreting things though.
    I can only talk about how I do this of course, but on the occasions where I do fudge dice, it doesn't change whether the characters win or lose the battle. It only means the difference between "alive but unconscious" and "dead." If the remaining characters can't win the battle on their own, they still lose, and the dice might well be responsible for that. But afterwards, the characters will still be around to deal with the ramifications of their loss, instead of the story being handed over to a new bunch of people. That way, I give my players the chance to roleplay a situation where they didn't accomplish their goals and have to come to terms with defeat. I (and my players) prefer that over just starting over with new characters, but I'm aware not everyone feels that way.
    If I want my players to definitely succeed or fail at something, I will forego any dice rolls.

    Interestingly, whether I do that at all or not also depends on what system I am playing. In my preferred system which I usually play (oWoD), I do the above, as I play it for the story more than anything else. If I do a D&D game I don't fudge rolls in general, as I choose D&D when I want a more tactical, combat-heavy gaming experience, and I don't consider fudging dice to be appropriate in that kind of scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    Well if we're just going into me teaching you good GM practises at this point... Don't call for rolls when you aren't going to immediately make a decision based on the result of that roll. If you fail a bluff then you're going to know about it because the vizier sighs, annoyed, and casts White Fire on you. If you fail a stealth roll I will narrate forward until the results of that failed stealth roll become painfully apparent to you.
    A lot of time, I have people roll perception just to see if they notice some minor detail about a situation that might help them figure out something earlier or that will give them deeper insight into something. This will never be vital information, so it's not necessary for the players to have it. If they fail that roll, they will never know that they missed something, because I won't tell them and I won't let them know whether they succeeded or failed. I do make decisions there immediately, it's just that the players are not aware of that decision, and in that particular case, it adds to the realism because no one knows when they overlooked something in real life either. So not every roll should and will have an apparent effect to the players.
    What did the monk say to his dinner?
    Spoiler
    Show
    Out of the frying pan and into the friar!


    How would you describe a knife?
    Spoiler
    Show
    Cutting-edge technology

  5. - Top - End - #245
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2010

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by AMFV View Post
    If you are rolling in the open, the players will know immediately that they failed that stealth roll.
    "You don't find any traps."
    Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...
    Protip: DnD is an incredibly social game played by some of the most socially inept people on the planet - Lev
    I read this somewhere and I stick to it: "I would rather play a bad system with my friends than a great system with nobody". - Trevlac
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    That said, trolling is entirely counterproductive (yes, even when it's hilarious).

  6. - Top - End - #246
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by AMFV View Post
    If you are rolling in the open, the players will know immediately that they failed that stealth roll. That's the point you haven't even addressed.
    I have addressed it. You haven't understood it. Once a player has failed a roll they do not get to make any more decisions until what happens because of that fail has happened.

    "I want to sneak my way through the castle avoiding the villainous guards until I reach my true love's chambers."

    "Make a stealth roll, opposed by the observation of the guards in the castle."

    *rolls happen, NPCs win*

    "All right. It's all going great, you've slipped in the side door and made your way through the audience chambers. But as you're ascending the staircase to the third floor you hear someone shouting an alarm down the corridor to your left. There's a pounding of feet and the clatter of armour rapidly approaching your position. What do you do?"

    I mean if the Vizier is reacting violently to being lied to, then they'd know immediately but there are plenty of cases where somebody who has seen through your bluff isn't going to call you out right there and then. That's the advantage of rolling in secret, the players don't know what's going on, they don't know if they've failed or succeeded at their stealth check, hell if you're dropping dice often enough without them being actual rolls they might not even know when an actual roll is being made. Which is pretty crucial.
    *the RP has been played through. The PCs have made a believable effort in lying to the vizier* Now at the end of the scene:
    "All right. Let's see if he bought it. Roll Falsehood vs his Will of 6"
    *rolls happen, PCs fail*
    "The meeting concludes. The vizier smiles benevolently at you all and shakes your hands, thanking you earnestly for bringing this matter to his attention and you depart."
    *other things may or may not happen between these events, but at this point it doesn't matter. The vizier has already sent word for his agents to move. As the PCs depart the castle they can already see the smoke in the sky above Maria's estate. The vizier is a dangerous man to cross and they knew that going in*

    These are just random examples with very little thought or detail put into them but I think the point is clear enough.

    The fact that you can't envision a scenario where somebody knows that they're being lied to and doesn't want to immediately reveal that they know is a problem.
    Of course I can envision it. What I'm telling you is "structure your game in a better more interesting way and it won't matter if the players know or not".

    What if those rules allow for the DM to alter those rules? Most of the games I've discussed do have sections for that, both for the DM setting difficulty classes as necessary or altering challenge numbers or whatever the equivalent in the system is. I'm not fudging the game I'm altering the results of one or two rolls.
    Yeah it's unfortunate that some badly written games gave out a lot of bad advice. It certainly muddies the waters. The hobby is just going to have to learn to get over it, though, and a lot of progress has been made on writing better designed games in the past twenty years or so.

    Not really. Seriously you are blowing this out of proportion. There is no money on the line, there is no real danger, it's a game. And also as I've said, you probably would not realize that I was fudging rolls, I very rarely do, and if you were playing with me, I wouldn't tell you, because it is already covered under both rule zero and the DM's ability to alter the rules.
    You may or may not get away with it. I'm skeptical. Most people really aren't as subtle as they think they are. But I am telling you right now. Even if you get away with it, you are doing a bad thing. And you should be ashamed of yourself. If you're going to cheat at a game, make that clear in advance so people with better taste can avoid playing with you.

  7. - Top - End - #247
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgaln View Post
    A lot of time, I have people roll perception just to see if they notice some minor detail about a situation that might help them figure out something earlier or that will give them deeper insight into something. This will never be vital information, so it's not necessary for the players to have it. If they fail that roll, they will never know that they missed something, because I won't tell them and I won't let them know whether they succeeded or failed. I do make decisions there immediately, it's just that the players are not aware of that decision, and in that particular case, it adds to the realism because no one knows when they overlooked something in real life either. So not every roll should and will have an apparent effect to the players.
    Personally I don't like making rolls with low stakes. I feel like it's a waste of everyone's time. If there's some cool minor detail here I'd just tell them.

    But I don't see anything inherently wrong with saying something like "Make a DC 15 spot check and I'll give you a little something extra." Making fake rolls for ~paranoia~ is just dumb and obnoxious though.

  8. - Top - End - #248
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by AMFV View Post
    No, fudging rolls is a way to deal with capricious fate, which is a thing that you can't always deal with.
    Not in D&D, but in D&D you are supposed to shut up and take it. If you don't want random twists of fate to be painful, I think the better solution is to play a system that doesn't have such harsh twists of fate.

  9. - Top - End - #249
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AMFV's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbane View Post
    "You don't find any traps."
    If a player sees that you have rolled a 17 or an 18 or a 20, because you are rolling in the open... Then they will know that it is very unlikely that they are being unobserved if they rolled a four or a five or even a nine or a ten or an eleven. That's why you don't roll in the open.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    I have addressed it. You haven't understood it. Once a player has failed a roll they do not get to make any more decisions until what happens because of that fail has happened.
    So you are incapable of imagining a scenario where the bad stuff might happen later and not be immediately apparent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    "I want to sneak my way through the castle avoiding the villainous guards until I reach my true love's chambers."
    That would be a case where the players might know what happens afterwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    "Make a stealth roll, opposed by the observation of the guards in the castle."
    In your version the players KNOW they have failed the roll, because they see it, in my version they don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    *rolls happen, NPCs win*
    So in your version the outcome you are about to present is the ONLY possible outcome, because the players are aware of things that happen as a result of their roles, even if they would not have been otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    "All right. It's all going great, you've slipped in the side door and made your way through the audience chambers. But as you're ascending the staircase to the third floor you hear someone shouting an alarm down the corridor to your left. There's a pounding of feet and the clatter of armour rapidly approaching your position. What do you do?"
    In your version, that's about the only outcome. Let's take a situation where your version doesn't work. "A few days later you receive a message from somebody in a tavern, I saw where you went that night, and who you were with, I'd like credits for my silence."

    Now in your version, the players are exactly aware of what was observed and what is known by that NPC. There is no way to have the blackmailer be bluffing about what they actually know, because the PCs know what they know. There is no way for the players not to be planning for that sort of thing in your version, because they know they were observed.

    That's why rolling in the open is bad, because sometimes the outcome of an action is not immediate combat or what-not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    *the RP has been played through. The PCs have made a believable effort in lying to the vizier* Now at the end of the scene:
    "All right. Let's see if he bought it. Roll Falsehood vs his Will of 6"
    *rolls happen, PCs fail*
    "The meeting concludes. The vizier smiles benevolently at you all and shakes your hands, thanking you earnestly for bringing this matter to his attention and you depart."
    *other things may or may not happen between these events, but at this point it doesn't matter. The vizier has already sent word for his agents to move. As the PCs depart the castle they can already see the smoke in the sky above Maria's estate. The vizier is a dangerous man to cross and they knew that going in*
    THE PLAYERS KNOW THEY FAILED. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO AVOID. Literally, you are proving the point. The players make that roll vs. the will of 6, they know they failed, there is no option for it to be a surprise later, you're removing a significant dramatic control because you want to appear fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    These are just random examples with very little thought or detail put into them but I think the point is clear enough.
    Clearly not a lot of thought, because they literally show my point, rolling in the open is going to rob you of the ability to add dramatic tension and surpris

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    Of course I can envision it. What I'm telling you is "structure your game in a better more interesting way and it won't matter if the players know or not".
    And your examples show that you can't do that, since in your situation you haven't done that. You've only managed to avoid things that need an immediate response, not allowed for things that would be possibly significant many sessions later.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    Personally I don't like making rolls with low stakes. I feel like it's a waste of everyone's time. If there's some cool minor detail here I'd just tell them.
    The thing is that this scenario lets the players know immediately what the stakes are in any given scenario, my way allows for the DM to not necessarily reveal the scenario's significance. Your way is forcing you into a corner, my way has more options.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    But I don't see anything inherently wrong with saying something like "Make a DC 15 spot check and I'll give you a little something extra." Making fake rolls for ~paranoia~ is just dumb and obnoxious though.
    Making fake rolls allows you to maintain the tension and control when the scenario and tension is actually relevant. Basically in your system players know when a situation is high stakes, they have no sense of paranoia, there can be no surprises later because they know when they've failed at something. Hell, a lot of times I make the spot checks, so the players won't even know if they missed something because they rolled low.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    Not in D&D, but in D&D you are supposed to shut up and take it. If you don't want random twists of fate to be painful, I think the better solution is to play a system that doesn't have such harsh twists of fate.
    In D&D there is Rule Zero, and explicit permissions for the DM to alter the rules as necessary. Which to my mind allows for you to control when things like that are going to be an issue. A 1 in 6.25 x 10^6 chance (the odds of rolling four twenties in a row) shouldn't stop the game, unless it is appropriate for it to do so. I've seen three twenties in a row before, I've had sessions where the enemies rolled over 15 the entire session. D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder both require extensive work to create characters, so it's not like OD&D where rolling up a new character was practically instant.
    My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.

  10. - Top - End - #250
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2018

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Morgaln & AMFV
    I donít think I disagree with either of you that much. As a player, fudging rolls wouldnít make me walk away from the table, and I canít say I never fudged a roll as a GM.
    But when I hear somebody vociferously defending fudging as an intrinsic part of their DM style, that is a clue that we may have different expectations.

  11. - Top - End - #251
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AMFV's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by LankyOgre View Post
    Morgaln & AMFV
    I donít think I disagree with either of you that much. As a player, fudging rolls wouldnít make me walk away from the table, and I canít say I never fudged a roll as a GM.
    But when I hear somebody vociferously defending fudging as an intrinsic part of their DM style, that is a clue that we may have different expectations.
    It's not an "intrinsic part of my DM style" it's something that I want to be able to have in my toolbox. And I'm more responding the people who were ranting against 'fudging' especially in this case which would be fudging a roll on an encounter table, the sort of thing I view as a suggestion anyways.
    My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.

  12. - Top - End - #252
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by AMFV View Post
    In D&D there is Rule Zero, and explicit permissions for the DM to alter the rules as necessary. Which to my mind allows for you to control when things like that are going to be an issue.
    In my mind that is different from altering the results rules have already produced. But skipping that and more personal issues aside, why not just create a rule that blocks 3+ critical hits in a row?

  13. - Top - End - #253
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by AMFV View Post
    Clearly not a lot of thought, because they literally show my point, rolling in the open is going to rob you of the ability to add dramatic tension and surpris
    What you call dramatic tension and surprise, I call lazy GMing and posing the least possible interesting questions to the players. Rarely, if ever, is "Is this NPC telling me the truth or not?!?" an interesting question to be posing. More interesting options include:

    "This guy is lying to you. You can see it in his eyes. What are you going to do about it?"
    or
    "She's telling you the cold hard truth. It's not a truth you wanted to hear, and you're going have to decide what you want to do with this unwelcome new information."

    The thing is that this scenario lets the players know immediately what the stakes are in any given scenario, my way allows for the DM to not necessarily reveal the scenario's significance. Your way is forcing you into a corner, my way has more options.

    Making fake rolls allows you to maintain the tension and control when the scenario and tension is actually relevant. Basically in your system players know when a situation is high stakes, they have no sense of paranoia, there can be no surprises later because they know when they've failed at something. Hell, a lot of times I make the spot checks, so the players won't even know if they missed something because they rolled low.
    Yeah, for sure. These are boring wastes of everyone's time that you're proposing here. I am not interested in inducing paranoia. I am interested in posing hard choices and seeing how players react to them. Stop jerking players around and get to the interesting part of the game.
    Last edited by Koo Rehtorb; 2019-01-03 at 09:52 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #254
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AMFV's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    In my mind that is different from altering the results rules have already produced. But skipping that and more personal issues aside, why not just create a rule that blocks 3+ critical hits in a row?
    Because there are situations where 3+ critical hits in a row might be appropriate. Players getting really lucky and beating a nasty boss? Absolutely! A nasty boss getting really lucky and downing one of the players? Absolutely! A random mook killing one of the players in a random encounter that isn't even relevant to the plot? Probably not. It's all about figuring out what the most appropriate time is for anything.
    My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.

  15. - Top - End - #255
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AMFV's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    What you call dramatic tension and surprise, I call lazy GMing and posing the least possible interesting questions to the players. Rarely, if ever, is "Is this NPC telling me the truth or not?!?" an interesting question to be posing. More interesting options include:
    It definitely interesting, particularly if the NPC has long term plans based on that. The Vizier reveals in a few session that he's been plotting against the PCs since he saw through their lies, they had no idea it was happening, except for a few clues dropped throughout. In your version you can't do that. You can only reveal it in the exact moment that the NPC becomes aware of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    "This guy is lying to you. You can see it in his eyes. What are you going to do about it?"
    But what if they don't see it in his eyes? Do you tell your player when an NPC has succeeded in a bluff or deception attempt against them? That seems counter-productive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    or
    "She's telling you the cold hard truth. It's not a truth you wanted to hear, and you're going have to decide what you want to do with this unwelcome new information."
    But see with my method, she could still be lying and just be better at it. So that the players (and their characters) both believe something that she says, even if it isn't the truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    Yeah, for sure. These are boring wastes of everyone's time that you're proposing here. I am not interested in inducing paranoia. I am interested in posing hard choices and seeing how players react to them. Stop jerking players around and get to the interesting part of the game.
    Sometimes paranoia and suspense is important. Sometimes it's important to be able to include padding without your players knowing that something is padding.
    My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.

  16. - Top - End - #256
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by AMFV View Post
    It definitely interesting, particularly if the NPC has long term plans based on that. The Vizier reveals in a few session that he's been plotting against the PCs since he saw through their lies, they had no idea it was happening, except for a few clues dropped throughout. In your version you can't do that. You can only reveal it in the exact moment that the NPC becomes aware of it.
    I don't think going back and forth and saying what's interesting is productive any more. I am aware of your point. I disagree with it. I do not find value in the same things you do.

    But what if they don't see it in his eyes? Do you tell your player when an NPC has succeeded in a bluff or deception attempt against them? That seems counter-productive.
    Not everything needs to be a roll. Move past the tedious "gosh is he telling the truth?" bit.

    Sometimes paranoia and suspense is important. Sometimes it's important to be able to include padding without your players knowing that something is padding.
    Nope. If something is padding it shouldn't be in the game. Move from important scene to important scene.

  17. - Top - End - #257
    Banned
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2014

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    And everything you've posted has been a big red warning sign that I shouldn't touch your games with a ten foot pole. And now, through the magic of communication, we both know that and can avoid ever playing with each other. Which is why being honest about your (terrible) preferences is so helpful for all parties involved. Why on Earth would anyone think lying about your preferences is a good idea when we've just demonstrated how helpful this is?
    Feelings mutual mate.

    Have a good one.

  18. - Top - End - #258
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AMFV's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    I don't think going back and forth and saying what's interesting is productive any more. I am aware of your point. I disagree with it. I do not find value in the same things you do.
    You don't find value in the ability to have something the players do impact them in the future rather than immediately? That's a pretty big issue with your playstyle, no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    Not everything needs to be a roll. Move past the tedious "gosh is he telling the truth?" bit.
    If you are engaged in negotiations with somebody that is the most salient point and certainly not a tedious one. Like in a diplomatic situation (such a meeting with a Vizier) that is the most critical point. Furthermore if players have invested in the ability to try to figure out if somebody is lying, and one of my NPCs is lying they deserve a roll, because they invested in that. They also shouldn't automatically know if that person is lying, because that isn't how this works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    Nope. If something is padding it shouldn't be in the game. Move from important scene to important scene.
    That sounds exhausting. Good fiction, good games, and good campaigns have some padding sections. They give players a chance to focus on something that's less intense, they allow for you to fish around and see if the players are looking for something else that's interesting or if they're loosing interest in the main plot that can bring them back. Your games sound frankly terrible, you're ignoring the conventions of gaming any form of suspense or surprise in exchange for a very misguided view of integrity.
    My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.

  19. - Top - End - #259
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by AMFV View Post
    Your games sound frankly terrible
    The feeling is extremely mutual. And that's why we don't lie about our games. So people can give informed consent about what they're agreeing to. And, frankly, it amazes me that anyone disagrees with this extremely basic tenant of human interaction.

  20. - Top - End - #260
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    The feeling is extremely mutual. And that's why we don't lie about our games. So people can give informed consent about what they're agreeing to. And, frankly, it amazes me that anyone disagrees with this extremely basic tenant of human interaction.
    When it comes to RPGs? No, absolutely not. I also think that your view is only a bit more common for people mainly socialized into the hobby by way of D&D, but absolutely uncommon in the regions beyond that (keep in mind that D&D is not the mainstream in the rest of the world.)

  21. - Top - End - #261
    Banned
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2014

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    The feeling is extremely mutual. And that's why we don't lie about our games. So people can give informed consent about what they're agreeing to. And, frankly, it amazes me that anyone disagrees with this extremely basic tenant of human interaction.
    I dont think you're really in a position to talk about how to interact with other humans mate.

    Like; your posting in this thread kind of stands as evidence you dont really get how to yourself.
    Last edited by Malifice; 2019-01-04 at 02:36 AM.

  22. - Top - End - #262
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AMFV's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    The feeling is extremely mutual. And that's why we don't lie about our games. So people can give informed consent about what they're agreeing to. And, frankly, it amazes me that anyone disagrees with this extremely basic tenant of human interaction.
    The thing is that if you are playing a game where rule zero is a listed thing in the DMG, then you can expect that the DM is going to be making judgement calls and making rulings on the spot. That's baked into the system. So there's no reason to say that.
    My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.

  23. - Top - End - #263
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by Florian View Post
    When it comes to RPGs? No, absolutely not. I also think that your view is only a bit more common for people mainly socialized into the hobby by way of D&D, but absolutely uncommon in the regions beyond that (keep in mind that D&D is not the mainstream in the rest of the world.)
    D&D gives people brain damage. RON EDWARDS WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!!!

  24. - Top - End - #264
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by AMFV View Post
    The thing is that if you are playing a game where rule zero is a listed thing in the DMG, then you can expect that the DM is going to be making judgement calls and making rulings on the spot. That's baked into the system. So there's no reason to say that.
    But to Koo Rehtorb's original point.

    If this is the case. Before the game starts and a player asks you as GM "Are you going to fudge rolls in this game?"

    Answering...

    "Yes that's part of the game see rule zero"

    or

    "No, I really don't like fudging dice"

    Is fine as long as you are honest.
    What is not fine, is when discussing the kind of game you are running. Is Lying to the players about the kind of game you run.

    What purpose does lying to the players about your gaming style serve ?
    Spoiler
    Show
    Milo - I know what you are thinking Ork, has he fired 5 shots or 6, well as this is a wand of scorching ray, the most powerful second level wand in the world. What you have to ask your self is "Do I feel Lucky", well do you, Punk.
    Galkin - Erm Milo, wands have 50 charges not 6.
    Milo - NEATO !!
    BLAST

  25. - Top - End - #265
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2016

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by AMFV View Post
    Because there are situations where 3+ critical hits in a row might be appropriate. Players getting really lucky and beating a nasty boss? Absolutely! A nasty boss getting really lucky and downing one of the players? Absolutely! A random mook killing one of the players in a random encounter that isn't even relevant to the plot? Probably not. It's all about figuring out what the most appropriate time is for anything.
    Then you play a game that doesn't allow that kind of things, or you modify the rule to your liking. "Mooks don't get to crit" or "Getting killed by a mook only result in a temporary takedown (unconscious, captured, thrown into the river...)". Or better yet, you use a meta ressource that allows you to control the pace of such things : "The GM gets 3 villainy points per game. He can use those points to get a crit, dodge an attack, or have the BBEG flee the scene"

    It's not fudging anymore when it's in the rules ^^
    (And the players tend to be far less grumbly about the villain "miraculously" escaping or dodging when they know it's on the table and you have to burn or give them a ressource for it)

    Seriously, my games became far more interesting since I switched to systems that fit my style and don't require me to fudge. And it allows me to roll in the open and put clear stakes on the table, creating sweet tension around the table.

    As for surprise and secret rolls, well... Surprise is overrated, anyway. I find suspense far more interesting ("Okay, I just botched a perception check... Crap, what will happen to me? Why is the GM smiling, taking notes and asking questions about my gear?")
    Last edited by Kardwill; 2019-01-04 at 05:32 AM.

  26. - Top - End - #266
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2016

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthwalker View Post
    But to Koo Rehtorb's original point.

    If this is the case. Before the game starts and a player asks you as GM "Are you going to fudge rolls in this game?"

    Answering...

    "Yes that's part of the game see rule zero"

    or

    "No, I really don't like fudging dice"

    Is fine as long as you are honest.
    What is not fine, is when discussing the kind of game you are running. Is Lying to the players about the kind of game you run.

    What purpose does lying to the players about your gaming style serve ?
    Create the illusion of tension. I know the appeal, as I was an illusionist GM for 2 decades. But when that illusion breaks, it breaks HARD, and the player's trust breaks with it.
    I lost a gaming group because of fudging, and it's entirely my fault. And I've also felt the frustration of being the player and seeing the (not so) invisible strings the GM pulled to save a situation gone to hell.
    So, nowadays, fudging is on my blacklist of Bad GM Practices. If a game goes to hell because of unexpected circonstances, better to be honest about it, and find some interesting way to save the situation. "Oh ****, your scholar character IS fragile. I didn't expect him to get crited and killed by a goblin. You okay if we just say he's been thrown to the ground and taken hostage?"

  27. - Top - End - #267
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    If a player sees that you have rolled a 17 or an 18 or a 20, because you are rolling in the open... Then they will know that it is very unlikely that they are being unobserved if they rolled a four or a five or even a nine or a ten or an eleven. That's why you don't roll in the open.
    Actually due to stealth rules in dnd 3.5 if someone is like 300 foot away then you have -30 to your spot check so even if you roll a 20 and have +10 to spot you will not see that person.
    The more your opponent is skilled relatively to you the closer that opponent can trail you so if you face someone with an equal modifier to yours that person can follow you from 200 foot away without problem and if the person trailing you have 10 more than you then that person can follow you from 100 foot away and you will never know.
    So I think when I roll high "the person trailing us knows his job and either kept distance or is very skilled" and not "we are not followed"

  28. - Top - End - #268
    Banned
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2014

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthwalker View Post
    What purpose does lying to the players about your gaming style serve ?
    Should a magician reveal his tricks?

    Would it be as much fun if he did?

  29. - Top - End - #269
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    Should a magician reveal his tricks?

    Would it be as much fun if he did?
    No this is not the same as the question I asked tho.

    When you book tickets to a magic show you know its a magic show.
    So when you lie to the players BEFORE THE GAME STARTS on what the game is going to be.

    Its more like.

    Should Magicians sell tickets to their show claiming its a Musical ?

    I am not asking the magician to reveal all his tricks. I am asking, is this a magic show or a musical BEFORE THE SHOW STARTS so I can make the choice to buy ticket or not.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Milo - I know what you are thinking Ork, has he fired 5 shots or 6, well as this is a wand of scorching ray, the most powerful second level wand in the world. What you have to ask your self is "Do I feel Lucky", well do you, Punk.
    Galkin - Erm Milo, wands have 50 charges not 6.
    Milo - NEATO !!
    BLAST

  30. - Top - End - #270
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Scripten's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthwalker View Post
    Should Magicians sell tickets to their show claiming its a Musical ?
    I really don't want to get into the greater debate here, but this is a really odd way to make your point. The goal of both magic shows and musicals is to suspend disbelief and to immerse the audience. Would you seriously be upset if some version of Hamilton included a section where someone performs sleight of hand? Perhaps a better comparison would be if you went into a chess tournament and another player switched the position of various pieces on the board while you weren't looking.

    However, this entire argument falls flat on its face when you move into tabletop RPGs. While I agree that lying to your players about whether or not you fudge certain dice rolls is not good, there is something to be said about letting the GM control pacing. Getting worked up because the GM decided to pick a number on a random encounter table instead of rolling on it seems excessive, and I am vehemently against fudging during combat in such systems that use those mechanics. Honestly, I wouldn't even consider GM-exclusive "pacing" rolls to be anything more than an aid for keeping the game running quickly if the GM is unsure of which encounter to choose. I personally have limited choices on an extant encounter table or outright picked an encounter that best fit the situation.

    Whether or not fudging is "terrible" or not is entirely up to each individual person and trying to declare it badwrongfun (especially when enthusiastically consented to on both sides) is juvenile, though.
    Avatar credit to Shades of Gray

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •