| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Grimace
Captain
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| garhkal wrote: | | To me, if a gm has to fudge, something went wrong somewhere. The rule books says combat is deadly. So what if that mook stormtrooper hits the pc for 30+ damage. why should the pc get a pass from not suffering/losing just cause it was a mook. Leia got hit in the arm by a mook on endor. Luke got brought down by a mook on hoth (no name for the gunnery guy on that atat)... |
Now while I don't advocate saving the PCs just for the sake of "not appropriate to the story" or "because the player doesn't want his character killed yet", I don't feel that a fudge on a die roll means that something went wrong.
You ask why a PC should get a pass while a mook should not. Well, let's look at it from a GM perspective. How long does it take to create a mook? A few seconds? Maybe a minute? A GM can create dozens of mooks. A GM can throw untold numbers of mooks at the PC group. Mooks are, by general definition, a dime a dozen.
Now how long does it take to make a PC? A few minutes? For stats, yeah, a couple minutes or more. For the PC background, a bit longer. How many PCs does a single player have at his disposal? Typical is one. Sometimes a GM might let the player play 2 or 3 PCs if the situation is suitable for that. As the game goes on, and the player continues to play the same PC, what happens to that PC? It gets more advanced. Skills are built up. Background is filled in, a history of what has gone on with that PC during the course of playing is remembered. A player gets a vested interest in the PC simply due the amount of time spent playing and developing the PC.
How much does the GM advance a mook? Does the exact same mook get played every game session by the GM? Does the exact same mook advance like a PC does? Is the background of the mook developed? No, not usually. Only important NPCs usually get any of that treatment. At most, for a mook, a GM will give them beefier stats to take on more skilled PCs. But a mook is just a challenge to throw at the PCs, it's not something that the GM really invests a lot effort and devotion to the character.
So, as hopefully you can see, there is a difference, and even a reason, to sometimes give PCs a pass when a mook would not get the same treatment. Again, I'm not saying to remove the threat of having a PC die, as that basically removes the "challenge" aspect of throwing mooks or other things at the PCs. But at the same time, sometimes randomly rolling dice and realizing that a stray shot from an AT-AT that hits a tree and topples it, doesn't automatically fall on and kill a PC just because the dice "say so", is the right and proper way to fudge the die roll.
I've had random blasts coming in from starfighters or things like AT-ATs get close, and knock down PCs and even injure PCs. But if the players are doing the smart thing and not running out to face down the AT-AT by themselves, I'm not likely to randomly snuff a PC who's doing their best to avoid the shots, just because the dice come up with a killing blow. Will I hurt the PC...definitely. But I don't roll (even if I actually do roll high) kill shots from random "artillery" even though it's entirely realistic. The PCs, though, deserve more consideration than a common mook. So I'll wound or incapacitate rather than outright kill on something like that. On the other hand, if said player is being stupid and charging an AT-AT, shooting at it with a hand blaster, if I roll a shot and the damage results in a kill, that PC will die.
The fine line between bravery and stupidity is riddled with the dead bodies of PCs.
So it's a bit of an error to think that something has "gone wrong" when the GM has to fudge the dice. It's also a bit of an error to think there should be no difference between a mook and a PC. Just like it's a mistake to give the PCs script immunity or to leave the death of the PC solely up to the player to decide when or if it should happen. You, garhkal, are correct in saying that removal of "death to the PC" by a mook or some other challenge removes the ultimate price of failure and therefore cheapens the victories of the PCs. The real trick is finding a balance between the two camps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kytross
Line Captain
Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Of course if the GM is fudging something went wrong. And it can be the GM's fault.
The other month I ran a Homebrew Transformers D6 game. First time with the system, first swing of melee combat and my npc Decepticon killed my PC Autobot. Fudge time!
What it boils down to is that we play RPGs to have fun. I'm not a kid anymore, nor a college student. I have severely lmited free time. There are plenty of other things I could be doing that are fun, and that goes for my players as well. If I have to fudge a roll once in a blue moon to have a better time, so be it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hellcat
Grand Moff
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 11921
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not nessecicarily. The GM may also fudge to make things a little easier for a group of beginning PCs or more of a challenge for a group of veteran PCs.
_________________
FLUFFY for President!!!!
Wanted Poster |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hellcat wrote: | | Not nessecicarily. The GM may also fudge to make things a little easier for a group of beginning PCs or more of a challenge for a group of veteran PCs. |
Also, sometimes a fluke diceroll will alter the story too much if allowed to stand.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Critias
Ensign
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Really the "to fudge or not to fudge, that is the question" debate is something that can't be settled...because it's entirely a matter of opinion, and of what works at this game table versus that game table, and what different players like, what works best for a given GM, and on and on and on.
Some games are all about the awesome narrative and the epic story with an awesome action-movie feel, others prefer a lower-key, gritty, higher lethality vibe...and Lord knows, there's everything in between. And it's not just Star Wars -- there's high fantasy versus low fantasy, hard sci-fi versus space opera, etc, etc. It's all about what flavor of game you want to run, and what flavor of game your players want to play in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Raven Redstar wrote: |
Both of these, I see, as examples in my favor. 30+ damage would have destroyed Luke's snowspeeder, and the galaxy would be doomed. Toning back the damage a little, and making something dramatic happening is generally how I deal with death rolls before I'm ready for a player to die. Instead of having the speeder blow up instantaneously, which could be an outcome, everything ionizes and he crashes, suitable new fun bit happens next.
Instead of a 16 damage shot from a storm trooper killing the player. Tone it back to mortally wounded, or incapacitated and maim him, permanently, only to be fixed by a cybernetic replacement. Which could be an adventure in itself, if the party is nowhere near the proper medical facilities. It could turn into a race against time and/or infection. That's assuming that the trooper doesn't arrest him after. Nothing like going to a prison world with a barely working arm for an interesting follow up.
As far as I'm concerned, outright killing players is no fun. Torturing them or taking away everything that's important to them is more fun for them, and me. |
Then why not just 'DECIDE" what damage fits the story, rather than rolling the dice for their damage. Or better yet, just decide whether they even hit or not.
| Quote: | | Not nessecicarily. The GM may also fudge to make things a little easier for a group of beginning PCs or more of a challenge for a group of veteran PCs. |
I have rarely actually seen that happen.. I can count on one hand the number of times i have seen a gm fudge to make things harder...
| Quote: | | Also, sometimes a fluke diceroll will alter the story too much if allowed to stand. |
Then why are you even rolling the dice, if one roll can 'screw up the story'? Why not just decide what happens, when...
| Quote: | | Really the "to fudge or not to fudge, that is the question" debate is something that can't be settled...because it's entirely a matter of opinion, and of what works at this game table versus that game table, and what different players like, what works best for a given GM, and on and on and on. |
Too true critias. Too often (to my pov) it seems those advocating fudging are trying to take it from a role playing game and make it nothing more than an interactive story. if that is the case, why even have character sheets and dice?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rerun941
Commander
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 459
Location: San Antonio, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Critias wrote: | Really the "to fudge or not to fudge, that is the question" debate is something that can't be settled...because it's entirely a matter of opinion, and of what works at this game table versus that game table, and what different players like, what works best for a given GM, and on and on and on.
Some games are all about the awesome narrative and the epic story with an awesome action-movie feel, others prefer a lower-key, gritty, higher lethality vibe...and Lord knows, there's everything in between. And it's not just Star Wars -- there's high fantasy versus low fantasy, hard sci-fi versus space opera, etc, etc. It's all about what flavor of game you want to run, and what flavor of game your players want to play in. |
^ what he said. And it's also about managing the GM and Player expectations. Which is why I always tell my players my GMing style up front.
_________________
Han - "How're we doin'?"
Luke - "Same as always."
Han - "That bad, huh?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah the question seems to be more "to Fodge or Not?" I go a bit further and say that the qestion also encompasees when to fudge and how much.
One reason why it is such a hot topic for debate is that not all GMs fudge the same way, or according to the same criteria.
Now admitted sometimes the dice are flukey and give results that do not help the flow of the campaign. It would have sucked if LUke got killed by Sand People 15 minutes into the film and then the end credits ran. Such a situation can7t come up in a movie, but can come up in an RPG. And yes it does suck when such things happen in an an RPG, but then that is why PCs have Force Points and Character Points.
IMO, a little fudging might be acceptable, but only if the GM does it without tipping off the players. Once the players are aware that the GM is fudging it opens the door for some nasty problems:
1) For one thing the GMs reputation for fairness is shot. By the acting of fudging the Gm is not acting fair, but in an arbirary fashion.
2) Players will come to expect more fudging, and will qestion why the GM fudged, or more importantly why he didn't. Death becomes less a matter of bad tactics or the back luck on impartial dice rolls, and more a matter of GM decision. When ever someone does die (or suffer any type of misfortune) the playerr can question why the GM didn't fudge to avert it, when he already has done something similar to help others.
3) If the players are aware that the GM is acting as a guardian angel, they will often start to feel invulverable and act stupid and reckless (moreso than usual), since they think they will get away with it. After all, they know the GM will go out of his way not to kill them.
4) Active fudging tends to reduce the sense of accomplishment that players feel when they successfully complete an adventure. Hitting the exhaust port and starting a chain reaction that destroys the Death Star isn't as impressive if you know thatthe GM was fudging things and the outcome was fixed.
5) active fudige also takes some of the fun away, since the risks have been reduced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Raven Redstar wrote: |
Both of these, I see, as examples in my favor. 30+ damage would have destroyed Luke's snowspeeder, and the galaxy would be doomed. Toning back the damage a little, and making something dramatic happening is generally how I deal with death rolls before I'm ready for a player to die. Instead of having the speeder blow up instantaneously, which could be an outcome, everything ionizes and he crashes, suitable new fun bit happens next.
Instead of a 16 damage shot from a storm trooper killing the player. Tone it back to mortally wounded, or incapacitated and maim him, permanently, only to be fixed by a cybernetic replacement. Which could be an adventure in itself, if the party is nowhere near the proper medical facilities. It could turn into a race against time and/or infection. That's assuming that the trooper doesn't arrest him after. Nothing like going to a prison world with a barely working arm for an interesting follow up.
As far as I'm concerned, outright killing players is no fun. Torturing them or taking away everything that's important to them is more fun for them, and me. |
Then why not just 'DECIDE" what damage fits the story, rather than rolling the dice for their damage. Or better yet, just decide whether they even hit or not.
| Quote: | | Not nessecicarily. The GM may also fudge to make things a little easier for a group of beginning PCs or more of a challenge for a group of veteran PCs. |
I have rarely actually seen that happen.. I can count on one hand the number of times i have seen a gm fudge to make things harder...
| Quote: | | Also, sometimes a fluke diceroll will alter the story too much if allowed to stand. |
Then why are you even rolling the dice, if one roll can 'screw up the story'? Why not just decide what happens, when...
| Quote: | | Really the "to fudge or not to fudge, that is the question" debate is something that can't be settled...because it's entirely a matter of opinion, and of what works at this game table versus that game table, and what different players like, what works best for a given GM, and on and on and on. |
Too true critias. Too often (to my pov) it seems those advocating fudging are trying to take it from a role playing game and make it nothing more than an interactive story. if that is the case, why even have character sheets and dice? |
No point in being silly about it.. 
Theres no need to so black and white. Just because one might fudge a roll or two, doesnt mean that nothing is random. If a character almost makes his damage resistance roll and I think it would benefit the situation/story if he would make it, I might lower the damage roll by a point or two. But then again, I might not. Its hard to give a hard rule of how you make these calls, I guess 20+ years of GM:ing makes you make these decisions by instinct.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rerun941
Commander
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 459
Location: San Antonio, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | ...
4) Active fudging tends to reduce the sense of accomplishment that players feel when they successfully complete an adventure. Hitting the exhaust port and starting a chain reaction that destroys the Death Star isn't as impressive if you know thatthe GM was fudging things and the outcome was fixed.
...
|
I'm not disagreeing, just offering a counter-point...
Having seen Star Wars at least 100 times over the last 33 years, I still get goosebumps and/or cheer when the Death Star explodes. Even though I know it's coming and I know it's just a movie.
Also, I've enjoyed many a published adventure module that GMs have run for me, even though I had played it before, or read through it and know how it's supposed to end.
_________________
Han - "How're we doin'?"
Luke - "Same as always."
Han - "That bad, huh?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10402
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great feedback Grimace (and others).
| garhkal wrote: | | To me, if a gm has to fudge, something went wrong somewhere. The rule books says combat is deadly. |
The rules books also say to fudge. See R&E p.69, the 2nd page of the "How to Gamemaster" chapter:
| Quote: | | Interpret the Rules. No set of rules can cover every situation... Sometimes you'll also have to "fudge" the game results to strike the right balance and make the game challenging... Be fair and impartial. In your role as refereee, you're not trying to beat the players. You shouldn't fudge results just to frustruate them. Rather, interpreting the rules should be use to make the game more exciting. |
| atgxtg wrote: | | IMO, a little fudging might be acceptable, but only if the GM does it without tipping off the players. Once the players are aware that the GM is fudging it opens the door for some nasty problems |
| garhkal wrote: | | I can count on one hand the number of times i have seen a gm fudge to make things harder... |
How do you know they were fudging? The GMs you are counting on your hand failed because they must have let on that they were fudging. The first rule of fudging is, you don't let on that you did it. If the GM tells the players, he fails. If the players figure it out because GM is not fudging judiciously (fudging too often, too much for the players or too much against), then the GM still fails. If the players know about the fudging, then they will lose their trust in the GM. The fudging should be infrequent and not lean too much one way or the other to be successful.
And yes I feel a GM screen should be used. The point of the screen is not because so many rolls are fudges, but because if you have some rolls in front of the screen and some behind, then that creates the question in the minds of the players of why some are behind cover, not trusting the any of rolls behind the screen, when in reality most of them should not be fudges. If they are all behind the cover, then it is consistent. I'm also a fan of occasionally just rolling the dice for no reason to build tension in the players. "Ignore the man behind the curtain!"
Like Rerun, I am honest and up front to my players before beginning any campaign. I tell them I will occassionally fudge, but (1) keep it to a minimum, (2) fudge both ways evenly, (3) only do so in the interest of making the game more fun and exciting for all of us, and (4) you will never know when I fudge. I have not had the experience of losing the trust of the players that I am not running a "fair" game. Players have a good time in my games and that is the ultimate goal of role-playing in general.
| garhkal wrote: | | if that is the case, why even have character sheets and dice? |
Because that is the definition of a table-top RPG. They have rules. They are not merely interactive story telling. Rules are there to help the simulated reality fun, but no ruleset is perfect (including my upgrade to this game). There are times when the roll results and the rules themselves interfere with the fun for all, and those are the few, rare times fudging is appropriate.
It sounds like the people here that are against fudging have all had negative experiences of it ruining your enjoyment of the game. Don't hate the concept of fudging in general just because of the GMs you've had that don't use it properly. That's predudice. 8)
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Atgxtg wrote: | | Now admitted sometimes the dice are flukey and give results that do not help the flow of the campaign. It would have sucked if LUke got killed by Sand People 15 minutes into the film and then the end credits ran. Such a situation can7t come up in a movie, but can come up in an RPG. And yes it does suck when such things happen in an an RPG, but then that is why PCs have Force Points and Character Points. |
Ad that to me is not a good analogy. Luke is central to the story of star wars. Just like R2 and C3P0 are. No luke, no story.
And no game should be that way other wise you have things, like script immunity. Pcs feeling they have no control over what happens. Other pcs feeling 2nd fiddle
| Whill wrote: | | Interpret the Rules. No set of rules can cover every situation... Sometimes you'll also have to "fudge" the game results to strike the right balance and make the game challenging... Be fair and impartial. In your role as refereee, you're not trying to beat the players. You shouldn't fudge results just to frustruate them. Rather, interpreting the rules should be use to make the game more exciting. |
Which to me is a direct contradiction. How can you stay impartial if you are interpreting the results to make things in YOUR opinion funner... The fact you and only you decide if X would be funner is not being impartial.
| whill wrote: | | How do you know they were fudging? The GMs you are counting on your hand failed because they must have let on that they were fudging. The first rule of fudging is, you don't let on that you did it. If the GM tells the players, he fails. If the players figure it out because GM is not fudging judiciously (fudging too often, too much for the players or too much against), then the GM still fails. If the players know about the fudging, then they will lose their trust in the GM. The fudging should be infrequent and not lean too much one way or the other to be successful. |
My first con i noticed 4 overt/obvious fudges..
1st way was when he had a Tie fighter (base pilot of 6d+1, maneuver of 3d, -1d for map), roll less than 5 for dodging. Even with rolling all 1's that is impossible. BUT he did it, as the pc of the ship his ties were chewing up was getting upset he was not hitting anything but getting hit nearly every other shot...
2nd was when a jet pack bounty hunter (pc) went head first into a Monofillament razor wire strip after using his jet pack.. Player rolled 5 for his soak, dm said he soaked all the damage. A MFRWS does 8D damage to people moving at a fast rate of speed. Do unless he willfully took off damage/fudged it. there was no way in hell a 5 soak would soak all the damage as the min would be 6 with rollig 1s on all die.
The third was duruing a combat against 3 storm trooper squads. 1 squad (10 people firing) by our rules gives +4 bonus, both to hit and damage. A standard stormie is 4d. So that gives them 8d to shoot and 9d for damage if they hit. 6 is the min they can ever get on the roll, and 7 is the min the damage can be. When 2 people were hit in seperate rolls with their soaks being 8 and 11 respectively i find it hard to believe the troops rolled bare min on BOTH damages in a roll... especially when they rolled well above ave to hit.
See a trend?
| Whill wrote: | | It sounds like the people here that are against fudging have all had negative experiences of it ruining your enjoyment of the game. Don't hate the concept of fudging in general just because of the GMs you've had that don't use it properly. That's predudice. |
Maybe it is being prejudiced. BUT when every encountering of it i have had has shown its ugly head to be either cause the gm is showing favoritism or is more of telling a story we have little chance of changing (ETC), then it does cloud my judgement of how/if it should be used.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
You have not been the victim of fudging, but of bad GM:ing.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Critias
Ensign
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
To me there's a difference between "Ooh, damn. The heroic Brash Pilot PC spent his last Force Point to try and make that Piloting skill roll to maneuver past the very last obstacle, but the dice roll was just TERRIBLE for as good as it should have been, and right now that would mean the whole party dies in a horrible fireball. I'll pretend he rolled two higher than he did, so the campaign can keep going," and "LOLOLOL no one ever misses, or takes damage!" like you're describing.
One is fudging. One is rainbows and lollipops being handed out to the players, and done in so blatant a way that it (obviously) impacts upon the ability of anyone at the table to enjoy themselves.
I'm okay with a little nudge here and there, particularly in a game like Star Wars that's centered around -- as a default, at least -- epic heroism, good ultimately triumphing over evil, and that sort of thing. In a low fantasy Thieves' World type D&D game? In a Cyberpunk: 2020 game where the rulebook says, over and over again, life is cheap? Not so much. Were I running a more gritty, morally ambiguous, Fringer type Star Wars game? Probably not even then.
But in a game where I feel it's dramatically appropriate, and where it will obviously result in more fun -- for all involved, not just helping one player out -- I'm fine with giving them a point or two, here or there, if it's required. The Force works in mysterious ways, after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Critias wrote: | In a low fantasy Thieves' World type D&D game? In a Cyberpunk: 2020 game where the rulebook says, over and over again, life is cheap? Not so much. Were I running a more gritty, morally ambiguous, Fringer type Star Wars game? Probably not even then.
|
WFRP 1st edition came to my mind here. THAT game was tough! I had a friend that rolled up a Artisans (Candlemaker) Apprentice. Apart from a few (I think 3 random starting skills) his only career skill was Drive Cart, with little advancements on top of that. THAT was life in the gutters! 
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
