Quote from: DominikSchwager;505003Fudging dice is something only certain trad gamers do.

To me the essence of a storygamer is that that is someone who wants to participate in flexing their creative muscles in an actively creative way during the game - dreaming things up --- someone for whom the telling of the "story" is part of the game and thus something they want to be involved in as much as possible (which therefore means not strictly limited to choosing their character's actions/intentions). I can see that that would generally mean not wanting the kind of Viking Hat GM / final arbiter GM who can fudge rolls without the players knowing about it, or who can overrule the dice on his own... but why would it mean that the players as a group (including the GM) can't fudge the dice-rolls if it's more fitting to the "story"? Is it because you wouldn't put something to a dice-roll unless you were willing for it to go either way --- you wouldn't risk consequences which you didn't want to risk? I suppose that means you don't need to fudge, because nothing has been rolled for which wouldn't be acceptable to the group. But if these storygamers were using a system which wasn't designed for that kind of play, and it gave results nobody wanted, might they not agree as a group to fudge it? How is that any less storygamey?

Obviously difficult for me to empathise with, because to me when I'm playing I'm interested in experiencing the game-world through my character, not making the game-world up as I go along...

I will TPK in session 1. I have done so, in 4e D&D last year.  The player can always reuse the stats for their next PC.

Quote from: Omnifray;505025but why would it mean that the players as a group (including the GM) can't fudge the dice-rolls if it's more fitting to the "story"? Is it because you wouldn't put something to a dice-roll unless you were willing for it to go either way --- you wouldn't risk consequences which you didn't want to risk?

There is no fudging dice rolls in storygames because you don't make up a story, you play one. There is a difference.
Die roll fudging and storygaming are anathema to each other for this very reason.

The dice fall as they fall, be it right after chargen or a lot further down the line.
.
If the player gets in deep right off the bat then hopefully he will learn from it and the next character will survive longer.

Even new players get the treatment. We will encourage them to keep playing and freely give them advice to stay alive, but if they make bad choices or fate is against them, it is as it is.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;505040There is no fudging dice rolls in storygames because you don't make up a story, you play one. There is a difference.
Die roll fudging and storygaming are anathema to each other for this very reason.

I don't buy that logic.

A roleplaying game is also there to be played, not simply narrated by the GM.

I'm very trad really, and I far prefer dice-rolls to be made in the open whenever that doesn't create problems in terms of in-character versus out-of-character knowledge for the players.

It seems to me that there is no logical reason why a storygame (in the sense of a game being played for the story) shouldn't involve an element of fudging in the right circumstances, once you divorce the notion of storygame from the Edwardsian dogma and doctrine which tend to cluster around that concept. IF that element of fudging makes the game the poorer, I would say that's no different to in a trad game, where it also does so.

Thus for instance you could cheat at Fiasco to make the final narration more satisfying. And other players could overlook it cos it makes the story end better.

Quote from: Omnifray;505093I don't buy that logic.

A roleplaying game is also there to be played, not simply narrated by the GM.

I'm very trad really, and I far prefer dice-rolls to be made in the open whenever that doesn't create problems in terms of in-character versus out-of-character knowledge for the players.

It seems to me that there is no logical reason why a storygame (in the sense of a game being played for the story) shouldn't involve an element of fudging in the right circumstances, once you divorce the notion of storygame from the Edwardsian dogma and doctrine which tend to cluster around that concept. IF that element of fudging makes the game the poorer, I would say that's no different to in a trad game, where it also does so.

Thus for instance you could cheat at Fiasco to make the final narration more satisfying. And other players could overlook it cos it makes the story end better.

You can "not buy" that logic all you want, that doesn't change the way things are. You will probably never find a storygame that comes out and proclaims a rule zero or something like the gamemaster has the power to fudge die rolls. However it is fairly easy to find trad games with these rules and most trad gamemasters just assume they have this power out of tradition.

I am not saying one thing is superior, I am just saying that when you think storygames are about a predecided story or a collaborative story writing, then that is a misconception. Sure, in a storygame you usually decide the setting of your story together, but after that, you have to back up your stuff with die rolls.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335Many of us probably play games where CharGen takes forty minutes to an hour.

Not if I can help it.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335Some of us probably play games where CharGen can take a whole session . . .

I won't play a game where chargen could possibly take that long to complete.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335. . . and players go on to build lovingly crafted backstories for their characters.

I encourage players to stick with minimal backstories. If they don't heed that advice, then the consequences are on them.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335But what if literally the first significant thing that happens after CharGen is that through some mildly imprudent choice your character ends up exposed to some common ailment, rolls badly and dies?

Like the guy who's dwarf fighter sank into a hole in the bottom of a stream and drowned on the way into the dungeon?

Quote from: Omnifray;503335Would you rewind the game and say, let's keep the character and start again?

No.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335Would you overrule the dice?

No.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335Assuming that the players have participated in lengthy CharGen:- Is it acceptable to kill a character in the very first session?

Sure.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335Is it acceptable to visibly fudge it so the character doesn't die in the very first session? What about invisibly?

Neither one is acceptable to me.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335What about if you're only ten or twenty minutes into the very first session?

Then we've likely had our first memorable moment of the campaign.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335I'm all for expecting players to be robust about character death, but if you make your mate sit down for two hours to gen up a character . . .

Please tell me you see that as the real problem here.

Quote from: Omnifray;503335. . .  then straight away roll some dice and tell him he's dead, you're going to provoke some kind of a tantrum at the very least. You might well get punched in the face.

Seriously? These are the kind of people you play with?

Quote from: Omnifray;503335So what's the answer to this, and what implications does it have for the kinds of game we're playing, for immersion, for emulation, for believability, for the "we're not here to tell stories" argument, for "script immunity"?

One answer is, Don't play games that require lengthy cargen.

Another is, Set clear expectations at the outset.

Another is, Don't throw the dice if you're not prepared to accept the results.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;505166You will probably never find a storygame that comes out and proclaims a rule zero or something like the gamemaster has the power to fudge die rolls. However it is fairly easy to find trad games with these rules and most trad gamemasters just assume they have this power out of tradition.

Speaking as a pretty trad gamer, I roll in the open, and the results stand.

Quote

QuoteMany of us probably play games where CharGen takes forty minutes to an hour.

Not if I can help it.

I am kewl with it.  It is not like we are in a hurry anyways.

Quote

QuoteSome of us probably play games where CharGen can take a whole session . . .

I won't play a game where chargen could possibly take that long to complete.

Hmmm, extremely unusual because in over 36+ years, I never had that happen.  What game is this you speak of???


 

Quote

Quote. . . and players go on to build lovingly crafted backstories for their characters.

I encourage players to stick with minimal backstories. If they don't heed that advice, then the consequences are on them.

I prefer decent backstories but not a novel.  I encourage it.  Personalization of characters is important in my game.

Quote

QuoteBut what if literally the first significant thing that happens after CharGen is that through some mildly imprudent choice your character ends up exposed to some common ailment, rolls badly and dies?

Like the guy who's dwarf fighter sank into a hole in the bottom of a stream and drowned on the way into the dungeon?

Crap happens...


 

Quote

QuoteWould you rewind the game and say, let's keep the character and start again?

No.

Nope.  Never.


 

Quote

QuoteWould you overrule the dice?

No.

Oh hell no.  Never.

Quote

QuoteAssuming that the players have participated in lengthy CharGen:- Is it acceptable to kill a character in the very first session?

Sure.

Absolutely...


 

Quote

QuoteIs it acceptable to visibly fudge it so the character doesn't die in the very first session? What about invisibly?

Neither one is acceptable to me.

I do not fudge rolls.  Why fudge them if you roll in front of players.  Poor decision if you do.  The die lands where it rolls.  

Quote

QuoteWhat about if you're only ten or twenty minutes into the very first session?

Then we've likely had our first memorable moment of the campaign.

Have you ever played with a group of players in S1 The Tomb Of Horrors???


 

Quote

QuoteI'm all for expecting players to be robust about character death, but if you make your mate sit down for two hours to gen up a character . . .

Please tell me you see that as the real problem here.

It is what it is.  If not, find another hobby to play.


 

Quote

Quote. . . then straight away roll some dice and tell him he's dead, you're going to provoke some kind of a tantrum at the very least. You might well get punched in the face.

Seriously? These are the kind of people you play with?

Are these people at your table?   They would punch you in your face.  Hope you have a lot fo makeup to cover the bruises.


 

Quote

QuoteSo what's the answer to this, and what implications does it have for the kinds of game we're playing, for immersion, for emulation, for believability, for the "we're not here to tell stories" argument, for "script immunity"?

One answer is, Don't play games that require lengthy cargen.

Another is, Set clear expectations at the outset.

Another is, Don't throw the dice if you're not prepared to accept the results.

I disagree with the first part about games that require lengthy character generation.  If that is what the players want, who am I to say otherwise.

I agree with setting expectations.  Let them know how you are as a DM.

I agree with the third point wholeheartedly.

Quote from: B.T.;503765Dexterity check or die?  Sounds like a shitty GM.  Dexterity check or slip is another thing, but telling you straight off the bat that your character falls to his death unless you pass a check is junk.

I have no issue with save-or-die situations.

The question in my mind is, did the adventurer have an opportunity to do something which could've reduced the risk? #greylond notes that the adventurer in the ledge example could've roped up but neglected to do so out of a sense of invulnerability.

Turning the situation into, 'Roll to slip. Now roll to wave your arms and regain your balance. Now roll to grap the edge with your fingertips. Now roll to grab a shrub sticking out of the cliff,' annoys me no end. If I was refereeing the example, I'd consider allowing someone else's character to try to roll to grab the falling adventurer - at considerable personal risk - but if that's not reasonable under the circumstances, the adventurer is buzzard bait. Here's a blank character sheet, and let me know what you come up with so I can work the new guy in.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;505498Speaking as a pretty trad gamer, I roll in the open, and the results stand.

And I salute you for doing so.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;505166You can "not buy" that logic all you want, that doesn't change the way things are. You will probably never find a storygame that comes out and proclaims a rule zero or something like the gamemaster has the power to fudge die rolls.

If that's true at all, it's only because they all worship at the shrine of the Forge, where "system matters", etc. etc. If trad gamers become attached to characters and may be tempted to fudge to save them, why not storygamers becoming attached to themes and tempted to fudge to save them? I'm thinking of a post-Edwards world here, where people are liberated from the shackles of The "Big" "Model".

Quote from: DominikSchwager;505166However it is fairly easy to find trad games with these rules and most trad gamemasters just assume they have this power out of tradition.

In fact AD&D 1st ed DMG specifically gives the example of, where a player has been tactically sensible and careful, changing a death into a devastating injury, because people build up attachments to their characters.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;505166... I am just saying that when you think storygames are about a predecided story or a collaborative story writing, then that is a misconception. Sure, in a storygame you usually decide the setting of your story together, but after that, you have to back up your stuff with die rolls.

I'm not saying they're necessarily about a predecided story (though in some cases, e.g. Montsegur 1244, there is a heavy element of that... in a sense it compares very neatly to a heavily railroaded trad game except that the GMing role is shared out around the table). I'm not saying that they're necessarily about collaborative story writing (though Fiasco is essentially that). People seem to play storygames to "get creative" and "explore themes" and because the focus of their enjoyment is the developing "story" they want to have a hand in it.

Suppose (as a thought experiment) that they're not playing a tailored storygame system but are in effect storygaming with the written rules for a trad RPG. They would be "fudging" things all the time by, for instance, not rolling for a random enounter in D&D if it would interfere with the pace of the "story", or not rolling for a goblin to hit the 1 HP magic-user because it's not a fitting time for him to die. How is that different, in principle, to having a tailored storygame system which allows you, for instance, to dictate the stakes in advance of rolling dice?

Any deviation from simulationist-probabalistic randomisation of tasks/fights could be regarded as a bit of fudgeroo. This is not to say that fudgeroo is necessarily a bad thing - what I want for instance is immersion and atmosphere (excitement, fear, mystery etc.), not necessarily pure simulation.

Anyway by that measure, story games are the ultimate in fudgeroo, because they are so vehemently anti-simulation. For instance, if we weren't "fudging" things in Montsegur 1244 by giving central characters script immunity, they might be trying silly heroics and getting killed before the story reached its fruition. In Fiasco, you might easily get to a situation where the most likely outcome is for a character to die before the end of the game. Yet that isn't permitted. It's like a big fudge, but oh no, honest it's not a fudge, because it's written in the black and white rules! How is that different to a fudge in a trad game if the GM's fudgeroo power is also written in the black and white rules? It's a pretension, a conceit, a vanity, a self-delusion to think that storygamers don't fudge. They hardwire the fudging into the rules!! - and call it script immunity or whatever.

That's why storygamers often come across as munchkins to those trad gamers who don't really understand what storygamers are about or can't empathise with them. The storygamer's unwillingness to have realistic probabilities dictate the outcome of the game, just like his unwillingness to submit to the rule of an all-powerful GM, makes him seem like a total whinger. I'm not saying that that's a fair assessment of the storygamer, just that from an insular trad gamer's point of view, munchkins and storygamers can often seem similar.

[Rant over!]

Quote from: Black Vulmea;505497...
Seriously? These are the kind of people you play with?
...

No, but someone once told me face to face about how he wanted to break a game designer's face in because the game design had in effect set the situation up to happen which I described in the OP. I doubt he would have actually done it though if he'd had the chance - he seems a nice enough guy.

I've never seen an RPG session degenerate into real-world violence as far as I can recall (heated discussion, sure, and maybe a couple of times in my life I've seen people make threats of violence), but I've heard of it happening.

I ought to add, I've gamed with hundreds of different people. It's not as if anyone I currently game with regularly has ever threatened anyone with game-related violence that I'm aware of. If you game with enough people eventually you will meet a complete fruit loop.

Quote from: Omnifray;505564Any deviation from simulationist-probabalistic randomisation of tasks/fights could be regarded as a bit of fudgeroo.

Yeah, you and me both know that you are not really thinking that and that you know full well that rules for genre emulation are not the same thing as fudging and that you picked two very specific examples that have no analogue in the majority of storygames... and that even those two examples are kinda weak.

As for your first paragraphs... I can't answer to that, I don't read the forge. Personally, I think system matters, because that is my experience in actual play and I don't like changing the rules, because well, we had a thread about that and I am not going to summon the trolls again.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;505632Yeah, you and me both know that you are not really thinking that and that you know full well that rules for genre emulation are not the same thing as fudging ...

...

To me, the line between "fudging" and rules for "genre emulation" is a thin one... you're twisting common sense / logic / internal coherence to make the game go a certain way, it's fudgeroo