Game balance revisited

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Today I was discussing the current game I'm running with my cousin. I brought up the subject of game balance while explaining to him how different 1E and 2E are to later editions. I read but never played 3E, 3.5E or 4E, because they all sucked, as did 5E. But I did end up playing for a short time in that 5E game with a friend just to be friendly. It sucked. I loathed it. I ended up dropping out of future games. Regardless, I've read and debated enough of 3E thru 4E to also address those editions.

"Game balance" is a concept that really came into being in the Shit Editions (3E+). In 1E and to a great extent in 2E, there was little to no talk of "game balance". Sure, there were suggested levels and party numbers based on the difficulty of the particular module. But that's necessary and unavoidable. If you have stone golems and werewolves in an adventure and put a party of 1st and 2nd level characters with no magical weapons through it, you're gonna have a TPK, end of story. And if your party levels averaged in the mid-teens, you certainly would not want to run them through a module where the toughest opponents were orcs and kobolds! That cake walk wouldn't be fun for anyone.

So there had to be some suggested range.

But dungeons back then - 1E especially - were notorious for having encounters (both random and planned) that, if the PCS did not run (or even did run but did not escape), they were dogmeat. TPK. End of game, end of story! Undermountain is a lot like that. You can meet damned near anything anywhere. Sure, there may be a party of half dozen kobolds holed up in a remote area on Level 6 or 7. But there may also be a lich lairing or wandering through Level 1! Gates can allow demons to appear anywhere.

So there was no "game balance" as much of a concept in 1E. In 2E, there were some simple and general guidelines regarding "game balance" along the lines of you probably wanted roughly as many HD of monsters as there were levels of party members (i.e. a party of four 5th level characters would face somewhere around 20-ish HD of monster or monsters). But it was a loose, general guideline to avoid extremes of encounters that were either too much a cake walk or too much a TPK.

In later editions - and I witnessed this explicitly in 5E - there is an obsession with "game balance". All those difficult ratings and what not. It just pervades the game. Strict guidelines. An obsession on making the game survivable. Nonsense!

To me, "game balance" is nothing more than making sure the game is neither too easy nor impossible to survive. Nobody other than perhaps a lazy Monty Haul slacker player would enjoy a cakewalk campaign. And no one in their right mind enjoys a character grinder death dungeon designed for a TPK. "Game balance" is nothing more than running a challenging campaign and knowing when to cut a little slack and when to be hard core.

For example, if I plan a side encounter on the way to the lich's tower and it was simply meant to wear down the party a bit and drain some resources but it turns out I made the encounter too deadly, I'll dial it back. Some hardcore old timers would disagree with me, but my view is this - the goal of the game is to have FUN! If the players are going to end up in a TPK because I made the minions too strong, I overpowered them, I placed far too many of them, then it's my fault for ruining the adventure. Maybe 4 ghosts and 4 spectres were a bit much for that relatively small 5th level party, right? If the PCs fuck up - say they didn't plan well, didn't post a guard, etc...well, that's their fault. Let what comes come. But if I screwed it up, I fix it. Better to tweak the scenario/cut them some slack and have them survive a minor encounter that I as the DM vastly miscalculated so they can reach that coveted final challenge, final battle. They might still die - some of the party, most of the party or even a TPK. But at least it was epic fun.

And in the rare cases where I've had to tweak an encounter, I always "cover it up" very carefully.

For example, let's say I placed as group of tough werewolves in a minor encounter en route to a major battle with the BBEG. I forgot that the party had already lost most of their magical weapons. I'm looking at a TPK. I have several choices.

I can eliminate the encounter. But goddamn it, man, I wanted to see them fight those werewolves and it was a well written encounter and I know the players will be thrilled facing werewolves (at least until they realize it's a TPK). Don't want to just write it off.

I can weaken the werewolves significantly, or mess with the rules and allow these werewolves to be hit by normal (non-magical) weapons. But that destroys in-game logic and demands a believable excuse (and a logical way for them to understand why this exception is being made). Otherwise it also destroys suspension of disbelief ("Hey...I thought it took silver or magic weapons to hurt werewolves - why did our normal sword skill these?").

I can just throw up my hands and say "Oh well, TPK!". And who the fuck at the table (neither DM nor player) will enjoy that scenario?

What would I do?

I'd let them fight the werewolves for a bit, take some damage while they obviously are not damaging the werewolves, then roll some random dice before muttering "oh shit" under my breath (but loud enough for them to hear) and announcing something like: "You hear a piercing, terrifying howl that sends shivers down your spine and chills your blood - a hideous shriek of such intensity that all battle ceases. You see the werewolves spin around and stare into the forest from which the monstrous wail issued forth, then turn tail and flee past you, running at such speed that it's as if their lives depend on how fast they can flee the area."

What is it? Who cares? The PCs, knowing that they were losing to the werewolves and that the werewolves fled for their lives, certainly won't be staying around so see what is it that drove their superior opponents fleeing for their lives. The PCs flee the area, maybe you tell them they see glowing eyes following them in the distance, whatever. They toss some defensive spells on themselves as they flee. Maybe the druid summons a swarm or the wizard turns the ground to mud to slow their pursuer. The thing is, they're going to be scared to death, and won't worry about what it was. Their only goal will be to escape to safety.

Now for the rest of their journey, they're going to be shitting their pants - terrified of meeting whatever "it" was. Right? They may later ask "What the hell was that"? I'd reply - "Can't tell you. Maybe you'll find out after all!".

How's that for game balance? Now they're terrified of something that doesn't need to be detailed. They use up magic and resources fleeing, covering their tracks, posting guards when they finally stop to rest, etc. If need be - say they for some ungodly reason decide to face the damned thing (whatever it is) - not a problem. I throw a greater werewolf at them, or a landshark or something powerful. Maybe a demon of some sort.

Bottom line is, I've preserved the integrity of the game. I didn't have to compromise the game or leave out an encounter. I didn't suspend in-game logic or suspension of disbelief. Now they have two things to worry about - the werewolves (which they realize - and I already know - they cannot survive a battle with) and something else that I probably don't have to even detail but easily can, and that they just know will eat them alive in a TPK!

I saved the party from my own miscalculation. I preserved in-game logic and suspension of disbelief. The players all think it was part of the encounter (either random or planned). The players got excited, terrified, thrilled! Unless I tell them, there is no way they will ever know I "tweaked" the game in my favor. Now we've avoided a useless TPK that would have spoiled the fun for both the DM (me) and the players, wasted a scenario, or required me to destroy in-game logic and suspension of disbelief. It made the game more challenging, more fun and more exciting!

That's how I see game balance. It's nothing more than a good DM knowing how to manage the overall adventure in order to prevent the extremes of a cake walk or a TPK.

[garhkal]

So there was no "game balance" as much of a concept in 1E. In 2E, there were some simple and general guidelines regarding "game balance" along the lines of you probably wanted roughly as many HD of monsters as there were levels of party members (i.e. a party of four 5th level characters would face somewhere around 20-ish HD of monster or monsters). But it was a loose, general guideline to avoid extremes of encounters that were either too much a cake walk or too much a TPK.

In later editions - and I witnessed this explicitly in 5E - there is an obsession with "game balance". All those difficult ratings and what not. It just pervades the game. Strict guidelines. An obsession on making the game survivable. Nonsense!

AND to me, the sucky part, is players who got INTO gaming via 3e to 5e, SEEM TO THINK ANY game that does NOT "bow down to balance" is 'sucky/anti-player/badwrongfun'. Case and point, one player in my prior group (who played for one session, then bowed out, saying "2e is not for him"), WHINED that a 3rd level PC, should NOT BE FACING A 6hd foe, especially one that has a negative AC and a 6d breath attack... EVEN THOUGH IT WAS seven characters (averaging 3rd level, vs ONE SIX HD FOE, so the party outnumbered IT 3 to 1 in HD ratio)...

And in the rare cases where I've had to tweak an encounter, I always "cover it up" very carefully.

For example, let's say I placed as group of tough werewolves in a minor encounter en route to a major battle with the BBEG. I forgot that the party had already lost most of their magical weapons. I'm looking at a TPK. I have several choices.

I can eliminate the encounter. But goddamn it, man, I wanted to see them fight those werewolves and it was a well written encounter and I know the players will be thrilled facing werewolves (at least until they realize it's a TPK). Don't want to just write it off.

Fire, can still hurt werewolves... So they DON'T absolutely need magic...

I can weaken the werewolves significantly, or mess with the rules and allow these werewolves to be hit by normal (non-magical) weapons. But that destroys in-game logic and demands a believable excuse (and a logical way for them to understand why this exception is being made). Otherwise it also destroys suspension of disbelief ("Hey...I thought it took silver or magic weapons to hurt werewolves - why did our normal sword skill these?").

"Weakening them" or otherwise messing with the rules, to ME, is just as bad as Fuddging the dice, to 'save the pc's..

I can just throw up my hands and say "Oh well, TPK!". And who the fuck at the table (neither DM nor player) will enjoy that scenario?

What would I do?

As i mentioned, they STILL can light torches/toss flaming oil and such, or use spells.. ITS not a "WE can't to jack, so we are screwed" situation...

I'd let them fight the werewolves for a bit, take some damage while they obviously are not damaging the werewolves, then roll some random dice before muttering "oh shit" under my breath (but loud enough for them to hear) and announcing something like: "You hear a piercing, terrifying howl that sends shivers down your spine and chills your blood - a hideous shriek of such intensity that all battle ceases. You see the werewolves spin around and stare into the forest from which the monstrous wail issued forth, then turn tail and flee past you, running at such speed that it's as if their lives depend on how fast they can flee the area."

What is it? Who cares?

I would care.. FIRST, if that 'big bad' was in the area, WHY THEN ARE the werewolves there? IF They are that scared shitless at it, THEY WOULDN'T be there..
If it wasn't there before, to scare the werewolves off, WHERE Did it come from? HOW?

certainly won't be staying around so see what is it that drove their superior opponents fleeing for their lives.

That makes the assumption the party DOES flee!

I throw a greater werewolf at them, or a landshark or something powerful. Maybe a demon of some sort.

Bottom line is, I've preserved the integrity of the game. I didn't have to compromise the game or leave out an encounter. I didn't suspend in-game logic or suspension of disbelief. Now they have two things to worry about - the werewolves (which they realize - and I already know - they cannot survive a battle with) and something else that I probably don't have to even detail but easily can, and that they just know will eat them alive in a TPK!

To ME, yes you DID push suspension of disbelief, in that hypothetical situation. BUT "I did it because they all lost magic, so i had to COVER FOR THEIR failure", is almost the same as saying "WELL the party declined to take a theif, so NOW I Need to edit my dungeon, to remove most if not all of the traps.. OR they failed to take a cleric that can turn undead, so now i need to remove most of the undead encounters i had planned"..

Unless I tell them, there is no way they will ever know I "tweaked" the game in my favor.

Like with Fudging dice, PLAYERS EVENTUALLY WILL cotton on to you 'saving them' like that.. HELL One guy i knew, was VERY GOOD at catching when the DM fudged dice, even WITH HIM always rolling behind a screen.....

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

AND to me, the sucky part, is players who got INTO gaming via 3e to 5e, SEEM TO THINK ANY game that does NOT "bow down to balance" is 'sucky/anti-player/badwrongfun'. Case and point, one player in my prior group (who played for one session, then bowed out, saying "2e is not for him"), WHINED that a 3rd level PC, should NOT BE FACING A 6hd foe, especially one that has a negative AC and a 6d breath attack... EVEN THOUGH IT WAS seven characters (averaging 3rd level, vs ONE SIX HD FOE, so the party outnumbered IT 3 to 1 in HD ratio)...

Truly, the Shit Editions have emasculated players. I've noticed it's also made DMs weak and lazy. They want everything pre-packaged and done for them. Seems nobody these days wants to create their own sandbox world or custom adventures. When I first started playing all those decades ago, virtually every DM eventually created their own worlds. Sure, we all played the published adventure modules and used the campaign settings (well, there really was only Greyhawk in 1E, then Forgotten Realms in late 1E). But the greatest desire and accomplishment virtually each DM strived for and reveled in was creating their own world. Or at least their own small section of their own world. Nowadays, they sell everything from lists of fully detailed taverns, shops, PCs, ports, castles, you name it.

Fire, can still hurt werewolves... So they DON'T absolutely need magic...

True, but I've never seen a party survive a werewolf attack without magic and magic weapons. All I'm saying is given that hypothetical scenario, I put in too many monsters than the party could reasonably hope to survive and a TPK was an almost certain outcome, so I'd have to either let the dice roll and fuck up the game, or I could manage the problem. Fudging the dice won't work because it's not a dice issue or hit point issue or anything numbers-related. Throwing my hands up and saying -"Oh well. TPK. We'll never know how the adventure could have ended. Let's roll up new characters." - to me, doesn't feel very much fun. Besides, the characters are itching to get to their arch enemy the lich, and I'd really prefer a TPK from the lich instead of some wandering werewolves.

Weakening them" or otherwise messing with the rules, to ME, is just as bad as Fuddging the dice, to 'save the pc's..

I agree, but I'd say what I'm talking about is different than "saving" the PCs. I see it more as saving the campaign. The lich probably has a better chance at a TPK than the werewolves in the first place, and he's the BBEG. The werewolves are just wandering monsters. It'd be a lot more fun for me and the players if their characters met their doom facing their arch enemy the lich rather than in a wandering monster encounter. Especially since in the example given, it would have been my mistake that killed off the PCs with a random encounter, not sheer bad luck, poor gaming or stupid PC decisions. Sheer bad luck? I've maybe tweaked something like that that 2 or 3 times in all the decades I've played the game, that I can recall. It's virtually unheard of. And one of those two times, I tweaked it to make the BBEG more powerful, because the PCs had gone up during the long adventure and I'd forgotten to adjust the BBEG to make him powerful enough. Poor gaming or bad PC decisions? Sucks to be you! Roll up a new character! But when it's a flaw in my writing or something I hadn't thought out correctly, and something that needlessly tears down the enjoyment of the game for me and the players, I prefer to fix it. And remember, it works both ways. I will tweak the bad guys to make them more powerful if I underpowered them in the first place. Of course, it's been a long time since I've ever had to do anything like that. A more experienced DM rarely needs to do that. Earlier on, those adjustments would be a little more common (though still pretty rare).

As i mentioned, they STILL can light torches/toss flaming oil and such, or use spells.. ITS not a "WE can't to jack, so we are screwed" situation...

Well sure, if they have oil. I'm just saying, it's not certain, but it is very likely, that the random encounter described would have resulted in a TPK and made the game less fun. Let the lich destroy the party, not some random monsters.

I would care.. FIRST, if that 'big bad' was in the area, WHY THEN ARE the werewolves there? IF They are that scared shitless at it, THEY WOULDN'T be there..
If it wasn't there before, to scare the werewolves off, WHERE Did it come from? HOW?

I gotta retroactively design this hypothetical game, since I was just making up an example. So let's say the lich's castle, to which the PCs were going, was on the other side of an ancient forest and werewolves were one of the monsters dwelling in that forest. The lich very likely would not know or even care about werewolves roaming the forest several miles away from his castle, while he himself is engaged in research several levels down in the dungeons below his well fortified castle. The thing that drove the werewolves off could be something that dwells in the forest that they avoid. It could be a hibernating monster, like the tarrasque. Or perhaps it just wandered in from afar and the werewolves had escaped it earlier and were still fleeing the area when the PCs encountered them, then the mystery monster caught up with them.

I think the point I was trying to make, to clarify, was this. In that scenario, the situation would be one where I threw in some wandering monsters as the PCs were approaching the final big battle with the BBEG. Just to soften them up some. Then I realize - "oh shit, I just created an almost certain TPK right before the climax of the campaign!". So how to deal with it? Can't really "fudge the dice" because that's gonna be as transparently obvious as glass. Can't just say "Oh, my mistake. Those were regular wolves, not werewolves". The players would look at me and be thinking "WTF?". So I'd have to find a way to resolve that encounter in a believable way, that doesn't ruin the game and that doesn't suspend disbelief ("oh, my mistake, those are normal wolves - must be a typo"). So the solution I came up with does several things:

1. It gets rid of the werewolves and avoids the TPK. Now we can get on with the game and if we're gonna have a TPK, it's gonna be a hell of an exciting one!

2. It creates even more fear - WTF was that thing? Do the players want to face it? I doubt it! More likely they'd run. There's no reason for me to tell them what it is or was. It wandered off perhaps. Maybe it was stalking something else. Or maybe it'll circle back as they approach the castle. Holy shit! Is that thing working for the lich? What is it?

3. I can always use that mysterious creature as the seed for a future campaign. Perhaps after they face the lich, assuming they survive, they decide to track down and slay whatever it was.

4. The roll and muttering "oh shit", then having the howling begin and the werewolves run off makes it seem like it was something planned. The DM didn't fuck up. It's something he rolled and it ended up being "out of the frying pan, into the fire", so to speak. The players have no clue that anything happened other than what was planned. It's totally believable.

That makes the assumption the party DOES flee!

It's almost certain they would, given that the thing they can't see just drove off a gaggle of monsters they themselves would have been ripped apart and dined on by. But even if they don't, there's any number of ways to handle it. The growling gets more distance or stops. Or, if they're already fleeing, maybe gets worse! In any case, I can come up with any number of ways of denying them the ability to find or face the new monster(s), without suspending disbelief. They probably don't want to face it, and/or they probably can't take the time because they need to go face the lich, the arch enemy they've been pursuing for months - before he completes his fatal experiment!

To ME, yes you DID push suspension of disbelief, in that hypothetical situation

How do you figure? The werewolves were there, I made a random roll for something else, muttered "oh shit" and had the werewolves flee in terror. All the PCs can logically assume is that something even more deadly than the werewolves were rolled for and whatever it is, even the werewolves fear it. I don't see how that could suspend disbelief. It would play as if it had been written into the game from day one.

BUT "I did it because they all lost magic, so i had to COVER FOR THEIR failure", is almost the same as saying "WELL the party declined to take a theif, so NOW I Need to edit my dungeon, to remove most if not all of the traps.. OR they failed to take a cleric that can turn undead, so now i need to remove most of the undead encounters i had planned"..

Ah, I see! It's the part about the lost magical items that threw my example off. Yeah, I used a sort of sloppy example on that part. To me that's different though. If the party doesn't have (or hire) a thief, that's their problem. I hope they have lots of crowbars and knock spells, because the dungeon is loaded with traps, and I'm looking forward to seeing them set off!

And if they neglect to bring a cleric, OMG there will be undead and poison and shit like that even if I have to add them after the fact!

My example was meant to present a situation where something the DM did wrong - put in too many random, irrelevant monsters, or far too many minions, or something where it results in a poorly written adventure (for that part only) that threatens to ruin all the fun. I kinda fucked myself, the players and the campaign, so how do I un-fuck it, but believably.

Like with Fudging dice, PLAYERS EVENTUALLY WILL cotton on to you 'saving them' like that.. HELL One guy i knew, was VERY GOOD at catching when the DM fudged dice, even WITH HIM always rolling behind a screen.....

True, players will catch on. Especially with dice rolling. I always play with my players' minds, sometimes going "oh shit" or laughing or putting on a serious face at inappropriate times. They've learned never to "take a cue" from a facial expression or pause or dice roll, because I make it impossible to read me. But I think, in the example I gave, the players would assume it was just part of the adventure as written because it would have been played out as well. In fact, I know it would because it happened to me - partly. It wasn't a mistake situation. It was during an outdoor trek and we had random wandering encounters and the PCs were hunting down some bugbears (or gnolls maybe - I forget the specifics) and by the time they re-encountered them, another random roll was required and it ended up being a mountain giant or hill giant or something and even though the PCs would have beaten the gnolls or bugbears or whatever they were the monsters ran when the giant arrived, at the sound of his smashing through the forest, and the PCs were like "Oh shit! Now what!". And ran after the fleeing gnolls just to get away until they could figure out what was happening.

[garhkal]

Halaster wrote

Truly, the Shit Editions have emasculated players. I've noticed it's also made DMs weak and lazy. They want everything pre-packaged and done for them. Seems nobody these days wants to create their own sandbox world or custom adventures. When I first started playing all those decades ago, virtually every DM eventually created their own worlds. Sure, we all played the published adventure modules and used the campaign settings (well, there really was only Greyhawk in 1E, then Forgotten Realms in late 1E). But the greatest desire and accomplishment virtually each DM strived for and reveled in was creating their own world. Or at least their own small section of their own world. Nowadays, they sell everything from lists of fully detailed taverns, shops, PCs, ports, castles, you name it.

From chatting with the local gang who Does 5e on sats, it does seem MOST ONLY do module like sessions.. No real making your own world and such anymore..

True, but I've never seen a party survive a werewolf attack without magic and magic weapons. All I'm saying is given that hypothetical scenario, I put in too many monsters than the party could reasonably hope to survive and a TPK was an almost certain outcome, so I'd have to either let the dice roll and fuck up the game, or I could manage the problem. Fudging the dice won't work because it's not a dice issue or hit point issue or anything numbers-related. Throwing my hands up and saying -"Oh well. TPK. We'll never know how the adventure could have ended. Let's roll up new characters." - to me, doesn't feel very much fun. Besides, the characters are itching to get to their arch enemy the lich, and I'd really prefer a TPK from the lich instead of some wandering werewolves.

So why have the lesser fight in there, if you won't let what occurs happen, just "because it wouldn't be fun, if they screwed up and died there..."?

I agree, but I'd say what I'm talking about is different than "saving" the PCs. I see it more as saving the campaign.

Thats the sort of mentality i see from DM's, who HATE killing characters.. PERIOD.. Whether its the BBEG end fight, or not, they are loathe to kill characters, because they think it will "End their vitally important campaign/story etc...
Plus what in that 'hypothetical', was YOUR fault, that you made them lose magic??

Well sure, if they have oil. I'm just saying, it's not certain, but it is very likely, that the random encounter described would have resulted in a TPK and made the game less fun. Let the lich destroy the party, not some random monsters.

Then why bother having random encounters, if you won't let what happens stand, all because yu would PREFER to have them die (or not) in final fights only??

I think the point I was trying to make, to clarify, was this. In that scenario, the situation would be one where I threw in some wandering monsters as the PCs were approaching the final big battle with the BBEG. Just to soften them up some. Then I realize - "oh shit, I just created an almost certain TPK right before the climax of the campaign!". So how to deal with it? Can't really "fudge the dice" because that's gonna be as transparently obvious as glass. Can't just say "Oh, my mistake. Those were regular wolves, not werewolves". The players would look at me and be thinking "WTF?". So I'd have to find a way to resolve that encounter in a believable way, that doesn't ruin the game and that doesn't suspend disbelief ("oh, my mistake, those are normal wolves - must be a typo"). So the solution I came up with does several things:

AND what i am not getting, is WHY WAS THIS "YOUR fault"?? Why is it on YOU to fix? EG, if the PARTY sold off magic for training, then went back out, that to ME is not on YOU TO correct, because they got RID of their items.. Did they lose them from item saves? Again not on you.. So why DO You think its on YOU to resolve, by literally a Deux ex machina method??

1. It gets rid of the werewolves and avoids the TPK. Now we can get on with the game and if we're gonna have a TPK, it's gonna be a hell of an exciting one!

2. It creates even more fear - WTF was that thing? Do the players want to face it? I doubt it! More likely they'd run. There's no reason for me to tell them what it is or was. It wandered off perhaps. Maybe it was stalking something else. Or maybe it'll circle back as they approach the castle. Holy shit! Is that thing working for the lich? What is it?

3. I can always use that mysterious creature as the seed for a future campaign. Perhaps after they face the lich, assuming they survive, they decide to track down and slay whatever it was.

4. The roll and muttering "oh shit", then having the howling begin and the werewolves run off makes it seem like it was something planned. The DM didn't fuck up. It's something he rolled and it ended up being "out of the frying pan, into the fire", so to speak. The players have no clue that anything happened other than what was planned. It's totally believable.

Maybe its just me, but how I SEE this, is MORE contrived than mere fudging dice would end up..

It's almost certain they would, given that the thing they can't see just drove off a gaggle of monsters they themselves would have been ripped apart and dined on by. But even if they don't, there's any number of ways to handle it. The growling gets more distance or stops. Or, if they're already fleeing, maybe gets worse! In any case, I can come up with any number of ways of denying them the ability to find or face the new monster(s), without suspending disbelief. They probably don't want to face it, and/or they probably can't take the time because they need to go face the lich, the arch enemy they've been pursuing for months - before he completes his fatal experiment!

First off, just because YOU think they would flee, doesn't mean they will. I've lost track of the # of combats, that i THOUGHT would be good and challenging, but winnable, but even AFTER the first two characters fell, i still thought it would be ok, IF THE PARTY wizes up and retreats..
BUT THEY STAYED AND GOT slaughtered...
Secondly, handing it that way you mention, SUSPENDS Disbelief for me, MORE... Its just deux exing the shit out of something you just Deux exed in...

My example was meant to present a situation where something the DM did wrong - put in too many random, irrelevant monsters, or far too many minions, or something where it results in a poorly written adventure (for that part only) that threatens to ruin all the fun. I kinda fucked myself, the players and the campaign, so how do I un-fuck it, but believably.

Ahh.. Gotcha.. BUT how you seem to handle it, sounds to me, to BE WAY more unbelievable, than maybe the werewolves, CAPTURE the party, to turn over to the lich...

It wasn't a mistake situation. It was during an outdoor trek and we had random wandering encounters and the PCs were hunting down some bugbears (or gnolls maybe - I forget the specifics) and by the time they re-encountered them, another random roll was required and it ended up being a mountain giant or hill giant or something and even though the PCs would have beaten the gnolls or bugbears or whatever they were the monsters ran when the giant arrived, at the sound of his smashing through the forest, and the PCs were like "Oh shit! Now what!". And ran after the fleeing gnolls just to get away until they could figure out what was happening.

THEN why did YOU have mountain giants/hill giants populating a RE chart where GNOLLS and bugbears were???

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

From chatting with the local gang who Does 5e on sats, it does seem MOST ONLY do module like sessions.. No real making your own world and such anymore..

That's what I've noticed as well for sure. No one seems to want to take the time to develop their own world. I've always considered that the ultimate expression of creativity for a DM - to be able to create a world of your own, with each and every aspect presenting something you envisioned and want to share with the players.

So why have the lesser fight in there, if you won't let what occurs happen, just "because it wouldn't be fun, if they screwed up and died there..."?.

I think we've been veering off into more of the minutia of the issue rather than the major point. Again, my example isn't perfect, it was made up on the spot. My overall point was only that "game balance", to me, isn't about matching up levels to HD or difficulty ratings or any such thing. It's about being able to manage the game so that it neither becomes a cake walk nor a character grinder adventure. I think there are times, based on experience, where something unexpected can go wrong, where a DM can make a mistake or where something stupid happens rolling the dice, where the DM should use his power as final arbiter. The salient points in my example are that the DM had an encounter that threatened to derail the campaign in a way that he didn't want and that would not be fun for the players or the DM.

I guess my argument would be that the DM shouldn't "rescue" players from bad decisions, bad dice rolls, or sheer bad luck. He also shouldn't "protect" his villains, as I've seen some DMs do. A neutral arbiter is the way to go as DM. But there are times when something fucked up happens, or the DM makes a really bad mistake, where it threatens to derail the fun of the campaign. In that case, I think it's the DM's job, as Gygax often wrote, to ensure the integrity of the campaign and the fun of all involved. I'm not sure I'm expressing what I'm thinking that well right now, but it is 4AM and I'm up past my bedtime so if not, I'm gonna blame that in sheer tiredness!

Thats the sort of mentality i see from DM's, who HATE killing characters.. PERIOD.. Whether its the BBEG end fight, or not, they are loathe to kill characters, because they think it will "End their vitally important campaign/story etc...
Plus what in that 'hypothetical', was YOUR fault, that you made them lose magic??

Oh no, I agree with you there. I don't mind crippling, killing, or screwing up characters - even if it's my own DM/PC in the games I've run one. If the game or current adventure ends a campaign because of a TPK, well...that sucks, but that's a risk we all take. We can always have followers or henchmen or other heroes step up to the plate, or roll up new characters, to keep that campaign world going. The events in that world/campaign go on, regardless of whether the PCs all live or all die. So say there's a huge plot with Thay involving Szass Tam, the Zulkir of Necromancy, and the party suffers a TPK. That party is gone. Sucks, but oh well. Maybe the fates did them in (bad dice rolls) or they simply weren't experiences enough characters (or players). Szass Tam's Thayan plot continues and the players are free to create a new party of new characters to continue on in that world, or we can switch to another setting. Either way is good.

Then why bother having random encounters, if you won't let what happens stand, all because yu would PREFER to have them die (or not) in final fights only??

I think you're missing my point. It's not because I prefer to have them die or not only in the final battle. It's about managing something I put in that I hadn't thought out that sucked the fun out. So using that same example, say I felt that I should not have written in the werewolves because I forgot that the party would not be able to survive that encounter. I've essentially assured, through an oversight, that the party takes a TPK and the adventure ends prematurely, and none of us enjoys it. So I manage that situation to allow the game to go where it was rightfully destined to go had I not screwed something up (again, the details are irrelevant, I'm trying to give you the big picture, the overview).

Now, let's say I introduce that thing, that unknown terror that scares off the werewolves and the PCs decide to go after it instead of fleeing it. I'd hope the PCs realize this is an appropriate time to run. But let's say they insist on finding whatever it is that drove off the werewolves - maybe the players have visions of large chunks of xp dancing in their heads. Well, I can do one of two things. I can either tell them it's not found (there are hundreds of possible explanations for why they cannot track it down, that would work within the logic of the game). Or, I could decide to simply place a powerful monster - something that is powerful enough to scare away a pack of werewolves - and let the PCs face their fate. If it's a TPK, oh well. They insisted. Either way works, and while I would prefer the PCs complete the adventure and win or lose at the final battle with the BBEG, it's up to them. The presentation I gave should clue them in that whatever is out there is something they probably should avoid (at least for now). It seems to me to be a very simple, logical and believable way to handle that "skipping" of the probable TPK battle with the werewolves. But if the players really want to go after the new beast, well...that's what the players want. It's their decision. So I will place a very powerful monster that is tough enough to scare off the werewolves. If it results in a TPK, then it's the decision of the players that led to it, not because of some oversight or glitch in my writing, it that makes sense.

AND what i am not getting, is WHY WAS THIS "YOUR fault"?? Why is it on YOU to fix? EG, if the PARTY sold off magic for training, then went back out, that to ME is not on YOU TO correct, because they got RID of their items.. Did they lose them from item saves? Again not on you.. So why DO You think its on YOU to resolve, by literally a Deux ex machina method??

Again, we're getting caught up in the minutia and missing the forest for the trees at this point. I'm just not sure I'm explaining the big picture I'm seeing correctly.

First off, just because YOU think they would flee, doesn't mean they will. I've lost track of the # of combats, that i THOUGHT would be good and challenging, but winnable, but even AFTER the first two characters fell, i still thought it would be ok, IF THE PARTY wizes up and retreats..
BUT THEY STAYED AND GOT slaughtered...
Secondly, handing it that way you mention, SUSPENDS Disbelief for me, MORE... Its just deux exing the shit out of something you just Deux exed in...

I think that might just be a personal flavor type disagreement. I've actually used that method, and it was seamless. I'm not sure I've explained it well though, so maybe I'm making it sound more manipulative than it really is.

Ahh.. Gotcha.. BUT how you seem to handle it, sounds to me, to BE WAY more unbelievable, than maybe the werewolves, CAPTURE the party, to turn over to the lich...

See, to me that would be less believable because the werewolves would be more likely to eat the PCs than to capture them. A gang of werewolves working for a lich, to me, isn't as believable. A group of ghouls or vampires or other undead, sure.

THEN why did YOU have mountain giants/hill giants populating a RE chart where GNOLLS and bugbears were???

It was large outdoor area, a forest with hills or mountains. The PCs had tracked the bugbears (actually, I'm pretty sure now they were gnolls now that I think back on it) and they all had wandered into another hex where the giants lived (I was using the old method of putting specific monsters in specific hexes on the map). So the gnolls ran from the PCs, ended up entering the hex (a few miles away) where the giants lived, and that's when things got interesting.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

God I hope there are no serious typos in that reply, but I gotta get to bed!

[garhkal]

Halaster wrote:

That's what I've noticed as well for sure. No one seems to want to take the time to develop their own world. I've always considered that the ultimate expression of creativity for a DM - to be able to create a world of your own, with each and every aspect presenting something you envisioned and want to share with the players.

IT also shows a DM CARES about what he is making, unlike when he just runs what someone else already created..

The salient points in my example are that the DM had an encounter that threatened to derail the campaign in a way that he didn't want and that would not be fun for the players or the DM.

Which to ME is bad.. The story shouldn't take precedence over the Game.. If 'one encounter' going pear shaped, can 'derail' the campaign, then WHY DID YOU include it in the first place, as you HAD TO have thought of 'what if it goes wrong", when you made it...

Oh no, I agree with you there. I don't mind crippling, killing, or screwing up characters - even if it's my own DM/PC in the games I've run one. If the game or current adventure ends a campaign because of a TPK, well...that sucks, but that's a risk we all take. We can always have followers or henchmen or other heroes step up to the plate, or roll up new characters, to keep that campaign world going. The events in that world/campaign go on, regardless of whether the PCs all live or all die. So say there's a huge plot with Thay involving Szass Tam, the Zulkir of Necromancy, and the party suffers a TPK. That party is gone. Sucks, but oh well. Maybe the fates did them in (bad dice rolls) or they simply weren't experiences enough characters (or players). Szass Tam's Thayan plot continues and the players are free to create a new party of new characters to continue on in that world, or we can switch to another setting. Either way is good.

Which kind of is opposite of what you were on about above, where "the story matters more"..

I think you're missing my point. It's not because I prefer to have them die or not only in the final battle. It's about managing something I put in that I hadn't thought out that sucked the fun out. So using that same example, say I felt that I should not have written in the werewolves because I forgot that the party would not be able to survive that encounter. I've essentially assured, through an oversight, that the party takes a TPK and the adventure ends prematurely, and none of us enjoys it. So I manage that situation to allow the game to go where it was rightfully destined to go had I not screwed something up (again, the details are irrelevant, I'm trying to give you the big picture, the overview).

What's wrong with keeping it in, and letting the PLAYERS decide how to handle that "We can't win combat" situation... Perhaps they surprise you with some good negotiations. Perhaps because they scouted it out, they avoid the battle.

Now, let's say I introduce that thing, that unknown terror that scares off the werewolves and the PCs decide to go after it instead of fleeing it. I'd hope the PCs realize this is an appropriate time to run. But let's say they insist on finding whatever it is that drove off the werewolves - maybe the players have visions of large chunks of xp dancing in their heads. Well, I can do one of two things. I can either tell them it's not found (there are hundreds of possible explanations for why they cannot track it down, that would work within the logic of the game). Or, I could decide to simply place a powerful monster - something that is powerful enough to scare away a pack of werewolves - and let the PCs face their fate. If it's a TPK, oh well. They insisted.

So why is THAT 'potential TPK', ok to let happen, but not the ones from the werewolves? In this hypothetical...

AND if i was in a game where something like that happened, and no matter HOW hard we players tried, the DM simply kept having us "NOT finding it", i would be wondering just WHAT THE Hell was going on...

Again, we're getting caught up in the minutia and missing the forest for the trees at this point. I'm just not sure I'm explaining the big picture I'm seeing correctly.

Because for some of us, MINUTIA matters.

I think that might just be a personal flavor type disagreement. I've actually used that method, and it was seamless. I'm not sure I've explained it well though, so maybe I'm making it sound more manipulative than it really is.

It certainly does sound like more manipulative than i'd like..

See, to me that would be less believable because the werewolves would be more likely to eat the PCs than to capture them. A gang of werewolves working for a lich, to me, isn't as believable. A group of ghouls or vampires or other undead, sure.

How else will they increase their #!\

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

IT also shows a DM CARES about what he is making, unlike when he just runs what someone else already created..

Exactly! I've noticed that - in general, not in absolute terms but generally speaking - that DMs who go through the trouble of writing their own campaigns and designing their own worlds tend to put more effort into making it a fun time. They work harder at making good decisions, they care about the game more.

Which to ME is bad.. The story shouldn't take precedence over the Game.. If 'one encounter' going pear shaped, can 'derail' the campaign, then WHY DID YOU include it in the first place, as you HAD TO have thought of 'what if it goes wrong", when you made it...

Again, overlook the minutia and look at the bigger picture. The details of why something was put in or not put in or whatever, is a distraction. I'll try taking it down a different track...

Why do we play the game? To have fun. I know, I know, people will speak of escapism or expressing their creativity and what not, but bottom line, all that boils down to is having fun. Some people have fun playing because it gives them some escape from the real world for a few hours - it's like watching a movie or playing a sport. Some enjoy the creative process. I, for example, have a great imagination and I love creating things. A large part of the fun and excitement for me is the creative process. Some people enjoy it because of the social aspect. The important thing for them is interacting with friends and/or family in a group game. And so on and so forth.

It all boils down to having fun. We all game because it's fun. We have fun doing it.

So ultimately, the fun is what matters. I truly have never known a player or a fellow DM (who I've known in person) who would prefer strict adherence to the rules and not having fun over bending or breaking the rules and having fun. Some examples to illustrate this...

Say the PCs are in a huge battle. They've been looking forward to but also dreading the upcoming battle with the Drow elves! The players and the DM both know that there could be heavy losses for the PCs, perhaps even a TPK. But by god, they're not going down without a fight! But let's say the DM overestimated the Drow and placed too few of them to pose a truly deadly threat to the party. Whatever. Again, the details are totally irrelevant - it's the core concept I'm getting at. So the DM overestimated the Drow and the party is wiping them out and you can see it in the players' faces - they're sorta disappointed. They're not that excited anymore. They were looking forward to an epic battle, and willing to accept heavy losses, even a TPK. Now it feels like a cake walk. One player says "Hmmm. I thought the Drow would be much more deadly". The players are clearly not having fun. And that's why we play in the first place - to have fun.

So what would I do? I'd probably say something like: "Oh they're deadly, but you forgot also sneaky. Nick, you feel a piercing pain in your back as a stinging, coldness begins coursing through your body. Make a saving throw vs poison. Those of you who turn around to look in response to Nick's shout of pain...you realize the rest of the Drow party has flanked you! They were hiding in their magical darkness and now that they've taken your measure, they're intent on taking your freedom as slaves in their slave farm!"

Oh shit! There are more Drow! We were ambushed! Again - I'm just throwing out unpolished, generic responses to illustrate the point, the precise strategy or details are not relevant to the point. Now the players, who just moments ago were disappointed and not very excited are suddenly going "oh shit, oh fuck!" and back into the excitement. Everyone is perked up, sitting ramrod straight in their chairs, hurriedly looking through their character sheets to see what magic they can turn to, etc. The battle is on!

"Cast a fireball, Gandalf! Hurry!"
"Where's Himdall's potion of sweet water? Give a sip to Brunor before he dies! He's turning purple!"
"Someone take out that goddamned Drow archer!"

Just like that BAM! It's game on!

Now, in that generic scenario, if I had not added the extra Drow, what would be the outcome? As a DM I'd feel disappointed. I didn't enjoy the game. It didn't satisfy or excite me or my players. My players were disappointed. They walk away from the table saying "Wow, I thought fighting the Drow would be more fun. I thought it was gonna be an epic battle. It was a cake walk."

But we religiously followed the game as written, so that's a plus, right? I don't see it that way.

In the second option I added some Drow, I changed the scenario to advance the adventure. I tweaked it. I cheated. Obviously in a real game I'd take greater care to pose the sneak attack more seamlessly so that the players believed it had already been written or accounted for in that manner. But now my players are jumping out of their chairs, yelling, whooping and hollering, cheering and praying. They're excited. They're having fun. Maybe some of them die. Hell, maybe all of them die. But ultimately, after the adventure concludes, the players will be saying: "My god that was intense! I thought for sure we were doomed! Damn, those Drow are tough!"

I honestly cannot picture a player or DM preferring the former scenario over the latter. The former was a let down, a disappointment, almost a bore. The latter scenario ended up being a memorable event they'll talk about fondly for years - how they lost half the party, how the rest barely made it out alive, but by god they beat the Drow!

Which kind of is opposite of what you were on about above, where "the story matters more"..

It's not the story that matters more. It's the fun. To me, having fun will always and forever trump following the rules or sticking to the script or saving the adventure as written or keeping the campaign alive.

What's wrong with keeping it in, and letting the PLAYERS decide how to handle that "We can't win combat" situation... Perhaps they surprise you with some good negotiations. Perhaps because they scouted it out, they avoid the battle.

Again, that's more minutia. We can game out every response, counter-response and counter-counter response in great detail. It's the concept I'm trying to get across, which is, it's better to fudge/cheat/tweak/whatever to keep the excitement and fun going, to keep the blood pumping, than to religiously stick to the adventure as written.

So why is THAT 'potential TPK', ok to let happen, but not the ones from the werewolves? In this hypothetical...

AND if i was in a game where something like that happened, and no matter HOW hard we players tried, the DM simply kept having us "NOT finding it", i would be wondering just WHAT THE Hell was going on...

Again, the minutia is being focused on, not the bigger picture I'm trying to express. But to answer that (I don't want you to think I'm just blowing off your questions or something) - I think everyone I've ever gamed with would be happier with, much more excited over, and far more grateful for a TPK where they go down fighting against their arch enemy rather than falling in an inconsequential and irrelevant, minor battle that amounted to a random encounter.

To put it another way, imagine the bad guys open a gate and Orcus comes through with undead and demons and what not. Which outcome is more fun, more exciting and more satisfying:

1. The PCs engage with Orcus directly, his magic resistance shutting down most of their spells. The PCs hit Orcus now and then, but at great cost as Orcus slays one party member with a touch of the Wand of Orcus and another with his poisonous tail spike. The paladin, summoning all the faith he can muster, tries turning Orcus and through some miracle granted by his god (rolls a natural 20) he turns Orcus away in loathing and revulsion. Orcus sends a demon to attack the paladin from behind - a demon who is joined by a second and then a third demon. The thief sneaks behind Orcus and goes for the backstab with the blessed dagger the paladin gave him. Orcus screams in pain before whipping his powerful tail, impaling and poisoning the thief, who dies on the ground writhing in pain and coughing up purple phlegm. The paladin's sword strike once, twice, thrice. One demon falls, then another. Orcus sends reinforcements - a gaggle of vampires. The paladin falls to them, drained of blood by multiple bites at the same time. Orcus looks at the wizard, who is weaving his next spell, and laughs. The wizard sends a lightning bolt out but Orcus's magic resistance stops it. Orcus waves his hand and pronounces a single word in a strange language and suddenly the wizard grabs his chest and dies. The final member of the party - the ranger and his two followers - attack Orcus from all sides, doing damage but eventually falling to his superior power. The party is now defeated, all dead.

OR...

2. The PCs face Orcus, who summons an army of lemures, who pile atop the PCs, smothering them to death by their superior numbers.

In the first example, they at least go down heroically and dramatically and the players almost certainly ended up enjoying it more than being smothered by freaking lemures.

That's sorta what I'm getting at.

Because for some of us, MINUTIA matters.

True, and it often does to me, but in this case I think the minutia is obscuring the big picture. It's like I'm trying to paint a picture of the forest, so to speak, and you and I are debating the color of the bark one one tree and the leaves on another and whether the leaves should be green (spring) or yellow (fall).

It certainly does sound like more manipulative than i'd like..

I'm not seeing how you see that. Is it the fact that you KNOW I'm manipulating the story, or the fact that it's being manipulated at all? I ask because it's obvious as I explain it, you clearly know I've manipulated the story. Would you feel different though - imagine if you were a player in that game and the change (of "fix") I made felt seamless and natural - i.e. you thought that was actually a written part of the game. Would you still feel that way? Or maybe the more accurate way to ask that is would you, as a player, be upset if only AFTER the fact you realized I manipulated the game so that the werewolves fled? In other words, if you were in that scenario and the werewolves fled and you thought "oh shit, what is that thing? maybe we better not deal with it right now - let's go deal with the lich" and then later on I told you "well, I nerfed the werewolf battle so that you could get to the main objective - the big lich battle", would you feel more or less happy with the adventure (assuming the fight with the lich was fun and exciting and challenging)?

How else will they increase their #!\

I'm not sure what you mean there. Do you mean how do the werewolves increase their numbers?

[garhkal]

Halaster wrote:Exactly! I've noticed that - in general, not in absolute terms but generally speaking - that DMs who go through the trouble of writing their own campaigns and designing their own worlds tend to put more effort into making it a fun time. They work harder at making good decisions, they care about the game more.

I've also noticed a tendency, to make it seem more 'life like'.....

Say the PCs are in a huge battle. They've been looking forward to but also dreading the upcoming battle with the Drow elves! The players and the DM both know that there could be heavy losses for the PCs, perhaps even a TPK. But by god, they're not going down without a fight! But let's say the DM overestimated the Drow and placed too few of them to pose a truly deadly threat to the party. Whatever. Again, the details are totally irrelevant - it's the core concept I'm getting at. So the DM overestimated the Drow and the party is wiping them out and you can see it in the players' faces - they're sorta disappointed. They're not that excited anymore. They were looking forward to an epic battle, and willing to accept heavy losses, even a TPK. Now it feels like a cake walk. One player says "Hmmm. I thought the Drow would be much more deadly". The players are clearly not having fun. And that's why we play in the first place - to have fun.

Iv;e had battles like that, MORE cause i as DM had a bad dice day, and the players dice were on fire.. NOT cause of "bad planning" or over/under estimating thngs...

Now, in that generic scenario, if I had not added the extra Drow, what would be the outcome? As a DM I'd feel disappointed. I didn't enjoy the game. It didn't satisfy or excite me or my players. My players were disappointed. They walk away from the table saying "Wow, I thought fighting the Drow would be more fun. I thought it was gonna be an epic battle. It was a cake walk."

Would you 'fudge' things like that, if it was JUST because the player's dice were hot and yours were not???

Again, that's more minutia. We can game out every response, counter-response and counter-counter response in great detail. It's the concept I'm trying to get across, which is, it's better to fudge/cheat/tweak/whatever to keep the excitement and fun going, to keep the blood pumping, than to religiously stick to the adventure as written.

ANd as you've been told in many threads, i HATE fudging/cheating.. AS ALL TOO OFTEN i've seen it lead to favoritism, especially of one or a few certain players...

Again, the minutia is being focused on, not the bigger picture I'm trying to express. But to answer that (I don't want you to think I'm just blowing off your questions or something) - I think everyone I've ever gamed with would be happier with, much more excited over, and far more grateful for a TPK where they go down fighting against their arch enemy rather than falling in an inconsequential and irrelevant, minor battle that amounted to a random encounter.

And i agree. People DO find it more 'paltable' to die in a BBEGG fight, than one with mooks. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN That the DM should only LET CHARACTERS DIE in battles with BBEG's, and do all they can to "STOP THEM FROM ever dying if they fight mooks.. Which is "the forest for the trees" Mentality you seem to be going for.

I'm not seeing how you see that. Is it the fact that you KNOW I'm manipulating the story, or the fact that it's being manipulated at all? I ask because it's obvious as I explain it, you clearly know I've manipulated the story. Would you feel different though - imagine if you were a player in that game and the change (of "fix") I made felt seamless and natural - i.e. you thought that was actually a written part of the game. Would you still feel that way? Or maybe the more accurate way to ask that is would you, as a player, be upset if only AFTER the fact you realized I manipulated the game so that the werewolves fled? In other words, if you were in that scenario and the werewolves fled and you thought "oh shit, what is that thing? maybe we better not deal with it right now - let's go deal with the lich" and then later on I told you "well, I nerfed the werewolf battle so that you could get to the main objective - the big lich battle", would you feel more or less happy with the adventure (assuming the fight with the lich was fun and exciting and challenging)?

Being i have been very good, through out the years, in being able to catch when DM's have done a deux e type of save', or fudging dice etc, i say i am very good at catching those sorts of manipulations.. So even IF i was the player of someone in that gang, i am NOT seeing HOW you could have "made it so seamless and natural" that i WOULDN'T go "OK what the fuck over"...
AND YES< i would be more upset if i found out afterwards, OR DURING... BOTH to me make me feel Cheated...

It would also give me the lingering thought of, "OK so this guy only ever wants us to die from 'BBEG fights", not filler fights with mooks...

I'm not sure what you mean there. Do you mean how do the werewolves increase their numbers?

Yes.. Like all things living, they must think of 'keeping their population up...

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Note: Garhkal, there was a quote tag messing up the format of your post so I edited it to fix that. Didn't change anything you wrote, just the tag format.

Garhkal wrote:

I've also noticed a tendency, to make it seem more 'life like'.....

More believable you mean?

Iv;e had battles like that, MORE cause i as DM had a bad dice day, and the players dice were on fire.. NOT cause of "bad planning" or over/under estimating thngs...

I virtually never "adjust" for dice rolls. Yeah, sometimes the dice cause weird shit, but that's part of the fun, to me - the injection of chaos. A strange bit of dice trivia...for some ungodly reason no one can figure out, every single fucking time the PCs in my longest running/best done campaign (the highly DM-altered Taladas campaign I've mentioned often before) go out on a sea voyage, the damned ship sinks. I mean, literally every single time! I roll random weather for the season, and also for monster encounters (though often I plan a sea monster encounter to make the voyage memorable) and somehow the dice always end up generating a huge storm and the ship's sea worthiness roll fails or the monster damages the ship and its sea worthiness roll fails...the dice always work against them! Eventually they started taking two ships! The one and only time they even suspected it was in a situation where I definitely did not, it was just that the dice rolls were so freakish it seemed impossible for the rolls to happen that way.

But yeah, I've noticed that over the years as I got more experienced as a DM, the main problems that popped up were strange lopsided dice rolls, not errors in planning. But even so, sometimes I do screw it up, or circumstances screw it up.

Would you 'fudge' things like that, if it was JUST because the player's dice were hot and yours were not???

I never have, that I can remember. To me, that's just sheer good or bad luck. But...in a case like the Drow example, and if it were just quirky dice rolls and not an issue of the DM overestimating the Drow, sure, I'd add the extra Drow as I described earlier. I see no reason to let random chance derail an exciting game and turn it into a disappointment. My Golden Rule is that fun and excitement trumps the rules as written, the game as written, the campaign as planned, etc. The only issue is making sure the change/fudging is transparent so the players never catch on.

ANd as you've been told in many threads, i HATE fudging/cheating.. AS ALL TOO OFTEN i've seen it lead to favoritism, especially of one or a few certain players...

Yeah, I knew a DM who always did that (for his girlfriend and best friend only) and the other players caught on pretty quickly. The only reason I'd ever fudge a die roll is in a situation such as the Drow example I gave. Given the choice between "obeying" the dice (where they result in a lackluster, uninspired, boring or disappointing game) and disregarding a roll (or rolls) in order to keep the game engaging, fun and exciting, I'll always take the latter. Fun trumps everything. I'll never let my players know, but whatever it best serves the interest of the game. I don't do it to save characters or things like that. That's one reason why, in games where I run a DM/PC, I roll everything for the character out in the open:

"This is my saving throw roll vs. acid to see if my sword survives. Shit. Anyone got a spare? Now let's roll for my shield. Whew! Barely made it! What else do I have that's metal?"

If I'm in a spot where the character has to make a decision such as "you think I should open that door?" I simply do a WIS roll, or a 1/2 WIS roll, depending on whether the character would or should have a clue. Declared and rolled openly. If it's something that's beyond an ability check and a decision is to be made, it's "high roll for yes, low roll for no".

And i agree. People DO find it more 'paltable' to die in a BBEGG fight, than one with mooks. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN That the DM should only LET CHARACTERS DIE in battles with BBEG's, and do all they can to "STOP THEM FROM ever dying if they fight mooks.. Which is "the forest for the trees" Mentality you seem to be going for.

Oh no, not at all. What I'm saying is that usually only if I made some sort of error would I do that. Or if it's just ridiculous die rolls (the party killed by low level skeletons? I don't think so!) and it's really going to ruin the game. If it's an inconsequential or random encounter that's not important. If they face the lich's undead underlings, for example, and they die, well...that's part of the battle with the lich, in a sense. Gotta get by the BBEG's minions to get to him and if you don't survive the minions, oh well. But for a random encounter that's not vital to the big picture, or if some absolutely insanely outrageous die rolls threaten to wipe out a party in a minor encounter that was designed to merely weaken them and deprive them of resources, I'd probably fudge it.

It's a pretty subjective thing and you gotta read your players well. So if for example, in that Drow encounter I posited earlier, the players were just cake-walking through the Drow but having fun - I'd let that stand. Why change it? If they're all happy and excited and having fun wiping out my under-planned mini Drow party and the players are enjoying the game - go with it! It's not a problem. Hell, it works even better then because they end up overconfident in the next, deadlier encounter with Drow. Again, the fun element trumps all.

Being i have been very good, through out the years, in being able to catch when DM's have done a deux e type of save', or fudging dice etc, i say i am very good at catching those sorts of manipulations.. So even IF i was the player of someone in that gang, i am NOT seeing HOW you could have "made it so seamless and natural" that i WOULDN'T go "OK what the fuck over"...
AND YES< i would be more upset if i found out afterwards, OR DURING... BOTH to me make me feel Cheated...

Same here. I hate feeling cheated in the game. Most of my players have been really sharp too - many of them could sniff out a deus ex machina or dice fudge like fucking bloodhounds! None have ever caught on because I did such a good job playing it off without so much as blinking. The only time any of them ever even asked me if I fudged the dice was during a battle where I (as DM) was rolling shit dice for the bad guys and the players were rolling like their dice were blessed twice over, because they kicked ass so well and so quickly. My response? "Have I ever fudged the dice before? Ever?". The response? "Never as far as I can tell."

The one and only time they suspected I might have fudged the dice was a time I didn't but the dice rolls were so fucking bizarre - almost defying the laws of probability - that they truly had to ask.

It would also give me the lingering thought of, "OK so this guy only ever wants us to die from 'BBEG fights", not filler fights with mooks...

No, I've had plenty of PCs die fighting the mooks. None of my players would ever think that.

Yes.. Like all things living, they must think of 'keeping their population up...

Ah, ok. Yeah, I agree. Yep, homebrew campaigns are often labors of love for the DM, so they tend to be run better for sure.

[garhkal]

More believable you mean?

More lived in, more alive.

I virtually never "adjust" for dice rolls. Yeah, sometimes the dice cause weird shit, but that's part of the fun, to me - the injection of chaos. A strange bit of dice trivia...for some ungodly reason no one can figure out, every single fucking time the PCs in my longest running/best done campaign (the highly DM-altered Taladas campaign I've mentioned often before) go out on a sea voyage, the damned ship sinks. I mean, literally every single time! I roll random weather for the season, and also for monster encounters (though often I plan a sea monster encounter to make the voyage memorable) and somehow the dice always end up generating a huge storm and the ship's sea worthiness roll fails or the monster damages the ship and its sea worthiness roll fails...the dice always work against them! Eventually they started taking two ships! The one and only time they even suspected it was in a situation where I definitely did not, it was just that the dice rolls were so freakish it seemed impossible for the rolls to happen that way.

I am surprised they didn't STOP doing sea voyages!

The only issue is making sure the change/fudging is transparent so the players never catch on.

ANd that's the kicker. I know folks like you, who THINK they can always do it, to where players won't cotten on', but i know FAR MORE PLAYERS WHO WILL recognize that shit, when it occurs, than DM's who actually get away with it...

Yeah, I knew a DM who always did that (for his girlfriend and best friend only) and the other players caught on pretty quickly. The only reason I'd ever fudge a die roll is in a situation such as the Drow example I gave. Given the choice between "obeying" the dice (where they result in a lackluster, uninspired, boring or disappointing game) and disregarding a roll (or rolls) in order to keep the game engaging, fun and exciting, I'll always take the latter. Fun trumps everything. I'll never let my players know, but whatever it best serves the interest of the game

Where as to ME, knowing our battle was only won, because the DM 'Felt he had to keep it exciting, but never "LET the players know i fudged", TAKES AWAY MY EXCITEMENT...

If it's an inconsequential or random encounter that's not important.

IF it's so "Inconsequential/lack of importance", WHY INCLUDE IT then!

No, I've had plenty of PCs die fighting the mooks. None of my players would ever think that.

based on your earlier comment of "Dying from mere skeletons - never" quip, i have to call Bull there....

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

More lived in, more alive.

Yeah, I noticed that too. I think it's because the DM is putting something of themselves into it, so they rise to the occasion to do a good job.

I am surprised they didn't STOP doing sea voyages!

They considered it! It became sort of an ongoing joke - can my PC invent life preserver jackets? Can my wizard create an enhanced teleport spell? I mean, the sheer bad luck on every sea voyage simply defied the laws of probability! These guys, when they found a treasure hoard, didn't want to find a cache of magic swords...they wanted to find a cache of folding boats to bring as life boats!

ANd that's the kicker. I know folks like you, who THINK they can always do it, to where players won't cotten on', but i know FAR MORE PLAYERS WHO WILL recognize that shit, when it occurs, than DM's who actually get away with it...

Well yes, plenty of DMs think they can do it. It take a good and experienced DM to actually do it and get away with it. The trick is to act like nothing unusual is happening and that it's part of the game, plus make it totally believable. It's like slight of hand.

Where as to ME, knowing our battle was only won, because the DM 'Felt he had to keep it exciting, but never "LET the players know i fudged", TAKES AWAY MY EXCITEMENT...

Well sure, if you know the DM cut some slack or fudged the dice, it's a let down because the player knows he didn't win on his own. He had help. Like I said, it has to be invisible to the players.

IF it's so "Inconsequential/lack of importance", WHY INCLUDE IT then!

Again, it might be a random encounter that ended up being one encounter too much. I sometimes write out "random" encounters as opposed to rolling them randomly. So for example, if the party is doing a cross country trek I tend to plan these "random" encounters, minor things to spice up the journey. But even the best DM can't predict uncontrollable events. I usually simply create "random" encounter lists of monsters with numbers appearing. So I might have it set to check for a random encounter every 8 hrs or something, depending on the area and other factors. Then I have a list to roll on, the "random" monster list. Maybe there's bugbears, bulletes, a wolf pack, whatever. I try to customize the list to the area. Anyway, I've seen it happen (for example) where 3 or 4 consecutive encounters resulted in the toughest monsters on the charts and the maximum number appearing rolled. Wore the party down far beyond any reasonable expectation, far beyond the level to which I would ever try to do.

Even so, I would usually let that stand. But when I have to say to myself "Wow, Halaster, you sorta overdid it with the encounters" or "ok, these rolls are getting out of hand - it's as if some outside force is trying to derail my campaign", I'll simply tweak it.

So in other words, the random encounters and/or the minor planned encounters are just icing on the cake, added simply to create some interest to an otherwise boring journey. It's always more fun to have something exciting happening during a cross country trek through the wilderness, for example, than to simply handwave it and say "Well, you traveled 500 miles through the woods and it was uneventful. You're at your destination." But it's ok if just a few of them happen. Say there's a 60% chance of an encounter each day on a 10 day journey. We can expect on average 6 encounters across those 10 days. If only 4 happen, that's fine. If 8 happen, that's ok too. They're not essential to the adventure. They're icing. So something that inessential shouldn't be allowed to dominate the adventure and derail the important, vital core.

based on your earlier comment of "Dying from mere skeletons - never" quip, i have to call Bull there....

You'll just have to take my word for it. I think you know me well enough that I'm open and honest. But I have to remind you just how rare it is for me to do some sort of fudging. Perhaps I've made it sound like I do it regularly or something. Not so. I think in the Taladas campaign where we played 44 consecutive adventures, with a good number of them being really extensive adventures (we did play every weekend for a good 10 hours each session for about 15 years straight, that's how much material the games had) I probably tweaked or fudged things just a few times. By "few" I'm talking about maybe 2 or 3 times. Even if there was a 4th time, that's about once every 4 years of gaming on average, which is miniscule.

[garhkal]

With surprise and encounter distance though, NOTHING says the party HAS TO FIGHT those encouters.. So if they are, IMO THat is on them.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Again, that's drifting off the point I think.