But if fudging dice rolls is teaching kids wrong, then so is ruling not rules. In fact, the latter implies the former is completely acceptable.

Quote from: jeff37923;1057273As much as I loathe to suggest it, fudging of dice rolls in game is right at the core of the question, "Is GMing an art or a science?"

Yes.

The Science is in knowing what works, and the Art is in implementing it.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1057276Fudging undermines and damages trust.

That's only if you've all agreed to abide by the dice results.

If not, then it's an issue of accountability, because if you can ignore any roll you don't like, then you're fully accountable for any results. And if you can stop bad things from happening to the characters, then it's fair to say you wanted those things to happen if you don't.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1057301If dice fudging are a bad thing, then why do we GM screens?

The pretense of mystery!

Seriously though, fudging does become more likely when you lower the opportunity cost through a GM screen.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1057312It's entirely possible to have a situation where something is a known flaw in process or user, but the cost of repairing the flaw is too high to justify the work, given the amount of times it happens.

Which is why good design matters.

Quote from: trechriron;1057338I would say that either a) dying during character creation or b) dying instantly with a space travel die roll are perfect examples of flawed design.

On the contrary, dying during character creation is typically a result of pushing your luck, which is always good game design.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1057351do the player-characters survive because they are the heroes, or are they the heroes because they survive?

You may have hit on the best way to differentiate Storygames and RPGs yet!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1057351The great thing about rpgs is that we can do it without real consequences.

Come to think of it, the set of people who feel this is true or not runs surprisingly parallel.

Quote from: Chris24601;1057452Unless you actually wrote the system (and sometimes not even then, I have horror stories about the Arcanis RPG design process) no GM is going to be aware of every little quirk of the system they're using and, from my experience, very few are versed enough in actual probability to be able to judge things related to it with any accuracy.

If only the designer is capable of using the system they designed properly, then they have failed as a designer. And if the system has so many quirks that you cannot predict the kind of experience it will generate, then it has failed as a system. Sadly I know more designers and games like this than not, partly because the surrounding culture makes the same assumptions you do.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1057624If only the designer is capable of using the system they designed properly, then they have failed as a designer. And if the system has so many quirks that you cannot predict the kind of experience it will generate, then it has failed as a system. Sadly I know more designers and games like this than not, partly because the surrounding culture makes the same assumptions you do.

I didn't say people who aren't the designer can't use a system properly. I said unless you're the designer (and sometimes not even then) you're unlikely to be aware of every idiosyncrasy in the ruleset; particularly when it comes to probability. It's bad enough getting people to grok straight percentages and linear probabilities, much less bell curves and you can downright forget about the effect of repeated independent probabilities has on overall probability (1% chance doesn't mean it happens once in every 100 rolls, but that it has a 1% chance for each of those hundred rolls; there's actually only a 64.4% chance of the 01 result coming up in any given batch of 100 rolls (and some sets will likewise end up with more than one 01 result).

If you look at the above and go "Huh?" then you're among most players and GMs and a larger than you'd expect percentage of game designers than you'd hope. The net result is that most people's expectations of the odds are rarely what they think they are.

Frankly, "whole party dies from one failed check; campaign ends" is about the dumbest result a game designer could put into a game.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1057624...

On the contrary, dying during character creation is typically a result of pushing your luck, which is always good game design.

...

If the point of the game is to take chances? I always thought the point of an RPG was to roleplay. Also, why not just then keep rolling up a character till you get what you want?

This is poorly thought out game design. Unnecessary grit-wank, easily discarded anyways, that serves no purpose. You can go play poker and push your luck. RPGs should be about more than seeing what cool character you can roll up on your 12th attempt.

Quote from: trechriron;1057641If the point of the game is to take chances? I always thought the point of an RPG was to roleplay. Also, why not just then keep rolling up a character till you get what you want?

This is poorly thought out game design. Unnecessary grit-wank, easily discarded anyways, that serves no purpose. You can go play poker and push your luck. RPGs should be about more than seeing what cool character you can roll up on your 12th attempt.

Indeed, what exactly is the point of killing the character during creation if player just gets to start over and can eventually get lucky?

Now a system which increases the odds of getting more severe drawbacks ("oops, there goes your arm.") the character has to live with is one where pushing your luck has meaning, because if it goes poorly you've actually got to play that character warts and all.

Quote from: Chris24601;1057642Indeed, what exactly is the point of killing the character during creation if player just gets to start over and can eventually get lucky?

Now a system which increases the odds of getting more severe drawbacks ("oops, there goes your arm.") the character has to live with is one where pushing your luck has meaning, because if it goes poorly you've actually got to play that character warts and all.

The purpose is it creates a mini-game out of character generation. Each term, look at your character, are you satisfied with it? Do you want to try for one more term for another skill or two or chance at promotion? Sure, if your character dies, you get to try again, and this time you might get lucky. But your next character will likely be different.

Now in 1981, an option was offered that a failed survival roll just drummed the character out (I thought this was introduced before 1981, but I see no mention of it in Book 4 or 5, maybe it was mentioned in JTAS).

Personally, I like the death rule. It does make an incentive to cut and run early rather than push for the absolute maximum. On the other hand, if there's something you don't like about your character, keep pushing and hope he dies (and if he doesn't hey, maybe you got a really cool character out of the deal).

I've been enjoying "play what you get" old school roll up methods lately. Yea, sometimes your character is a bummer. For Traveller, I actually am fine with a player rolling up a few characters and picking their favorite. I can use the extras as NPCs, or they can save them and have them as a back up in case their first played character dies, or with a small playgroup, we might allow each player to play two characters.

I also have tweaked Paul Gorman's online character generator to allow using it to roll characters until you get certain things (a particular skill, a ship, a minimum number of terms). Part of why I did that was I sensed that players were rolling characters using the generator (it produces a single character about as fast as you can push refresh on your browser) until they got a "perfect" character. If you really want a Scout with a ship, I'd rather you take the first one you get (I also fixed it so that if this was your goal, you didn't almost automatically end up with a 7-term Scout).

Oh, and if we want to get really pedantic, character generation is over in 1977 Classic Traveller before you join a service:

"A newly generated character is singularly unequipped to deal with the adven-turing world, having neither the expertise nor the experience necessary for the ac-tive life. In order to acquire some experience, it is possible to enlist in a service."

Note is says "it is possible" not "the next step is"...

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;1057645The purpose is it creates a mini-game out of character generation. Each term, look at your character, are you satisfied with it? Do you want to try for one more term for another skill or two or chance at promotion? Sure, if your character dies, you get to try again, and this time you might get lucky. But your next character will likely be different.

Now in 1981, an option was offered that a failed survival roll just drummed the character out (I thought this was introduced before 1981, but I see no mention of it in Book 4 or 5, maybe it was mentioned in JTAS).

Personally, I like the death rule. It does make an incentive to cut and run early rather than push for the absolute maximum. On the other hand, if there's something you don't like about your character, keep pushing and hope he dies (and if he doesn't hey, maybe you got a really cool character out of the deal).

I've been enjoying "play what you get" old school roll up methods lately. Yea, sometimes your character is a bummer. For Traveller, I actually am fine with a player rolling up a few characters and picking their favorite. I can use the extras as NPCs, or they can save them and have them as a back up in case their first played character dies, or with a small playgroup, we might allow each player to play two characters.

I also have tweaked Paul Gorman's online character generator to allow using it to roll characters until you get certain things (a particular skill, a ship, a minimum number of terms). Part of why I did that was I sensed that players were rolling characters using the generator (it produces a single character about as fast as you can push refresh on your browser) until they got a "perfect" character. If you really want a Scout with a ship, I'd rather you take the first one you get (I also fixed it so that if this was your goal, you didn't almost automatically end up with a 7-term Scout).

Oh, and if we want to get really pedantic, character generation is over in 1977 Classic Traveller before you join a service:

"A newly generated character is singularly unequipped to deal with the adven-turing world, having neither the expertise nor the experience necessary for the ac-tive life. In order to acquire some experience, it is possible to enlist in a service."

Note is says "it is possible" not "the next step is"...

Frank

We had a discussion about Traveller character generation in a Group I Admin recently. Most people don't or have never used the Death In CharGen rule. If you generate a character that you don't like, or who doesn't survive - you start over and that half-finished character becomes an NPC. That is the most common response, but everyone plays how they like.

Quote from: trechriron;1057641If the point of the game is to take chances? I always thought the point of an RPG was to roleplay.

Most RPGs I know of (all probably) have to roll to see if you succeed in myriad of things, from convincing the guard to stabbing the guard. Rolling dice is taking a chance. Not sure why this would be unusual in an RPG.

Quote from: trechriron;1057641If the point of the game is to take chances? I always thought the point of an RPG was to roleplay. Also, why not just then keep rolling up a character till you get what you want?

This is poorly thought out game design. Unnecessary grit-wank, easily discarded anyways, that serves no purpose. You can go play poker and push your luck. RPGs should be about more than seeing what cool character you can roll up on your 12th attempt.

The point of RPGs is to make choices. Without choice, there is only narrative. Sometimes those choices are to take a chance.