TheRPGSite

I did it. I never do it. I can't stand it when it's done. But this week I did it.

I fudged.

First, the mealy-mouthed excuses part:

We've been playing Exalted and the system is new to me. It's hard to get a handle on the exact power level of a PC or NPC for me right now. The PCs I understand pretty well because I've seen them in practice. NPCs are a different story though, because the power level of a charm on paper can be different than it is in an actual fight, plus the math isn't as easy as many other games so average damage is harder to eyeball.

I overwhelmed then. It wouldn't have been that way if one of the PCs hadn't decided not to be in the fight (he had great reasons, and I don't blame him at all). They were getting nickelled and dimed to death as can often happen in Exalted combat, but because they were a man short the pings were spread amongst fewer PCs and coming at them longer.

But there it was, towards the end of the climactic battle with the demon they'd been hunting for four sessions. A dragon blooded mercenary hanging around for money and revenge would have killed one of the PCs deader than a doornail with a good roll, but the circumstances of the death wouldn't have been fun for the player.

So I acted like it was a normal roll instead.

I feel dirty.

You are dead to me.

:talktothehand:

Eh.  I remain unimpressed with the Frasier-esque levels of overanalysis when it comes to the fudging thing.  

It's jsut a fucking die roll already.  Fun First.

and anyway, don't feel bad about the hypocrisy thing, it goes around a lot here.

Doesn't the Exalted-verse have some silly stuff about reincarnation? Possibly through the digestive tract(s) of a wacky dinosaur? That way, death can be fun! Wheee...

It depends on your definition of silly I suppose. Your spirit hangs around until it finds a worthy new host and then dives on in. It doesn't necessarily follow the same skill path as the last time it was around, so a general may be reborn as a scouting archer. It's not an instantaneous thing, and not likely to occur anywhere near the original death, but I may use it as a way of reintroducing the same character at a later point.

I doubt I'll ever have the reincarnated character belong to the same player as the one that died, as that would seem to videoo-gamey to me and make it too easy for the players to start thinking that death doesn't matter.

Well done, McMurray! You put actual human beings before several hundred pages of sloppily-written, badly-edited, saucily-illustrated book. Good job!

Soon, you will learn to fudge stuff for purely fun reasons, not just to save their arses. And then your trip on the Road of Fun will be just beginning!

Whenever I overestimate a challenge very badly, I'll fudge some rolls, too.

Or, since I do die-rolling in the open most of the time, I'll make a math "error" or forget to roll an attack.

I don't fudge often - the flip side of open die rolls is that the players know exactly what I rolled and feel a good deal of pressure to keep alive.

-O

Especially when learning a new game, I've been known to respond to a deflating roll with something like, "Oh, now that's just out of line, isn't it? We won't be making that mistake again, will we?" and then just go ahead and fudge things.  There's usually a moment of discomfort, and then everyone lets it slide, play continues, and we don't make that mistake again.

!i!

I feel for you James.

Now get out of my sight.

Seriously, did you tell the players about this? Will you? Can't you just say, look, I screwed up (not the fudge, but the assessment of their capabilities)?

Were the players at all responsible? I mean, did they have a choice? Were they lulled into a belief that you'd never throw anything at them that they couldn't handle? You should think about whether you want to foster that sensibility, or if you'd rather say: dudes, I don't always know what I'm tossing at you, so you need to use your knowledge of the system, too.

Finally, what about introducing a hero point system? Could this have been avoided if the player who'd refused the fight for "great reasons" had gotten some sort of benny, that could then have been passed on to the rest of the group as necessary?

Or y'know, heck, he may have had "great reasons" but if the group was supposed to fight that enemy, then maybe his job is to find a good reason to show up nevertheless, maybe at a key moment. You could even combine this with the benny concept.

Quote from: James McMurrayI feel dirty.

Yes, well, quite.

But do what I do: Make it up in some other way.

Seanchai

:dragon: :gnome: :unicorn: :viking:

The denizens of emoteland hereby scorn you.

Quote from: obrynWhenever I overestimate a challenge very badly, I'll fudge some rolls, too.

Yeah, that's one of the few exceptions in my GM code of honor about fudging. If I screw up, the players shouldn't have to pay for it.

But after lots of introspection about GMing technique, I came to the conclusion that it's freakin' stupid to do something like throw in a challenge that I should know has the potential to kill a PC (example: a standard AD&D 1e save-or-die poison) and then go off fudging things when what you already decided could happened actually happens.

You totally sacrificed all that is "Story Now!" for "Story Before."

Good job fucker, welcome to the enemy camp.

You make me fucking sick, our Lord and Savior Ron Edwards weeps for you!

I'm drunk, btw.

Joe.... what? Come on man, I'm clueless here.

Also, don't kick yourself James. Fudging is just one of those things. You eyeball when and if it needs to occur, and come to the right conclusion. You almost certainly made the right decision.

Quote from: James McMurrayI am hypocritical lowlife scum.

Sir, I salute you.




.

Quote from: Thanatos02You almost certainly made the right decision.

Well, no. He decided to play Exalted.

But at least when you're at the bottom, the only way is up.

James, the first person you have to apologize to is yourself.

Ok, but me next.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSeriously, did you tell the players about this? Will you? Can't you just say, look, I screwed up (not the fudge, but the assessment of their capabilities)?

I didn't mention it and probably won't. I don't want them to think that a hard-earned victory was a fudgefest when they really did sweat, bleed, and cry to hunt the demon down and kill it. I also don't want them to get too cocky and think it'll happen in the future.  Plus, they'll shun me. ;)

QuoteWere the players at all responsible? I mean, did they have a choice? Were they lulled into a belief that you'd never throw anything at them that they couldn't handle? You should think about whether you want to foster that sensibility, or if you'd rather say: dudes, I don't always know what I'm tossing at you, so you need to use your knowledge of the system, too.

The fight was actually a fair but tough fight. It was because one of their primary warriors opted out that it turned so deadly. One of the reasons I did it was to avoid making one player pay for the noble sacrifice of another.

And yeah, they know that I'm not the type to overwhelm them constantly, but that I'm a firm believer in Fights That Cannot Be Won. Those fights generally have some clues though.

QuoteFinally, what about introducing a hero point system? Could this have been avoided if the player who'd refused the fight for "great reasons" had gotten some sort of benny, that could then have been passed on to the rest of the group as necessary?

To clarify the situation, it wasn't so much that he refused to fight as it was that he sacrificed himself so that women and children could live. It's all in my campaign update (http://www.colugo.org/jmcmurra/Exalted/05-25-07.pdf) but the short version is that he recognized a situation where a room full of people were going to die horribly if the fight broke out and offered to take the place of the women and children. His "benny" was to be almost unscathed when they finally got through the uber-mooks and into the demon itself.

Fudging a roll to make the game more fun for the players?  Who lost here?  Where is the damage?

If I'm running a game and the players are doing things to make it fun for everybody and really getting into it I'll gladly help them continue to do so.  The guy who just sets there, argues over rules and doesn't do much to move the game in any direction until it's time for combat, well I get strick with the rules for them.

But then again my players may be different than your players.  You milage may vary.

Quote from: JimBobOzWell, no. He decided to play Exalted.

But at least when you're at the bottom, the only way is up.

I would think a mongrel bred from a continent full of unwanted convicts would have the bare minimum of brains necessary to leave us art porn wankers to ourselves. I guess not.

:pundit:

Quote from: Thanatos02Joe.... what? Come on man, I'm clueless here.

Also, don't kick yourself James. Fudging is just one of those things. You eyeball when and if it needs to occur, and come to the right conclusion. You almost certainly made the right decision.

Sorry, I was celebrating my new employment, and got pretty drunk.

I agree with Wes here, don't beat yourself up about it James.  It's games man, not something to feel bad about, especially when you have fun!

Quote from: peteramthorFudging a roll to make the game more fun for the players?  Who lost here?  Where is the damage?

The damage is to my credibility as a GM. If I'll fudge so the group doesn't lose, I'll fudge so the enemies don't lose too soon as well. Then we've taken the game aspect away and may as well not have rules.

QuoteBut then again my players may be different than your players.  You milage may vary.

Probably. We're very much on the opposite side of the field from the fudgers, story-gamers, cooperative storytellers, or whatever they're called these days. That's not a degredation of their style. If it works for 'em, more power to 'em.

Quote from: joewolzSorry, I was celebrating my new employment, and got pretty drunk.

I agree with Wes here, don't beat yourself up about it James.  It's games man, not something to feel bad about, especially when you have fun!

Don't worry, I am somewhat miffed at myself for not foreseeing the possibility, especially given the character in question, but the vast majority of the self loathing is tongue in cheek. :)

The first law is, don't fudge.

But the second law is, if you do fudge, don't get caught.

(Same thing applies to sexual infidelity.)

Confessing to expiate your guilt = getting caught. Enjoy the bad thing you did as best you can and be man enough to keep it to yourself.

Now go forth and sin no more.

If your friends need to be lied to to have fun, If they want to play


INVULNERABLE POWER GODS


then you rather lie to them.

I suggest: get yourself some grown up people to game with.

As others said: It´s only a game!

If you need to cheat in a game to have fun, than you have serious issues.

Quote from: SettembriniIf your friends need to be lied to to have fun, If they want to play


INVULNERABLE POWER GODS


then you rather lie to them.

I suggest: get yourself some grown up people to game with.

As others said: It´s only a game!

If you need to cheat in a game to have fun, than you have serious issues.

I am amazed how a thread like this can move from...

"I fudged a little because (I messed up/I'd rather fudge than deal with more character generation because of a TPK/It seeemed fun)"

can become

"OMFG CHEETURZ WANT INVULNARABIL SUPER POWERDS!!!1!"

Seriously.  There's a huge fucking gap here.

Fudging a roll because you as a GM made a clerical error is far from just passively sitting and giving out monty haul powertrips to children.

I hear senses of perspective are on sale now.  Might want to pick one up.

-O

It's understandable when you're starting out and haven't quite got a handle on a system yet to have to fudge it from time to time. As well, the acceptability of fudging depends on the general culture of play for that game and the specific group you're with. It doesn't seem particularly terrible in this instance.

QuoteSeriously.  There's a huge fucking gap here

Really?

How so?

QuoteIt's understandable when you're starting out and haven't quite got a handle on a system yet to have to fudge it from time to time.

I totally subscribe to that point: Get a handle on the System.

I like fudge.





(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Russianfudge.JPG/200px-Russianfudge.JPG)

:haw:

Quote from: SettembriniReally?

How so?

How not so?

If a GM fudges on rare occasions due to his own mistake, it does not lead directly and invariably to fudging every time the PCs are in any sort of danger, thus becoming as you put it INVULNERABLE POWER GODS.

Looking to have fun during a game night rather than outright slaughter does not mean the group is full of immature children.

-O

Quote from: SettembriniI totally subscribe to that point: Get a handle on the System.

I believe that's what he's doing.  That still doesn't prevent the occasional gaffe during play, and an occasional gaffe shouldn't be responsible for ruining everyone's enjoyment of the game.

!i!

Quote from: SettembriniIf you need to cheat in a game to have fun, than you have serious issues.

You've never done a "do-over" or whatever when you're playing soccer?  Shit man, I used to be against fudging die rolls in RPGs, and then I realized how fuzzy the rules of baseball got when my friends and I were playing it.

Quote from: UmaSamaI like fudge.

Reminds me of when I worked at a coffee and fudge shop. Awful hours, but amazing products. Great, great fudge. ^_^

Role-playing games are a little bit art, and a little bit science. We get all kinds here, and I think different games actually have different fudge-levels (which is probably a minority opinion here) but I'd say that the real issue is what your gaming goal is.

Sometimes, as a DM, you make a miscalculation. You would have fixed it earlier, but it didn't become an obvious problem until now. It seems like if your fixing your own mistakes, then that's a good thing. Fixing your player's mistakes is kind of another.

Now, we can probably argue all day if it's the player's mistake, but you say you don't blame him at all and mostly assumed the mantle of responsibility. I think you made the right call as a DM. OTOH, it's not the end of the world in either direction.

Quote from: SettembriniIf your friends need to be lied to to have fun, If they want to play


INVULNERABLE POWER GODS


then you rather lie to them.

I suggest: get yourself some grown up people to game with.

As others said: It´s only a game!

If you need to cheat in a game to have fun, than you have serious issues.

*snicker*

Sett knows.

Gaming is serious buisness.

Dude, Sett. You're pretty much the picture of a pig, did you know that?

*mumbles something about gazing into the abyss*

Quote from: JimBobOzWell done, McMurray! You put actual human beings before several hundred pages of sloppily-written, badly-edited, saucily-illustrated book. Good job!

:D Well put, Jim Bob.

Quote from: joewolzYou've never done a "do-over" or whatever when you're playing soccer?  Shit man, I used to be against fudging die rolls in RPGs, and then I realized how fuzzy the rules of baseball got when my friends and I were playing it.

"Do-overs" are fine. What I'd worry about if I were in Jim's shoes is, will the players start to feel disoriented because they want to take on challenges fair & square, but in the back of their minds they're not sure if what they're really up against is Jim's judgment of their intentions and the pacing of the adventure.

One time's no big deal (except it does impose a burden on Jim, having to carry a secret). If the players want a challenge, though, then continued fudging is eventually going to cause problems. (If they don't want a challenge, it might not.)

Nevertheless I think it'd be more productive for Jim to look at how he got painted into a corner--what contributed to the need to fudge.

How much choice did the players really have about going into this fight at this time? How much knowledge did they have about the risks?

What the #%^* is wrong with a meaningless death? I can only speculate here, but--does Exalted have mechanically complex chargen? Does it encourage or require a lot of player-created background?

Elliot, am I Jim now, or is that post referring to JimBob?

Wait, I thought I was Jim...

Dammit Jim, I'm a Jim, not a miracle worker...

It occurs to me that Fudging...and particularly complaints about fudging, comes down to an issue of Trust.

Counterintuitively it seems to me that if you don't like fudging its probably because you have trust issues... at least vis a vis your GM.

Sadly, this was much better thought out an hour ago... then I went to lunch and it's all stale and crumbly now.

Quote from: James McMurrayElliot, am I Jim now, or is that post referring to JimBob?

Sorry, James. Too many of you guys around here.

That one was for you.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhat the #%^* is wrong with a meaningless death? I can only speculate here, but--does Exalted have mechanically complex chargen? Does it encourage or require a lot of player-created background?

Exalted encourages player-background in the form of justifying beginning Background points, but doesn't demand it. Beginning creation is fairly crunchy, but no more then D&D is, really. (Skill selection, Charm selection pretty much equals Class/Skill selection, Feat selection.)

I don't know D&D past 1e.

Basically what I was getting at was: the harder it is to replace (or maybe resurrect) a dead character, the more likely it is that people will balk at meaningless death, or sulk afterwards.

Spike,

QuoteCounterintuitively it seems to me that if you don't like fudging its probably because you have trust issues... at least vis a vis your GM.

Maybe sometimes. For me, I think it's a matter of mismatched ideas of the GM's responsibility. I don't want an umpire to fudge balls & strikes; that's not because I don't trust the umpire, it's because I'm not looking for the sort of game that's produced by fudging.

In RPGs if I want that sort of game I think I'd look more to Heroquest or Everway. In a game with more rigidly-defined rules, I'm looking for something different.

But it's complicated. When it comes to big fights, if the scenarios are basically funneling the action toward big set-pieces, then in my opinion the GM has a responsibility to calibrate the challenge to the resources of the players and their general tastes in terms of level of challenge. Do you like your fights to be difficult enough that a PC dies every few sessions? Or do you want challenges that you know you can safely master, provided you think about them?

Really, if that's the sort of game you're playing, then the GM needs a few "do overs". When I was playing AD&D I did it pretty transparently: "It was just a dream, you weren't TPK'ed by wolves, it's the next morning." Again, these days I'd go for the hero point method. The GM can watch the hero points on the PCs' sheets and use that to gauge how careful he needs to be. Back off if the PCs are low, play it close to the line if they've got plenty. "The line" itself is set by the above questions regarding level of challenge.

On the other hand if the players have a lot of discretion about which challenges to face, then the GM doesn't have to worry about calibration nearly so much. As long as the players have this choice, and know or have a way of knowing what they might be up against, a lot of responsibility shifts to them, and the GM can just be an umpire who calls 'em as he sees 'em.

Quote from: SpikeIt occurs to me that Fudging...and particularly complaints about fudging, comes down to an issue of Trust.

Counterintuitively it seems to me that if you don't like fudging its probably because you have trust issues... at least vis a vis your GM.

Sadly, this was much better thought out an hour ago... then I went to lunch and it's all stale and crumbly now.

I concur with this conclusion wholeheartedly, having come to it independently after numerous discussions with the local GM Paranoia Brigade.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhat the #%^* is wrong with a meaningless death?

Nothing. Where meaningless death is a possibility, the ultimate "stake" is fun itself. That makes for exciting gaming.

Quote from: SpikeIt occurs to me that Fudging...and particularly complaints about fudging, comes down to an issue of Trust.

Counterintuitively it seems to me that if you don't like fudging its probably because you have trust issues... at least vis a vis your GM.

Sadly, this was much better thought out an hour ago... then I went to lunch and it's all stale and crumbly now.

Maybe it's that. Whatever. In every case, I hate fudging, when I'm playing a character and when I'm running a game. In my book, fudging is cheating, because it's arbitrary, unfair, and only the GM can decide about it. On the other hand, I love hero/drama/whatever points, they've got all the advantages of fudging without the cheating. The players, instead of the GM, should decide when they need the "push" fudging would give them.

If this makes me a part of the anti-GM brigade, so be it.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen"Do-overs" are fine. What I'd worry about if I were in Jim's shoes is, will the players start to feel disoriented because they want to take on challenges fair & square, but in the back of their minds they're not sure if what they're really up against is Jim's judgment of their intentions and the pacing of the adventure.

Hence why I can't stand fudging.

QuoteOne time's no big deal (except it does impose a burden on Jim, having to carry a secret). If the players want a challenge, though, then continued fudging is eventually going to cause problems. (If they don't want a challenge, it might not.)

We like challenges.

QuoteNevertheless I think it'd be more productive for Jim to look at how he got painted into a corner--what contributed to the need to fudge.

Which I did.

QuoteHow much choice did the players really have about going into this fight at this time? How much knowledge did they have about the risks?

There's almost always a choice for them in everything they do. The alternative might not be something pleasant, but it's there. In this case the alternative was to continue to let a demon amass political power and use it to spread pain and suffering. The fight wasn't an ambush, so there was a definite choice to be made.

QuoteWhat the #%^* is wrong with a meaningless death? I can only speculate here, but--does Exalted have mechanically complex chargen? Does it encourage or require a lot of player-created background?

Meaningless death sucks. It's unfun. YMMV.

In Exalted, the players play Solars (or sometimes Lunars). Creation is approximately 10,000 miles across and there's only 450 of these guys at any one time. A constant influx and death toll for the party can destroy continuity much faster than it would in a game like D&D where there are thousands of adventurers running around adventuring.

Fudging is the divine right of any GM.

A wise GM will always do so sparingly, but not feel guilt at doing so.

Just be sure that when you do Fudge, you only do so to save the PCs., not to save your own interests as a GM.  The latter will end up being noticed, and people will (rightfully) accuse you of sucking.

RPGPundit

Quote from: ClaudiusIf this makes me a part of the anti-GM brigade, so be it.

I didn't say it made you part of an 'anti-GM brigade', I said it meant you had potential Trust Issues with your GM's.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. Hell, you could be coming from a completely different RPG culture than the one I came up through. I've had GM's that used GMPC's to run roughshod over the party, I've had GM's more or less chose certain players to use as 'examples' to keep the rest of the table in line, I've had GM's play favorites.

When you play with GM's like that, Fudging is the absolute LEAST of your worries.  My first ever D&D game had a pack of hellhounds as the first ever encounter for our first level characters!   For all I know the only reason we survived was the  GM fudged the encounter.  

My point was: If you are playing the game like the rules are hard coded and perfectly understood by everyone, and perfectly followed by everyone, then sure, maybe fudging might seem disruptive. But most GM's in my expirence play a bit looser with the books than that, and Fudging doesn't seem so out of place.  I trust my GM's, and my players trust me, to Fudge only when necessary, and only to keep the fun in the game.  


Hell, my mostly tired Runequest AP thread has times when I literally tossed out rules to keep people at the table from rioting. Openly. A lot has to do with the personalities involved, but if I played the hardnosed, by the book, I wouldn't have any players!

Quote from: James McMurrayMeaningless death sucks. It's unfun. YMMV.

In Exalted, the players play Solars (or sometimes Lunars). Creation is approximately 10,000 miles across and there's only 450 of these guys at any one time. A constant influx and death toll for the party can destroy continuity much faster than it would in a game like D&D where there are thousands of adventurers running around adventuring.

Right, so, let me see if I'm hearing you. (With my thoughts on what can be done to minimize the need to fudge again.)

* Lack of familiarity with the system, on your part as the GM. You can fix that.

* Players biting off more than they could chew. Three subcomponents: (1) moral urgency (2) possible lack of information on the details of the challenge [in D&D, this would be like when the party faces a monster they've never seen before and whose HD/powers are surprisingly high compared to its appearance] (3) lack of familiarity with the system.

(1) can be scaled down or up. (2) not clear. (3) Your players will fix that as time goes by.

* A need for death to be rare & meaningful. You can't really change this as long as you're using Exalted as-is. There might be houserules though that can help.

Death doesn't have to be the end of the Exalted Game. After all the 'Afterlife' thing is very real in Exalted. I could imagine a game session focused on retrieving the dead character's soul, slapping it into a new body and convincing the right God to give up the damn shard once more! Hell, a TPK is even easier: They all 'wake up' in the land of the dead and start whopping ass and taking names down there.  Fudge the setting a bit and make 'em all 'natural Deathnights', there to stop (one assumes) the Deathlords and their minions for the good of Creation!

Or... you could just... y'know... fudge the dice a bit. ;)

Quote from: SpikeI didn't say it made you part of an 'anti-GM brigade', I said it meant you had potential Trust Issues with your GM's.

Sorry, Spike, I wasn't referring to you, maybe the confussion arises from the fact that I cited you.

It's not that I have trust issues with my GMs, the fact is that I don't trust any GM blindly.

QuoteMaybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. Hell, you could be coming from a completely different RPG culture than the one I came up through. I've had GM's that used GMPC's to run roughshod over the party, I've had GM's more or less chose certain players to use as 'examples' to keep the rest of the table in line, I've had GM's play favorites.

When you play with GM's like that, Fudging is the absolute LEAST of your worries.

There are other possible problems with RPGs, I agree, but it doesn't make me think I should like fudging just because other things I like even less might happen.

QuoteMy first ever D&D game had a pack of hellhounds as the first ever encounter for our first level characters!   For all I know the only reason we survived was the  GM fudged the encounter.  

I wouldn't have had fun if my character had had his ass saved by fudging. It's lame. Simply, the GM mistook and put a tougher challenge than PCs could handle.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen* Players biting off more than they could chew. Three subcomponents: (1) moral urgency (2) possible lack of information on the details of the challenge [in D&D, this would be like when the party faces a monster they've never seen before and whose HD/powers are surprisingly high compared to its appearance] (3) lack of familiarity with the system.

Close. They had no idea what the demon's powers were, but never underestimated it. They knew about his minions and had faced them all before, seeing most of their tricks.

The real difference, and what totally surprised me but shouldn't have, was the player's choice of the roleplaying option over the tactical one. that's not to say that we don't roleplay, but when fights happen we're usually very tactical.

One of the things this campaign has done, partially from the constant stunting and partially by making death something that isn't a constant threat for the PCs, is that it's freed the gamist players up to take a more role focused view. When every session isn't a round-by-round crawl through Catacombs of Death a few 5' squares at a time they step back and take the longer view. This same thing happened when my last D&D campaign hit epic levels, but's it's been several years since then and I got myself back into the tactical frame of mind.

Had I been thinking clearly this wouldn't have surprised me. But I figured what would be the most tactically sound option and blindly rolled into it expecting that would happen. I'll hopefully know better next time. :)

Sounds like you have a pretty good handle on things; it will be interesting to hear how things develop. I'm especially curious how the "meaningless/meaningful death" issue works out. Who decides when it's meaningful? If it's not meaningful enough, who decides to overrule the dice?

I mean given that you'd prefer not to fudge anymore, are you going to have to depend on foreseeing the PCs' roleplaying?

That first paragraph is pretty much my entire trepidation over the issue crammed into two questions, and the succint expression of why we don't fudge. :)

If (more likely when) it happens again I'll hopefuly be able to think of a way to make it meaningful.

From what you've described, wouldn't it have been meaningful this time? I mean, Bambara decides to sacrifice combat efficiency for the sake of the women & children. Bambara's mate dies because of this. Meaningful? But maybe not the kind of meaningful the group wants?

As you say this is bound to happen again. I guess one way to make it more meaningful will be how you frame the scenes and options.

This has been a very useful thread for me to think about how I want to run games. Now, I think I'd rather back off a bit on "character investment" and then not worry too much about my responsibility to make things meaningful--that's up to the players. In this light, backing off on character investment is more a tactic to prevent player-player hard feelings if one PC directly or indirectly harms another.

While it could have been made to be meaningful, it would also have been one player suffering because of the choices of another.

I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum with character investment. Coming off of a long stint of dungeon crawl D&D campaigns and mission based Shadowrun games we've been sorely lacking in the non-mechanical character development aspect of RPGs. This isn't solely the fault of those games, but does tend to be the style we adopt in them. This campaign, for various reasons, has given us more character development in 7 or 8 sessions then we saw in all three attempts at World's Largest Dungeon, various Dungeon mag adventures, and "Hired then screwed by the Johnson" printed Shadowrun missions put together. And I for one am enjoying the hell out of a refreshing change.

I'm loathe to jeapordize that because I failed to contemplate that the Compassion 4* ascetic priest whose virtue flaw is Compassionate Martyrdom* might decide to take the place of some hapless women and children. Had it been the ascetic on the chopping block I'd have finished him off in a heartbeat.

* if you don't know White Wolf's dots system, that's really high
** this flaw can force him to take the place of innocents who are suffering, although he was nowhere near the point where it would force him and instead he roleplayed it without being cajoled by the rules

Also, in hindsight I can think of several ways I could have handled it better, but quite frankly I panicked.

If you knew our group the absurdity of the situation might be clearer. I'm typically the deadliest GM we have, and have a reputation for killing off characters left and right. I've killed a single PC multiple times in one night, sometimes when the player isn't even there. In the aforementioned epic game one player arrived late (having brought food for everyone) just in time to be handed his dead PC's character sheet.

Yeah, this isn't a trial. About the "one player suffering because of the choices of another" though, you see where I'm going with the idea of reducing investment, right? (Esp. now that I've started the O death (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6287) thread.)

Quote from: James McMurrayIn the aforementioned epic game one player arrived late (having brought food for everyone) just in time to be handed his dead PC's character sheet.

See: If a GM hands me my dead character sheet at the start of the game without a seriously... and I do mean SERIOUSLY... good reason, I walk and don't come back. I've had that happen to me, killed when I wasn't at the game, and I find it intolerable.  Then again, I try to play with a long view on characters, architecturally you know?

Killing my guy off when I'm not there is, to me, a sure sign that the GM/group doesn't want me around. Just sayin'...

Quote from: Elliot WilenYeah, this isn't a trial. About the "one player suffering because of the choices of another" though, you see where I'm going with the idea of reducing investment, right? (Esp. now that I've started the O death (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6287) thread.)

I do understand, but since it's the character investment that's making this campaign so cool, I'll have to pass on the idea.

Quote from: SpikeSee: If a GM hands me my dead character sheet at the start of the game without a seriously... and I do mean SERIOUSLY... good reason, I walk and don't come back. I've had that happen to me, killed when I wasn't at the game, and I find it intolerable.  Then again, I try to play with a long view on characters, architecturally you know?

Killing my guy off when I'm not there is, to me, a sure sign that the GM/group doesn't want me around. Just sayin'...

When a player isn't there another player NPCs the character. Generally we work to keep them safe but useful. Since this was an epic D&D campaign, death was just a 5,000gp price tag and a one day vacation to Mount Celestia (or the alternate Heaven of your choice).

Quote from: James McMurrayWhen a player isn't there another player NPCs the character. Generally we work to keep them safe but useful. Since this was an epic D&D campaign, death was just a 5,000gp price tag and a one day vacation to Mount Celestia (or the alternate Heaven of your choice).

See, I guess that's not so bad as the time I was in a Shadowrun game. I came back having missed a session due to work and found out that the uber NPC assassin who was 'after the party' had made me his first victim, in the toilet of all places, while I was away.  then the story got murkier and the party may have gone paranoid and set up a trap in said bathroom, and my character was killed by it, yadda yadda.

No one rolled anything, no one made any input other than 'your dude is dead, go ahead and make another'.

I declined. Shit like that put me off gaming until after I had moved.

I suppose a D&D character death with frequent, easy, resurrections is less problematic. I'd probably play like it hadn't happened at all.

In the D&D game I'm in now there isn't any ressurection (well, we are only third level) and the GM 'ghosts' our PC's when we miss sessions. that is, we are there, and can do stuff, but nothing really happens to us.   In the RQ game I run, the PC isn't even 'around', no matter how jarring it might be, there one day, gone the next.  I guess we aren't immersionists.

I don't know if I'd say we're immersionists, but we do like our continuity.

James, understood. Given a preference against fudging, I'd probably go for some sort of hero point/fudge point add-on, or an explicit method of limiting the "stakes" of various actions. (E.g. giving players a bonus in a scene, or only allowing them a chance to permanently defeat a major enemy, provided they accept that death is on the table.) But that's just my feeling and if you can get good results by other means, I'd certainly like to hear how you accomplish it. Care to share your after the fact ideas you alluded to a few posts ago?

I could have aimed the combat so that the NPC that loathed that particular PC was the one to give the death blow.

I could have had the NPC about to give the death blow turn out to be someone else from their past with a reason to kill him.

I could have been doing is better tracking their health levels and had the enemy go for a crippling blow when he was severely wounded. this lets the enemy have their victory, creates future rivalries, and adds to the difficulties the PCs must overcome without finalizing anything.

What's funny is...I have yet to run Exalted without fudging. That's mostly because the system is entirely too crunchy for me and my players, but we didn't figure it out until we were playing (it looked less complicated on paper for some reason). I actively ignore rules and creatively interpret things. I'm actually looking at maybe converting the game to FATE 3.0.

Quote from: James J SkachWait, I thought I was Jim...

Dammit Jim, I'm a Jim, not a miracle worker...

[Bones] You mean I'm supposed to cure a plant? I'm a doctor, not a jungle, Jim![/Bones]

-clash