Depends heavily on what you and your players want out of the game. In all the campaigns I've been in the focus has been storytelling and character growth, so having a character die to some random happening would be counterproductive.
There have been situations within those campaigns where we've done things knowing that character death was a possibility, though, and in those cases we've carried through if the dice fell that way. The key is having buy-in from both player and DM on those particular moments of risk. Even a regular combat could turn into one of those if the player decides to press forward into danger.
This is an interesting comment, actually, because instead of hating on the new shows and comparing them to the old ones, Matt's hating on the old shows for being politically correct and saying DS9 and Voyager, the shows that were currently airing as of 1999, are the good ones. Even though DS9 was more diverse and less subtle about its themes, compared to TNG.
Imagine if Dave Cullen, Doomcock, Midnight's Edge, Nerdrotic, etc. dedicated their careers to saying that the new Star Trek shows were AWESOME because they were less woke than TNG and DS9. That's what this is.
Rules are important, but they aren't the most important thing as a GM.
The 2 things that are more important are: pacing and fun.
Not fudging dice is important, but if it is in the way of fun, then I either just not roll or only pretend to roll.
Same with pacing, if a roll is going to bog down the games pacing, making everything take longer for no reason other than the roll, then that roll does not matter.
I agree with this. I've always seen the rules as a framework to assist in collaborative story telling and keep things impartial and surprising. At any point where they begin to do more harm than good, we can change them.
I got down voted for saying this elsewhere, but to my mind there's a huge difference between the GM unilaterally changing the rules, and the group deciding.
Scenario: the goblin rolls a crit that'll kill the wizard. This is the first scene of the night.
Option A: GM decides in secret that's no good and says it's a regular hit.
Option B: GM says "I think it wouldn't be fun for the wizard to just die now. How about he's knocked out instead?". The players can then decide if they want that or would prefer the death.
Some people might legitimately prefer A, but I don't really want the GM to just decide stuff like that. I also make decisions based on the rules, and if they just change based on the GM's whims that's really frustrating and disorienting.
There's also option C where this kind of thing is baked into the rules. And/or deciding in session 0 what rules you're going to change.
I definitely dislike the idea of stopping the action and suggesting a direction. For my games I always try to aim for immersion, and this would really take me out of it.
I think you might have gotten the wrong idea about how I approach it, though. Part of keeping things surprising and impartial is avoiding changing things all the time secretly. That being said, I don't believe in a hard and fast rule of never fudging anything.
Here's an example where I would consider it. The players have been trying really hard to overcome an obstacle, and have had many setbacks already. They come up with an exciting and novel solution, but a bad roll happens on my end that would end this great idea in another failure. Because they've earned it by this point, and it will make for a more exciting game, I would likely fudge that roll and give it to them. I would do this in secret, because calling attention to it deflates the experience for the players.
I see the GM as a storyteller and entertainer, whose primary goal is to immerse the players into a story, and to create an exciting and unpredictable experience. Not everyone will view things like I do, and that's fine, but I wanted to clarify what I mean anyway. Hopefully that makes more sense now.
For your example, I'd probably still ask if the players wanted me to let the dice decide or not before rolling. My players once had a clever idea of setting some poison traps and using earthbind to deal with a wyvern. The thing made all of its saves and nothing worked. I could've lied, but we'd already agreed to openly roll and abide by it. Would lying have made it better? Maybe. The game carried on and that arc had a thrilling climax later.
Alternatively, if we'd been playing a game that has a "succeed with a cost" / "fail forward" mechanic it could have been satisfying. D&D and close relatives are especially prone to disappointment because of how random and binary they tend to be.
Anyway. All of this I think it reveals a difference in how RPGs are enjoyed by different people.
On one hand, there's going for immersion. The player wants to be in the world, be in the character, and feel everything there. It's very zoomed in.
On the other, where I hang out, it's more like a writer's room. I'm interested in telling a cool story, but I'm not really pretending to "be" my character. My character doesn't want a rival wizard to show up, but I as a player think that's interesting (and maybe want the fate point, too) so I can suggest that my "Rivals in the Academy" trouble kicks in now. I enjoy when I can invoke an aspect and shift the result in my favor, or when I can propose a clever way I can get what I want at a cost.
Neither's better or worse than the other, so long as everyone's on the same page. It can be bad if half the table wants to go full immersion and just talk in character for two hours and the other half doesn't.
I definitely agree that the beauty of ttrpgs is how many different things they can be to different people. We've got very different styles, but I think it's great you've found a way to play that works for you and your table!
As long as you're not going super hardcore, I don't see the problem with just letting the truth of the dice decide whether a character receives a 'fatal' blow, only to find after the combat encounter that the character is barely alive, and the rest of the group needs to focus all their resources on triage and emergency evac.
Getting out of a dangerous place with a barely conscious character can make for a pretty tense situation.
That's why revivify is for. What you did here is taken away a meaningful moment from a player, just because you wanted them not to make a different PC. If you want that moment, write it into the story with an NPC. Don't keep someone alive "just because". Playing "hardcore" has nothing to do with this - that's about balancing enemy encounters. Don't throw a dragon at an unprepared party sort of things.
Otherwise people will either be annoyed that a moment was taken away, come to the conclusion that their choices don't really matter, or they would expect of you that every time a character dies, they become "half concious". Suddenly you have a "why didn't my char do that???" moment at the table. It's the same with fudging dice, but when that happens, you are behind a GM screen so you are less likely to be found out. Still a shitty thing to do though.
It's all about what sort of group you're playing with. I run a group for some kids at my school and I know they would be heartbroken if I just straight up killed them.
I've only had to do this once though. I made it a lesson about caution. The player was being reckless, and they 'died'. Seeing how distraught he was, I decided after the encounter, that the other players should roll for a perception check, and noticed the character still breathing slightly. It was nice to see the kid perk up immediately afterwards.
Some games have this built in and you don't have to fudge it.
Fate, my go to example, has important but simple rules around losing a conflict.
At any point before someone tries to take you out, you can concede. That's a player action and not a character action. If you concede, you get a say in what happens to your character. That's where you as a group say "maybe they stab me but leave me for dead in the confusion" or "maybe the orcs take me prisoner so you all can rescue me next week". Whatever the group decides is cool goes, but you get a say. You make this call before the dice are rolled. You also get one or more fate points, which is nice.
If you instead push your luck and let them roll, and their attack is more than you can take, you're done. The rest of the table decides what happens but you don't get a say beyond what was agreed to in session 0.
This would also be pretty easy to import into DND or most other systems.
Look if someone's having a bad time, it don't cost much to throw em a bone. Like sure, that last attack killed them a round early because everyone has had a moment to feel proud today but you. Or like the spellcaster who is feeling a bit shitty because every monster has saved against their spells by some fluke today.
Like if they aren't having fun, what am I doing here?
Video games do this shit all the time. Famously the first GoW gave new players a small boost in multiplayer. It led to a community and better engagement in the long run because people had more fun. BG3 has that goofy 'karmic dice' system, which is on by default. Fire emblem lies. etc etc
the problem with flubbing is the dishonesty and unilateralness. You can play a different system that doesn't create the situation your players don't like so easily.
Or honestly just import Fate points and "succeed at a cost" into dnd. The dice system still sucks but that would help tremendously.
I think obvious that she would have sided with Maddox and disagreed with the ruling. I don't think her capable of overcoming her prejudices against artificial life forms.
I think that's something that gets forgotten. Season 2 gets skipped through a lot during rewatches I know. All anyone remembers is her being racist to data.
She starts out mean to Data but she comes around by the end of the season. She is also a former lover of Kyle Riker, which could have made for a much more interesting dynamic for and with Riker if it had continued.
I know that I can, based on experience. It is often an outline and can be revised, but having that as a starting point makes rolling with the unexpected easy enough.
Like having a route and planning on how to handle unexpected roadwork or changes in train schedules. It isn't necessary to plan every detail or how it will pan out, just major things that need to be handled until the end of the session and there is time to hash out the details before the next.
startrek.website
Top