I've been using X/Twitter lately, but I have no idea if I'm doing it right.
I just take a look at what people I follow are talking about and start rambling over half a dozen tweets.
Today I've seen two related subjects: encounter balance and fudging (more specifically, a kind of "deus ex machina" that is tantamount to fudging, i.e., send the dragon or Paladin to save the PCs if they ever get caught in a bad situation).
The reason seems to be this bit from an upcoming D&D module that teaches new players how to play (Peril in Pinebrook). Apparently, it is a specifically written for children:
As you can see, they avoided recommending that you simply change the results of the dice - but the effects are pretty much the same.
Well, I have written several posts against fudging and illusionism already, so I'll try to avoid repeating myself too much.
Instead, I'll just mention a couple of thoughts I expressed on X/Twitter today.
---
"Fudging" and "illusionism" are popular among D&D players in 2023.
It's okay if your table likes them, but I hate to see it taught as if this was the ONLY valid playstyle.
ESPECIALLY while you are learning the game.
---
I don't like this, but if your table wants kids gloves this is a valid playstyle... just be honest that this is what you're doing.
I think kids have to learn honesty and fair play too.
---
You absolutely can run a game where no PCs ever die for good.
E.g., Dark Souls. Or Toon.
Just be honest to your players about it.
---
I wish that everyone that recommends fudging the dice would add at least a few caveats:
- It is not universally accepted (and there are several people that strongly advises AGAINST it).
- Can lead to loss of trust (the GM is lying/cheating) and wrong assumptions (e.g., "we can defeat an adult red dragon"!).
- Puts an undue burden on the GM (e.g., "I am responsible for saving the PCs").
---
Some people believe both in "balanced encounters" and that "fudging is okay".
So, the encounters are designed for the PC's convenience, but if they (or you) FU you STILL have to save their asses?
I can see defending one or the other - I like neither - but defending BOTH is strange IMO.
Makes you think that the GM is not only responsible to create "fair" fights (or, to be more precise, fights the PCs will probably win) but ALSO to save them if they don't.
---
That's all I have for today... "Balanced encounters" deserve a post of its own.
For now...
I wish you all a Merry Christmas!
---
Aditional reading:
My question is, if you're going to fudge the dice (or "change probabilities") why are you even rolling dice at all? If you don't want the possibility of failure, fine; just drop the dice, and the pretense that dice rolls and the rules referencing them matter at all and make it openly and unabashedly a tabletop improv session or whatever.
ReplyDeleteYes, exactly. Or just use some other method of conflict resolution: tokens, voting, declarating events in turns, etc.
DeleteThis was excellent, especially nice to see an acknowledgement that you CAN run games without PC death, there just need to be alternate stakes.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I love PC death and the associated fun, but think it's naïve of "old-school" gamers to be so quick to decry non-fatal games.
Yes, this deserves further exploration. PC death is a problem that can be solved in multiple ways: quick PC creation, ressurrection, etc.
DeleteIm always rolling out in the open, no fudging for me.
ReplyDeleteI have on occasion played softball by having monsters divide their attacks between player characters or attacking suboptimally. However I only do this when its feasible. (E.g. a well-trained group of assassins will not do this, but mindless undead will.).
I know that my players would not want me to pull the punch on a critical die-roll. After all, if I do this once, and they find out, how can they ever be sure that they won an encounter by their own power?