Quote from: SettembriniIn these times of Swinery, I´d hold the extremist position of "No Fudging!".

But truth to be told this is also a DM decision. So basically, even being fair and honest all the time isn´t taking away the penultimate power of the DM. The DM is fair, because he chooses to.

Since I always seem to get to these threads when my position has pretty much been clearly stated (and probably better than I could), I'm just adding a resounding "Me, too."

I don't know that I have an opinion on whether or not it's a GM's right to do it (especially unannounced--if the GM is clear that the dice are only suggestions and the group's okay with that, I'm good). I prefer it as little as possible though.

Ideally (in the games I play) rolls are on the table (I'd allow some hiding of rolls if the intent it to obscure something that ought to be obscure--but even then, I expect the roll to be whatever was actually rolled).

I also think that rules that tend to give PCs a pass (be it spending a Hero point, taking the best two-out-of-three if death is on the line, or simply having a rule like Risus does where defeated doesn't necessiarily mean dead) are good things.

-Marco

I really have no problem as a player or a GM with PCs being scythed down through the luck of the dice.  As a GM I think it nicely conveys danger and can shake-up a campaign by introducing a new character to it, as a player I think it's exciting and realistic.

I really don't hold with fudging the dice or pull your punches... the characters are adventurers and if successful then they reap the benefits of their high-risk lifestyle, if they fail then tough titty and here's a new character sheet.

A while ago I was playing what must be one of my favourite ever characters and while trying to rescue another character's sister, he got sucked into a fight despite being ill prepared.  He nearly got killed and while I would have been quite resentful towards the player who decided to hit the guy who turned out to be immeasurably strong and hard to kill without warning the group first, it also felt good to be close to losing something I loved.

If as a player you don't like straight luck of the dice you need to grow a pair and design better characters.

If as a GM you don't like straight luck of the dice then you need to let go of the reins and let random turn of events have an impact upon your campaign.

I don't have much common ground with the traditional roleplayers around here but I thought that we could all gather round the fire and agree that luck in games is a good thing.

I'd have to agree with Mr. Analytical's take to some extent. Of course, all to often random deaths occur for frivolous reasons too.

I'd like character deaths to have an impact on the players and other characters, and too random deaths, wether the fault of bad GMing or the result of a crappy game design, ruin that as surely as fudging every dice roll to save everyone.  


Too much fudging, which for some people is ANY fudging ruins the game. On the other hand, meaningless deaths, over and over again, can ruin the game for others.

To combat this, I want a game that makes death meaningful, rather than random, and yet is still brutally hard when it needs to be. I want it all, and I want it now!

QuoteTo combat this, I want a game that makes death meaningful, rather than random, and yet is still brutally hard when it needs to be. I want it all, and I want it now!

Choose:

A) Failure and severe wounding (including stat reduction)
B) Success and death

As mentioned in the other thread, I'm not a big fan of fudging. Not that I didn't do it in the past, sometimes I just don't want to bother coming up with a good plan that sticks to the rules. But deep in my heart I know it's BADONG.
I try to accept the rules as they come and let them simulate the premise of the game. Me and the players work within that framework. They have to stick to the rules when they do their part, so it's only fair that I do the same.

In over twenty years of gaming, I don't think I've ever GMed a game session where I followed all the rules to the letter.

I usually just roll the dice, and pretend to look up tables while just deciding what would be the most interesting and fun right now. Sometimes, "most interesting and fun" happens to be "what the dice rolls tell me." I use the rules and the dice and charts as inspiration, not as dictation. The rules shape and influence my game; they do not determine my game. I'm in charge, not a few hundred pages of cheeto-stained badly-edited mumbling.

Quote from: JimBobOzIn over twenty years of gaming, I don't think I've ever GMed a game session where I followed all the rules to the letter.

Can I just say something?  I get a little freaked out when game designers, especially guys who publish their own systems, say things like this.

Quote from: JDeMobrayOne of the things that I like about Spycraft 2.0, along with Mutants & Masterminds and other games that I play less frequently, is that the GM has a pool of action dice / villain points / whatever that he uses to activate critical hits against or critical fumbles by the players.  If he chooses not to activate the critical, the hit still occurs or the check is still failed but the PC suffers only the normal consequences.

I really like this idea. Thanks for bringing it up.

Quote from: jrientsCan I just say something?  I get a little freaked out when game designers, especially guys who publish their own systems, say things like this.

Why?

I designed my system with GMs like me in mind - a system where if you follow it to the letter, or if you fudge it a bit, you get broadly similar results. It's a system with what engineers call "tolerance" - enough room for the parts to move, without so much room that they fall apart. Game systems are sometimes called game "engines"  - and like real engines, you need to design it so that if one part isn't used, or stops working, the rest will still run along okay. You design it with some redundancy, and some tolerance.

For example, if you design your combat system so that a single bad die roll will kill a character, then your system has no tolerance - the slightest mistake in applying modifiers to the roll is deadly. But if you design your system so that it takes a whole string of bad die rolls to kill a character, then your system has some tolerance - if the GM forgot some modifier on roll #1, it's made up for by the randomness of rolls #2, #3, etc.

I don't see why a game designer saying they designed a system to allow for a combination of fudging and human error should be a worry. A system which requires perfect knowledge and application of it, or the whole thing falls down, is badly-designed - because no-one will ever have perfect knowledge or application of it. A GM forgetting some rule in the midst of the action is not effectively different from a GM's choosing to forget some rule. The system has to have enough tolerance in it to let that happen without disaster.

QuoteI usually just roll the dice, and pretend to look up tables while just deciding what would be the most interesting and fun right now.

Different hobby, different methods.

I've learn't a couple of things about GMing over the years, and one of them, is that if I as the GM wanted to fuck up /help the players, I sure as hell don't need to rely on luck (dice).

I think this whole GM's perogative is about influencing the game in certain situations...that would be best left to the dice than relying on one person,to determine what is better for the overall health of the group, IMO of course.

Regards,
David R

For my part I tend to allow fudging as a group decision rather than something that I feel is my right as GM.  So, I'll roll and if there is a result which would ruin the session, I'll make that clear and see if people agree that we should change it.  

And I'll chime in here that having an out for lethality (like the many systems which people mentioned) is appropriate for the system.  If the system doesn't have it, I would raise making it a house rule that people agree on.

Quote from: SettembriniDifferent hobby, different methods.

What do you mean?

Regards,
David R

(I think) He means you've removed the "game" portion of RPG by opting to tell a story and are no longer playing an RPG, but a Story-game.