Results 241 to 270 of 479
-
2019-01-03, 05:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2018
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 I’ll 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 you’ve already decided which battles we win and which we lose, then why don’t you just tell me the story? This is slight hyperbole, but it’s 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.
-
2019-01-03, 05:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2015
- Location
- Berlin
- Gender
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, it´s 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.
-
2019-01-03, 05:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
2019-01-03, 06:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- Munich, Germany
- Gender
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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.
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?
SpoilerOut of the frying pan and into the friar!
How would you describe a knife?
SpoilerCutting-edge technology
-
2019-01-03, 07:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2010
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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
-
2019-01-03, 07:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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.
"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.
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.
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.
-
2019-01-03, 08:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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.
-
2019-01-03, 09:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
-
2019-01-03, 09:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
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.
So you are incapable of imagining a scenario where the bad stuff might happen later and not be immediately apparent?
That would be a case where the players might know what happens afterwards.
In your version the players KNOW they have failed the roll, because they see it, in my version they don't know.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
-
2019-01-03, 09:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2018
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
Morgaln & AMFV
I don’t think I disagree with either of you that much. As a player, fudging rolls wouldn’t make me walk away from the table, and I can’t 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.
-
2019-01-03, 09:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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.
-
2019-01-03, 09:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
-
2019-01-03, 09:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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.Last edited by Koo Rehtorb; 2019-01-03 at 09:52 PM.
-
2019-01-03, 09:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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.
-
2019-01-03, 10:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
2019-01-03, 11:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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.
Sometimes paranoia and suspense is important. Sometimes it's important to be able to include padding without your players knowing that something is padding.
-
2019-01-03, 11:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
-
2019-01-04, 12:21 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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?
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.
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.
-
2019-01-04, 01:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
-
2019-01-04, 02:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2015
- Location
- Berlin
- Gender
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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.)
-
2019-01-04, 02:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
Last edited by Malifice; 2019-01-04 at 02:36 AM.
-
2019-01-04, 02:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.
-
2019-01-04, 03:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
-
2019-01-04, 05:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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 ?SpoilerMilo - 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
-
2019-01-04, 05:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2016
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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.
-
2019-01-04, 05:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2016
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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?"
-
2019-01-04, 06:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
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.
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"
-
2019-01-04, 06:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
-
2019-01-04, 06:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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.SpoilerMilo - 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
-
2019-01-04, 08:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2016
- Gender
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
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