Re: [DL] Fudging

[Greg Vose <kitsune@xmission.com>]

Jason, this wasn't my GM, this was a GM Paul-Andre brought up.

Hmm...a GM certainly has the right to determine that something is always
hazardous.  I will give you that. However, there are certain conventions
when playing a particular type of genre.  We are discussing Space Opera
here and specifically Star Wars which is cinematic Space Opera so it played
much larger than life.  If you want to always make astrogation dangerous
and thus require a roll in which someone can always end up in the middle of
a sun then I suggest that you run an SF with rivets campaign (Hard SF)
rather than a Space Opera or Star Wars campaign.  Just a suggestion.

Really really dangerous stairs is just plain stupid and you know it Jason
;>  But if you want them then so be it.  We could always have possessed
stairs with teeth in DL.  Might be fun making climbing rolls for that but
please, let's stay a bit more serious here.

Dangerous tasks need to not be routine tasks.  While it is true that
driving a car has inherent danger, it is routine. If it were not, we would
all be failing a driving roll and slamming into the guard rail one time out
of x rolls (I play and run Hero a lot so after 18 lane changes I would be
driving on borrowed time).  Driving itself is not and never should be a
dangerous task unless the character involved doesn't have the skill. Then
everything is up for grabs.  For me the same goes in this astrogation
issue, only because it is in a Star Wars game. If we were playing a Star
Hero game in which  we were the pilot and astrogator of the first
hyperspace capable scoutship then astrogation becomes a dangerous task at
all times and if I blow my roll then we should be in deep doggie do.

It occurs to me at this point that we are discussing three different
things.  Maybe this will help work it out.

First, we are discussing fudging rolls.

Second, we are discussing routine vs dangerous rolls

Third, we are discussing outcomes.

Fudging rolls: You say why roll if you are going to fudge the rolls?  I
answer because rolls don't necessarily reflect what should happen.  What
should happen can be any one of a large number of random effects (I succeed
brilliantly, I succeed, I fail, I fail spectacularly and many degrees in
between).  What should not happen is "oops, I tripped over my feet, fell on
my dagger, stabbed the warrior in the back with my other dagger and watch
in horror (before expiring) as he fell to ground mortally wound and dropped
his battle axe on the wizard who botched his fireball incinerating himself.
 That would be perfectly possible with a completely random system and would
be utterly assine.  Therefore, fudging works.  It also takes responsibility
and your characters shouldn't know when you are doing it on your end and
should be left guessing when it happens on their end (something bad
definitely happens, you just fudge the roll for the outcome which we will
get to in a moment.

Routine vs. Dangerous: We've already gone over this pretty thoroughly.  If
it is routine you just never should be rolling on it.  GM has to determine
what is routine and he had better know his genre well. A Horse Ridin' roll
in DL for example isn't necessary unless you are doing something
exceptional (sitting on the horse and riding from point a to point b is
covered in having the skill at any level).

Outcomes: This is part of moving the story along etc.  Back to our fumbling
thief above who took out the whole party. Unless the flavor of the genre
runs ot the idiotic and that is what you are playing for (hey, I like
Paraoia as much as the next guy) then the above outcome should never
happen, even if there are rolls that would bring it to pass.  The thief
fumbled and something bad should happen. Just because your Chart of Stupid
Outcomes(tm) says that the above should occur because of what you rolled
doesn't mean that it really should occur.  Find something appropriate.
You, as the GM, know that the thief is going to need to hide and sneak
later on.  So he trips and twists his ankle rather than killing of the
party.  No cleric to be seen anywhere so he has to continue on as best he
can. You have just advanced the story and heightened the suspense all by
refusing to live slavishly by the roll.

Hope this helps clarify.  It's my birthday and I am headed out now to see
about a book or game.  I'll be happy to discuss this further if you wish,
just may be awhile.

Best,

Greg

At 01:37 PM 3/15/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>
>--- Greg Vose <kitsune@xmission.com> wrote:
>> Randomness is fine.  As a matter of fact, it can help drive the story.
>> However relying on that randomness to the point that you cannot make any
>> decisions or changes is stupid and shows an incompetence or inexperience
>> at
>> GMing plain and simple.
>
>Not necessarily. If I decide that certain tasks are hazardous and will
>always be determined by rolls, and the players know it, well, we all take
>a chance every time we make those rolls.
>
>That doesn't mean your GM wasn't incompetent or inexperienced, but this
>alone is not evidence of it.
>
>> Catastrophic results from a random roll are fine also so long as they
>> don't
>> take the complete party out on the way to do their laundry.  Frankly
>> that
>> whole scene should never even have been there.  It's like asking for a
>> climbing roll for a character to walk up a flight of stairs. Idiotic.
>
>Unless that's the way the world you were playing in was crafted. I don't
>really know, of course. Maybe stairs are really, really dangerous. But
>you'd know that before you climbed them, of course. And you would have
>been making a roll to climb stairs every time.
>
>> Now I would have absolutely no problem with it had the party been in
>> their
>> ship being chased by three Star Destroyers and the navigator had to make
>> an
>> astrogation roll while dealing with his hot coffee that had just landed
>> in
>> his lap because of a violent maneuver that the pilot, Ming Single had
>> just
>> performed.  Then if he misses the roll, fine, plop him down in the
>> middle
>> of an asteroid field and make the pilot make his rolls or they all go
>> splat.  But we are talking about embarking on the adventure from a
>> non-hostile location where the navigator can take a little time and make
>> certain the calculations are correct.  It is simply routine.
>
>I don't disagree. I don't know what the style of play typically was for
>your group, so I may miss the mark on some of my comments. Rather than
>going on about a situation that I don't have all the details on, I'll just
>say that it's best for a GM to be consistent and for everyone to
>understand the ground rules regarding the danger of the environment (and
>most everything else, of course). Then apply those rules as agreed.
>
>Sometimes you'll get unwelcome results, but that's the danger of playing
>that style of game.
>
>I don't want to sound like I'm disagreeing with you, because it sounds
>like it was a bad experience, and that's never good. I'm not defending
>what your GM did. I just don't think this case supports the idea that GM's
>should be willing to fudge rolls.
>
>On /that/ issue, I always come back to, "If you fudge a roll then why did
>you roll?"
>
>Jason
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
>http://webhosting.yahoo.com
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
>	unsubscribe deadlands@gamerz.net
>as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
>
>
>