Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

know the type?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 5:15:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

This is about a game that had just started on rpol.net.
In the first combat, several players asked about AoOs.
The GM replied that the AoOs were rolled as secret rolls and all
missed.
That reply prompted the following IM chat:

[09:44] Silveraxe: no offense, but what's the point of having a dice
roller if all the rolls are secret?
[09:45] pbemGM: LOL same reason a DM can roll behind a DM screen
[09:45] pbemGM: in a table top game
[09:45] Silveraxe: well ... i never roll behind the DM screen ...
[09:45] Silveraxe: but why should miss chances be secret?
[09:46] pbemGM: all my rolls are secret,
[09:46] pbemGM: besides you all aren't supposed to get the woman yet
she's an NPC that is meant to come back later
[09:49] Silveraxe: why are all your rolls secret?
[09:49] pbemGM: Im the DM
[09:50] Silveraxe: then why make them at all?
[09:50] pbemGM: because I give the players a chance
[09:56] Silveraxe: is there no way i can get you to change your mind
about this?
[09:56] pbemGM: nope, because if I decide to let y'all actually
accomplish something the roll might say missed
[09:57] pbemGM: in case I gave something to difficult
[09:57] Silveraxe: tough! we'll find another solution
[09:57] pbemGM: then I can fudge in your favor as well
[09:57] Silveraxe: you're turning the game into a freeform
[09:57] pbemGM: no Im not
[09:57] pbemGM: this is how D&D works
[09:57] pbemGM: its not free form
[09:57] pbemGM: I could just let you all make the roll and decide yes
or no
[09:57] pbemGM: with out telling you
[09:57] pbemGM: its the same thing
[09:59] Silveraxe: so ... no matter what i say or do, you decide what
goes
[09:59] Silveraxe: how am i actually playing?
[10:00] pbemGM: Well I am the DM, it kinda says that in the rules, the
DM is the final say on all rules calls.
[10:02] Silveraxe: on RULES calls. But if my dieroll says I hit, you
cannot just say I didn't, if my skill check succeeds, you cannot say it
didn't. Likewise for failing and you saying it did not fail.
[10:03] pbemGM: Don't argue with me, Its my NPC, I can set the AC
different if that's what its all about. Not just about rules calls but
to make the story go I make the calls.

Here, I said I quit, but the conversation continued for a while.
It yielded this additional gem.

[pbemGM: your character will die when the story allows (paraphrased)]
[Silveraxe: why? just have every attack against him hit and do damage
by the rules. That's not cheating, it's just fudging for the story,
right? (paraphrased)]
[10:36] pbemGM: now you've pissed me off
[10:36] pbemGM: I dont play like that
[10:36] pbemGM: Im a fair person
[10:36] pbemGM: and you are making it seem Im not
[10:36] Silveraxe: then show everybody how fair you are
[10:37] Silveraxe: where's the harm in that?
[10:37] Silveraxe: if you're not cheating, why hide?
[10:37] pbemGM: because Im THE DM!

That was the third time "I'm THE DM" was used as some kind of ultimate
argument. Well ... even if "you're THE DM!" you cannot prevent me from
quitting.

Silveraxe.

More about : type

Anonymous
June 10, 2005 9:57:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118391357.646797.113390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Here, I said I quit, but the conversation continued for a while.

Well, if that's what you want, and you weren't getting it from the game you
were playing, you were right to quit.

However, the simple fact of the matter is that you were pressing him for an
answer that you *KNEW* wasn't going to be what you wanted to hear. He
provided his reasons, and you continued arguing with it, leaving him little
choice but to return with Rule Zero. You painted the DM into a corner and
he pulled out the last line of defense, leaving you with scant few options.

You asked for his reasons, he gave them. That's the end of the discussion,
although you can and did feel free to continue the discussion. In a
situation like this, you have only two options, grin and bear it, or quit(as
you did), because of the simple existance of Rule Zero.

Truth be told, speaking for myself, I would much rather have a DM that hides
his rolls, for the very reasons laid out by the DM you were chatting to. I
would simply chalk this up to "different strokes" and leave it at that, if I
were you.

If I were this DM and didn't want an argument, when asked "why roll in
secret", I simply would have said "that's the way I do it". No reasons
provided as to WHY the rolls are secret, just that it's the way things in
his game are done. You could then be left to draw your own conclusions.

We have several DM's in our group(from time to time), and one of them likes
to roll in the open, but nobody is forcing him to do it. When he's running,
he makes the etiquette rules of his game, and he happens to prefer rolling
in front of players.

Frankly, I would prefer if the DM in question rolled the dice somewhere more
"contained"(like, say, a screen), because he tends to throw dice around like
a maniac when he rolls(usually like 5 feet in the air), especially when
there's multiple hit rolls involved. Invariably one of them goes skittering
off the table and across the ceramic floor, and then one of the cats tries
to abscond with their new toy to the safe confines of the darkness beneath
the couch. Then it's a fight with a pissed off and possessive cat to
retrieve the die before it is eaten. Ever try to wrest a die from the mouth
of a cat who doesn't want to let it go? Not fun.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 1:49:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Sparky Polastri wrote:
>
> The DM's job is to make the game fun, not make your Munchkin Stats fantasies
> come to fruition. If you want total disclosure, just read the damn
> adventure and go jerk off afterwards.
>
> > [09:57] pbemGM: I could just let you all make the roll and decide yes
> > or no
> > [09:57] pbemGM: with out telling you
> > [09:57] pbemGM: its the same thing
> > [09:59] Silveraxe: so ... no matter what i say or do, you decide what
> > goes
> > [09:59] Silveraxe: how am i actually playing?
> > [10:00] pbemGM: Well I am the DM, it kinda says that in the rules, the
> > DM is the final say on all rules calls.

Sounds like you're the one jerking off to absolute power fantasies.
If you're making all the decisions and telling your story no matter
what I say, how is it fun?

Silveraxe.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 2:59:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118391357.646797.113390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> That was the third time "I'm THE DM" was used as some kind of ultimate
> argument. Well ... even if "you're THE DM!" you cannot prevent me from
> quitting.

You have incompatible styles. He may not have explained his position with
much eloquance but it is no less a valid approach than yours. Really,
issues like these should have been resolved before you started play.
Personally I dislike the idea of a DM playing in this style and wouldn't
have joined the game. Doesn't make him wrong though.
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 2:06:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:
> >>>[09:46] pbemGM: besides you all aren't supposed to get the woman yet
> >>>she's an NPC that is meant to come back later
>
> Matt Frisch wrote:
> > The DM is pissed off because some character he intended to allow to live
> > longer was apparently handed her ass by the dice. Too F'ing bad. If you
> > want her to live longer, then you should have played her smarter or made
> > her stronger.
>
> But don't you see the problem? It requires *intellectual*
> *effort* to make an NPC who is difficult to kill,

"This NPC has 10,000 hit points."

> or to play
> an NPC as careful and clever.

"This NPC prepared for their encounter with
you by doing X, Y and Z, which happen to be
just the right things to neutralize your
A, B and C, and you were unable to detect
that they'd done X, Y and Z until you actually
tried A, B and C."

It really doesn't take as much "intellectual
effort" as you think, if the only goal is to
make characters that are "difficult to kill"
or "careful and clever", in strictly
game terms. Omnipotent DM, remember?

> And the pbemGM in question is, obviously, exceedingly
> challenged in that department.

You're missing the "problem". pbemGM thought the
way to make things interesting was to tell a
good story using the game as a vehicle, Silveraxe
thought the way to make things interesting was to
play a good game and see if an exciting story
came out of it. Different play styles, that's all.

Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
June 11, 2005 4:36:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 10 Jun 2005 22:06:31 -0700, firelock_ny@hotmail.com dared speak in
front of ME:

>Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:
>> And the pbemGM in question is, obviously, exceedingly
>> challenged in that department.
>
>You're missing the "problem". pbemGM thought the
>way to make things interesting was to tell a
>good story using the game as a vehicle, Silveraxe
>thought the way to make things interesting was to
>play a good game and see if an exciting story
>came out of it. Different play styles, that's all.

You forget who you're talking to. Peter "simulationist is the only
valid style" Knutsen.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 4:56:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

>>>[09:46] pbemGM: besides you all aren't supposed to get the woman yet
>>>she's an NPC that is meant to come back later

Matt Frisch wrote:
> The DM is pissed off because some character he intended to allow to live
> longer was apparently handed her ass by the dice. Too F'ing bad. If you
> want her to live longer, then you should have played her smarter or made
> her stronger.

But don't you see the problem? It requires *intellectual*
*effort* to make an NPC who is difficult to kill, or to play
an NPC as careful and clever.

And the pbemGM in question is, obviously, exceedingly
challenged in that department.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 7:15:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
> news:r4rka11i2f2p0f1lfd01e88i7t8rdn47eo@4ax.com...
> > >The DM's job is to make the game fun,
> >
> > Indeed. And for some folks, that means open die rolls with no
> > fudging.
>
> If the game is interesting, and the DM rolls behind a
> screen, it doesn't MATTER if the rolls are fudged or not, because
> ULTIMATELY, what matters is the enjoyment of the game, not the the details
> of it's operation.

If the DM has a preset course for the game, and any action that would
change that course is doomed to fail by roll fudging or hiding, the
game, as an interactive endeavour, can not interesting.
It might be interesting as a book, but then it is not interactive.

I'll draw your attention to the line saying "you all aren't supposed to
get the woman yet she's an NPC that is meant to come back later"

Silveraxe
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 8:26:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Silveraxe wrote:
> This is about a game that had just started on rpol.net.
> In the first combat, several players asked about AoOs.
> The GM replied that the AoOs were rolled as secret rolls and all
> missed.
> That reply prompted the following IM chat:

<snip>

I hate this kind of DM. OTOH, there are people who like this style.
(Well, apparently. Personally, I've never actually met a _player_ who
enjoyed this, though I know several DMs that do.)

I _can_ understand the DM wanting to make some rolls in private,
though. For instance, if the party's trying to sneak up on some foes, I
think it's legit to roll the enemies' Spot/Listen rolls secretly. Not
so the DM can cheat, mind; just to keep the players in the dark about
the result.

Anyway, I'd probably have reacted the same way you did. It was
unfortunate that these things weren't made clear before the game,
though. Then all this unpleasantness could have been avoided.

Laszlo
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 8:58:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118422193.588614.240640@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Sounds like you're the one jerking off to absolute power fantasies.
> If you're making all the decisions and telling your story no matter
> what I say, how is it fun?

Obviously it's not fun FOR YOU. You make it sound like the merest hint of a
DM exercising his own good judgement is cause for immediate rebellion and
dumping that game forever, and while that is your choice, it smacks of a
level of pigheadedness that one tends to find only in small children.

Let us assume that you drop out of that campaign, and join another campaign.
The DM in question rolls behind his screen. You balk at such an affront to
your senses, and he simply says "that's the way it is". He doesn't say WHY
he wants to roll behind the screen, he just notes that it's his preferred
way of handling things, and leaves it at that. Do you leave that game? You
have no idea what his motives for doing it are. Maybe he's fudging. Maybe
he just likes to keep his dice in one place when he's rolling, and the
screen provides a nice backdrop. Maybe the screen is actually where it is
to block a strange reflection in a window that tends to give the DM a
headache, which is the reason why my screen is always on my left, even
though I am right handed.

The point is that if he doesn't embellish his reasons, you're left making
assumptions, and while you're free to make them, of course, you're not
always guaranteed of being right. Instead of asking the DM why he rolls "in
secret", why don't you just let him run his game the way he runs his game,
and enjoy playing it. Honestly, it seems like a silly reason to leave a
campaign if the DM rolls behind a screen. If you enjoy the campaign, does
it really MATTER if the DM is rolling behind a screen, whatever his
motivations for doing so might be?

You left the campaign previously described before you even game it a chance
to be interesting. That's your call, I guess.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 9:03:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:r4rka11i2f2p0f1lfd01e88i7t8rdn47eo@4ax.com...
> >The DM's job is to make the game fun,
>
> Indeed. And for some folks, that means open die rolls with no
> fudging.

I agree with your assessment, but a player who doesn't like DMs rolling
behind screens has no right to impose his single viewpoint on the rest of
the players and DM, who may strongly favor the DM having the ability to
fudge.

I think that this player was very wise to quit the game he was in, given his
position on the matter, but I likewise think that it's a somewhat silly
reason to quit. If the game is interesting, and the DM rolls behind a
screen, it doesn't MATTER if the rolls are fudged or not, because
ULTIMATELY, what matters is the enjoyment of the game, not the the details
of it's operation.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 5:09:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118484924.893342.299610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > "Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
> > news:r4rka11i2f2p0f1lfd01e88i7t8rdn47eo@4ax.com...
> > > >The DM's job is to make the game fun,
> > >
> > > Indeed. And for some folks, that means open die rolls with no
> > > fudging.
> >
> > If the game is interesting, and the DM rolls behind a
> > screen, it doesn't MATTER if the rolls are fudged or not, because
> > ULTIMATELY, what matters is the enjoyment of the game, not the the
details
> > of it's operation.
>
> If the DM has a preset course for the game, and any action that would
> change that course is doomed to fail by roll fudging or hiding, the
> game, as an interactive endeavour, can not interesting.
> It might be interesting as a book, but then it is not interactive.
>
> I'll draw your attention to the line saying "you all aren't supposed to
> get the woman yet she's an NPC that is meant to come back later"

Everybody's jumping all over Silveraxe as if he had a choice to endure the
inability to have his character make a choice. I don't think he did, not if
he wanted to stay in this game. If this so-called pbemDM prefers to run the
game in an audiobook style, that's one thing, but I agree with Silveraxe's
choice to leave the game and for the reasons why. Now maybe that's two style
and play preferences clashing, but I don't see the appeal at all of joining
in someone's game only for that someone to completely dictate what happens,
regardless of any dice rolls I make.
The telling the story of the adventure is only HALF of the story imo, and
telling the story of the adventure is one thing; telling the players that
their actions and choices (however subtle and subliminally) won't really
matter in the end is bullshit. I'd tell a DM to just email me the whole damn
manuscript of what happens in the adventure, from beginning to end, cause I
have more important things to do like the laundry or the dishes. Do I do the
dishes first or the laundry? According to pbemDM, he'll let me know....
Now maybe some people prefer adventures where you're being led around by the
nose so that the story toes the line and stays true to form, but I sure
don't.

--
In an old 1E campaign I played in, there was this half-dwarf, half-orc
character. They called him a dorc. -Solomoriah
What this country needs are more unemployed politicians. -Edward Langley,
Artist (1928 - 1995)
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 8:43:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
> news:r4rka11i2f2p0f1lfd01e88i7t8rdn47eo@4ax.com...
> > >The DM's job is to make the game fun,
> >
> > Indeed. And for some folks, that means open die rolls with no
> > fudging.
>
> I agree with your assessment, but a player who doesn't like DMs rolling
> behind screens has no right to impose his single viewpoint on the rest of
> the players and DM, who may strongly favor the DM having the ability to
> fudge.
>
> I think that this player was very wise to quit the game he was in, given his
> position on the matter, but I likewise think that it's a somewhat silly
> reason to quit. If the game is interesting, and the DM rolls behind a
> screen, it doesn't MATTER if the rolls are fudged or not, because
> ULTIMATELY, what matters is the enjoyment of the game, not the the details
> of it's operation.
>
>

The problem is really not the rolling of dice behind a screen but
rather no matter what the party does, the GM has a pre-set outcome.
For example, an NPC was supposed to be killed because of how the dice
played out. The DM didn't want the NPC to die because she was
important to the plot later in the adventure, ergo she doesn't die.

Gerald Katz
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 12:02:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hadsil wrote:
>
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
>>"Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
>>news:r4rka11i2f2p0f1lfd01e88i7t8rdn47eo@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>The DM's job is to make the game fun,
>>>
>>>Indeed. And for some folks, that means open die rolls with no
>>>fudging.
>>
>>I agree with your assessment, but a player who doesn't like DMs rolling
>>behind screens has no right to impose his single viewpoint on the rest of
>>the players and DM, who may strongly favor the DM having the ability to
>>fudge.
>>
>>I think that this player was very wise to quit the game he was in, given his
>>position on the matter, but I likewise think that it's a somewhat silly
>>reason to quit. If the game is interesting, and the DM rolls behind a
>>screen, it doesn't MATTER if the rolls are fudged or not, because
>>ULTIMATELY, what matters is the enjoyment of the game, not the the details
>>of it's operation.
>>
>>
>
>
> The problem is really not the rolling of dice behind a screen but
> rather no matter what the party does, the GM has a pre-set outcome.
> For example, an NPC was supposed to be killed because of how the dice
> played out. The DM didn't want the NPC to die because she was
> important to the plot later in the adventure, ergo she doesn't die.
>

I do hope that you are right, because I make all rolls behind a screen,
rarely fudge, and I allow the players to take the game wherever they
want it to go, doing my best to have contingencies prepared for most
things. I wouldn't roll my dice in the open, and would be offended by
the notion that somehow I should.

All that said, I'd be equally offended by the notion that a game was on
rails. I like surprises, even as a DM.

--
"Speaking of valid debates, it seems to me that there's an inverse
power-to-cleavage ratio among Aes Sedai." - Frank van Schie (r.a.s.w.rj)
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 12:58:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118484924.893342.299610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> If the DM has a preset course for the game, and any action that would
> change that course is doomed to fail by roll fudging or hiding, the
> game, as an interactive endeavour, can not interesting.
> It might be interesting as a book, but then it is not interactive.

But, if you don't KNOW that, for 100% certain, then it doesn't matter if the
book has already been written or if the book is being written on the fly.

> I'll draw your attention to the line saying "you all aren't supposed to
> get the woman yet she's an NPC that is meant to come back later"

Yes, it was rather silly of the DM to give away the ending before it was
time.

There are times when I DM that I have specific things that I want to happen,
regardless of the PC actions. I try to ensure that I think of literally
everything that the PC's could possibly do to change the course of actions
and do what I can to prevent those things from coming true prior to the
event actually happening. Then, I say what happens, and then spirit away
the NPC in question before the PC's can attack it or whatever. That way,
I've already thought of what the PC's are likely to do, and have handled
most situations up front. If I need an NPC to appear in the beginning of
the story, and at the end of the story, often I will have the NPC appear
just in the back of some huge gob of people that are looking for a fight
with the PC's. Then they have to deal with the mob before grabbing the NPC,
giving me a reasonable explaination as to why the NPC got away, etc.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 1:01:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
> If this particular little nuance is so important to him, you'd think he'd
> bring it up before joining a campaign. I mean, if it's a deal-breaker,
> doesn't it behoove him to bring it up before joining up?

If the DM just calls for "a D&D game" I will assume that everything
about it is pretty much default. "Default" includes every player
rolling his own rolls as evidenced many times in the rule books.
I believe that the onus is on the DM to announce house rules
beforehand, whether they are about the game or about the way he runs
it.

Silveraxe.
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 1:09:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Richard Taylor" <soluzar@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:D 8gmm2$963$8@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I do hope that you are right, because I make all rolls behind a screen,
> rarely fudge, and I allow the players to take the game wherever they
> want it to go, doing my best to have contingencies prepared for most
> things. I wouldn't roll my dice in the open, and would be offended by
> the notion that somehow I should.

This view encapsulates my particular thought on the matter rather nicely.
When there are things that I need to have happen in a story, I do my best to
ensure that I've thought of most of the things that players will do to screw
up my storyline, in the hopes that they don't screw it up. But if they are
ingenious and circumvent my story in a rather clever way that I didn't think
of, it's highly likely that I will let them screw up my story(but there's
not much that I don't think of).

Also, while I sometimes fudge, most of the time, I do not, and working under
the assumption that I *AM* fudging all the time is reason enough for me to
be annoyed at a player for not trusting my judgement.

> All that said, I'd be equally offended by the notion that a game was on
> rails. I like surprises, even as a DM.

Me too. I try to keep the game off rails as much as possible, so that the
game being "derailed" is not as much of a problem. For example, the PC's
decided recently to try and take on their very first dragon, but didn't even
make it to the dragon's lair before they decided to turn around. Oh well,
next adventure, maybe...

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
June 12, 2005 4:21:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 05:03:01 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> dared speak in front of ME:

>"Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
>news:r4rka11i2f2p0f1lfd01e88i7t8rdn47eo@4ax.com...
>> >The DM's job is to make the game fun,
>>
>> Indeed. And for some folks, that means open die rolls with no
>> fudging.
>
>I agree with your assessment, but a player who doesn't like DMs rolling
>behind screens has no right to impose his single viewpoint on the rest of
>the players and DM, who may strongly favor the DM having the ability to
>fudge.

Indeed. However, I think he does have the right to question it - and
the extent to which it will apply - if it wasn't discussed before he
joined the campaign.

>I think that this player was very wise to quit the game he was in, given his
>position on the matter, but I likewise think that it's a somewhat silly
>reason to quit. If the game is interesting, and the DM rolls behind a
>screen, it doesn't MATTER if the rolls are fudged or not, because
>ULTIMATELY, what matters is the enjoyment of the game, not the the details
>of it's operation.

For some, it doesn't matter.
For others, whether or not the rolls are fudged (and even to what
extent they are fudged) is a factor in whether or not the game is
interesting - and therefore, it *does* matter to them.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 6:18:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:


> I think that this player was very wise to quit the game he was in, given his
> position on the matter, but I likewise think that it's a somewhat silly
> reason to quit. If the game is interesting, and the DM rolls behind a
> screen, it doesn't MATTER if the rolls are fudged or not, because
> ULTIMATELY, what matters is the enjoyment of the game, not the the details
> of it's operation.

That's your opinion but it is hardly silly if others have different
priorities.
June 12, 2005 8:00:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 08:58:43 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> dared speak in front of ME:

>"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1118484924.893342.299610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> If the DM has a preset course for the game, and any action that would
>> change that course is doomed to fail by roll fudging or hiding, the
>> game, as an interactive endeavour, can not interesting.
>> It might be interesting as a book, but then it is not interactive.
>
>But, if you don't KNOW that, for 100% certain, then it doesn't matter if the
>book has already been written or if the book is being written on the fly.

Certainty isn't required. If the suspicion is strong enough, even
knowing there's a small chance you can be wrong won't stop it from
*feeling* predestined. And that is enough to ruin the game for some
people.

You can protest all you want, you can even belittle those who feel
that way. But that won't change anything; it'll just make you look
like a twit.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 9:45:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
> news:9a9pa1tdl9d4uraora8013ure9pdvrp9pi@4ax.com...
> > >If this particular little nuance is so important to him, you'd think he'd
> > >bring it up before joining a campaign. I mean, if it's a deal-breaker,
> > >doesn't it behoove him to bring it up before joining up?
> >
> > The DM is the one who is deviating substantially from the norm, it's his
> > job to explain it, not the player's to ask.
>
> *IS* the DM deviating substantially from the norm?

Look at the example of play in the DMG (p. 9-10.) That is the default
way to play.

Consider the case of someone who has learned the basics of the game
from the books. He comes to your game. You roll everything behind your
screen.
He has no idea why things are happening to his character, but enjoys
the game because it's his first time.

He cheers when he has a 1 in a million success (and smiles knowingly,
thinking that you're just encouraging him.)
Then he asks to see the dice when he has a 1 in a million failure.

Silveraxe.
June 13, 2005 11:04:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Silveraxe wrote:

> If the DM has a preset course for the game, and any action that would
> change that course is doomed to fail by roll fudging or hiding, the
> game, as an interactive endeavour, can not interesting.
> It might be interesting as a book, but then it is not interactive.

True.

But... this isn't an either/or thing. There's a broad spectrum between
"totally preset" and "totally freeform". You can have a campaign where
certain events and outcomes are hard or impossible to alter, but where
the PCs nevertheless have limited free will.


> I'll draw your attention to the line saying "you all aren't supposed to
> get the woman yet she's an NPC that is meant to come back later"

IMO that's sloppy DMing. Part of being a good DM is being able to
think on your feet and come up with a fallback plan. Key NPC is
killed? Okay, either plug in another NPC who can replace her, or find
another way to get the necessary information to the party.

But, okay... sometimes this is hard or impossible. And then it's
really tempting to make the NPC unkillable.

Stating my deological priors: I reserve the right to roll behind the
screen. And I regularly exercise that right... about a third of my
rolls are BTS at all times.

Do I ever fudge rolls? Very occasionally. Not often. But I think
it's a legitimate part of the DM's toolkit.

As is often the case on Usenet, this is threatening to become a
shouting match between philosophical extremes. But... IMO the point of
the game is to have fun. I try to DM so as to maximize the enjoyment
of all players plus myself. (Paradoxically, sometimes that means
letting a PC die, because when players lose a sense of risk the game
becomes less fun. But that's another thread, and one which has been
done many times.) Sometimes this means fudging a roll.

Here's a trivial example. My PCs know that I regularly roll random
encounters, and they've learned to be a little nervous about them -- my
REs are really random and may include encounters with ELs significantly
lower /or higher/ than the PCs' level.

Now, once in a while I have a preprogrammed encounter that I put in for
plot purposes. (Viz., the malevolent ghost that the PCs recently
encountered was not random, but an NPC that will be popping up to vex
them again.) When I do this, I roll as if I was rolling a random
encounter... so the PCs don't know whether it's "really" random or part
of a larger scheme. (Though I try to make my REs part of the plot too,
when I can. But that's another story.)

So, I roll my REs sometimes in front of the screen, sometimes behind
it.(Talking to Silveraxe now) If you were playing IMC, would that be a
problem for you? I'm curious.


Waldo
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 11:45:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Symbol" <JB70@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:D 8hg81$mqb$12@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
>
> > I think that this player was very wise to quit the game he was in, given
his
> > position on the matter, but I likewise think that it's a somewhat silly
> > reason to quit. If the game is interesting, and the DM rolls behind a
> > screen, it doesn't MATTER if the rolls are fudged or not, because
> > ULTIMATELY, what matters is the enjoyment of the game, not the the
details
> > of it's operation.
>
> That's your opinion but it is hardly silly if others have different
> priorities.

I agree with you 100%. *I* think it's a silly reason, but other people may
not. If it's important to those other people, important enough to quit a
game as a direct result of it happening, they should make that known up
front, so that the DM in question can avoid the problem altogether, simply
by saying, "I don't think you'll fit into this game."

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 11:52:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Symbol" <JB70@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:D 8hg89$mqb$13@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > If this particular little nuance is so important to him, you'd think
he'd
> > bring it up before joining a campaign. I mean, if it's a deal-breaker,
> > doesn't it behoove him to bring it up before joining up?
> >
> It's a two way street although it is not surprising that you don't
> recognize that.

Honestly, I don't think it is a two way street. Because of rule zero, the
DM has a bit more latitude than participating players, and that makes it
somewhat less encumbant on the DM to make known his style. As DM, I would
make my basic style known, and do make my basic style known to all new
players, before they even join the game, and they can make their decision
with at least a modicum of information. But even if I forget to mention
that I roll behind a screen(something I probably WOULDN'T mention, because
it doesn't seem too terribly important to me, personally), the player has
more responsibility to tell me what he would quit for than I have to tell
him every nuance of my game. The one list(of quit-worthy methodology) is
far shorter than the other list. I guess it would be a "one and a half way
street".

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 12:04:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118592096.389248.243840@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> If the DM just calls for "a D&D game" I will assume that everything
> about it is pretty much default. "Default" includes every player
> rolling his own rolls as evidenced many times in the rule books.
> I believe that the onus is on the DM to announce house rules
> beforehand, whether they are about the game or about the way he runs
> it.

I don't think the decision for a DM to roll behind or in front of a screen
could reasonably be considered a house rule, to be honest with you. When I
think of "house rule", I think of a very definite departure from the rules
that a given campaign uses. I have never seen a rule that specifically
states that a DM *MUST* roll out in front of the players.

For instance, if you were to play our game(!!!), you would be made aware of
a few "house rules": Magic is extremely rare and valuable and expensive,
you don't lose a point of CON for being raised(but you do lose a level),
critical hits are handled like so, XP is given out as such, dead is -10 hp,
etc etc. But the decision by a DM to keep his rolls behind a screen or in
front of the players is one that our campaign considers one of style rather
than rule. One DM rolls in front of the screen, two DM's roll behind
screens. To the players it is simply a question of style, not rule.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 12:07:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:9a9pa1tdl9d4uraora8013ure9pdvrp9pi@4ax.com...
> >If this particular little nuance is so important to him, you'd think he'd
> >bring it up before joining a campaign. I mean, if it's a deal-breaker,
> >doesn't it behoove him to bring it up before joining up?
>
> The DM is the one who is deviating substantially from the norm, it's his
> job to explain it, not the player's to ask.

*IS* the DM deviating substantially from the norm? I mean, I know a lot of
people here play by the style of DM rolls in the open, but I'm sure there
are a like number of DM's that roll in private. So, I agree with your basic
point, that if the DM is deviating from norm, it's his job to make it known,
but I don't think that this particular stylistic point applies.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 12:30:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Waldo wrote:
>
> So, I roll my REs sometimes in front of the screen, sometimes behind
> it.(Talking to Silveraxe now) If you were playing IMC, would that be a
> problem for you? I'm curious.

I'm not talking about random encounters, treasure, NPC stats or
anything else you might roll as background. You might as well roll
those back home, I don't care. I, for one, rarely roll that stuff
because I prefer to assign all of it by hand. I might roll if I am
completely out of ideas only to kickstart my thinking ("So ... why
would a pixie carry around a greataxe and a platinum piece?")

About equipment, NPC stats, skills and feats, I do expect them to
follow the rules, so if I miss that naked commoner on a roll of 32 I'll
start thinking something's fishy ... but that's another discussion.

I AM talking about attack rolls, damage rolls (both mine and those of
the NPCs - He punched me for HOW MUCH?!?! FIVE TIMES IN A ROW? THROUGH
STONESKIN?!) skill checks, (ok, *maybe* not opposed skill checks, but
that's something to talk about,) miss chances due to concealment and
other things which concern me directly and are actually MY decisions.

*If the DM rolls everything behind his screen, I'll start thinking that
my character generation and play decisions do not matter. I might as
well play a character with all 10s, no skills and no feats, because the
DM will roll in secret and if I fail badly, he will fudge for me.

"Oh, but no," Jeff Goslin and others narrativists will say, "I use the
rolls as they are to tell ME what happens and I tell the players about
them fair and square. I'll fudge ONLY if the result breaks my game
(through a TPK, aimless wandering, complete lack of drama, whatever.)"

If all you need are "hints" to help you run the game, why not roll a d6
instead, or toss a coin?

Straw men, I know, both this one and the one before (*), but they're
meant to point out that if you fudge one, you might as well fudge them
all.
Where do you draw the line?

Silveraxe.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 6:01:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118676621.036217.304980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Straw men, I know, both this one and the one before (*), but they're
> meant to point out that if you fudge one, you might as well fudge them
> all.
> Where do you draw the line?

It's fairly obvious that you've drawn the line between black and white with
a thick magic marker so nobody can miss it. That's fine, it works for you,
nothing can happen to the random dice in this magical world that will be
anything BUT random.

I have to agree with Waldo. Fudging, while rare, DOES happen in my game,
and to FORCE me to *NEVER* fudge is to remove the POTENTIAL application of
that fudging, which HAS a use in the game from time to time. By forcing the
DM to roll in front of you, you remove that tool from the kit.

It seems fairly obvious to me that you have been subject to some rather
obscene amounts of fudging by a DM in the past, tainting your view of secret
DM rolling, and if that's the case, I feel sorry that your experience of the
game has been tainted in that manner. But not EVERYONE lets fudging get
away from them in a way that negatively impacts the game.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 6:59:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:D 5idnbvQr7FT7jDfRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> "Symbol" <JB70@talk21.com> wrote in message
> news:D 8hg89$mqb$13@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > > If this particular little nuance is so important to him, you'd think
> he'd
> > > bring it up before joining a campaign. I mean, if it's a
deal-breaker,
> > > doesn't it behoove him to bring it up before joining up?
> > >
> > It's a two way street although it is not surprising that you don't
> > recognize that.
>
> Honestly, I don't think it is a two way street. Because of rule zero,
the
> DM has a bit more latitude than participating players, and that makes it
> somewhat less encumbant on the DM to make known his style.

Games contracts, formal or informal, take precedent over Rule Zero because
even that can be denied to DMs.

> As DM, I would
> make my basic style known, and do make my basic style known to all new
> players, before they even join the game, and they can make their
decision
> with at least a modicum of information. But even if I forget to mention
> that I roll behind a screen(something I probably WOULDN'T mention,
because
> it doesn't seem too terribly important to me, personally),

You don't think rerolling *everyones* AoOs behind a screen might annoy
some people. Get out more.

> the player has
> more responsibility to tell me what he would quit for than I have to
tell
> him every nuance of my game.

Yeah right.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 6:59:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:Ie-dneRu2LQODDDfRVnyuw@pipex.net...
> > the player has
> > more responsibility to tell me what he would quit for than I have to
> tell
> > him every nuance of my game.
>
> Yeah right.

Look, the list of "quit-worthy offenses" for *MOST* players is pretty damn
short. Whereas, the list of styles and preferences for most DM's is pretty
damn long. I'd rather hear the player's list of quittable situations over
having to iterate my list of stylistic choices. That way, the odds of
something being left out are decreased dramatically.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 7:53:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I'm currently playing in two campaigns. In one, I play a cleric, the
other a rogue. In my cleric campaign, the DM has never said he fudges.
I suspect he does. I have noticed easy encounters suddenly become
hard while my character is about to die encounters suddenly becomes
easier. The game is fun. Player characters do effect the cmapaign
world. The DM rolls behind a screen. Some combats he'll roll in the
open. However, on *very important* rolls, ones where the consequences
of failure means something, including but not limited to a PC death, he
will roll in the open. These rolls are true pivotal moments of the
campaign, the results of which can drastically change the course of the
campaign.

In my other game, the DM always rolls behind the screen. I suspect he
does not fudge. As a first time ever rogue player, I am a bit
disappointed I dont get to roll my own searc/disarm traps where as the
rogue player in my cleric campaign can. However, because the DM
doesn't fudge, as far as I know he doesn't, if I fail to find a trap I
later spring, I'm confident he really rolled low on my search.

A significant difference between the games is that my rogue game as a
lot higher death count. That alone tells me he's not fudging. In my
cleric game, my character would have died twice if not for a house
rule, but the rogue and wizard died once each. In my rogue game, my
character died twice already as well as others multiple times. I agree
there has to be some risk for there to be fun. However, losing a
charracter just because I rolled a 2 and then a 1 to a Phantasmal
Killer is no picnic either, but that's the game. The point, though, is
the rhetorical-like question of how much character death caused just by
bad luck in dice rolling is too much before fudging is acceptable?

Gerald Katz
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 8:58:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Silveraxe wrote:

> Straw men, I know, both this one and the one before (*), but they're
> meant to point out that if you fudge one, you might as well fudge them
> all.
> Where do you draw the line?
>

where I think it's right for the game. I'll only ever fudge if the game
would suffer. That's part and parcel of being a DM, and if it were your
character on the receiving end when I'm erring on the side of
generosity, then you'd be glad of it. You wouldn't know, but
theoretically, you'd be glad.

--
"Speaking of valid debates, it seems to me that there's an inverse
power-to-cleavage ratio among Aes Sedai." - Frank van Schie (r.a.s.w.rj)
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 12:09:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:07:32 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:9a9pa1tdl9d4uraora8013ure9pdvrp9pi@4ax.com...
>> >If this particular little nuance is so important to him, you'd think he'd
>> >bring it up before joining a campaign. I mean, if it's a deal-breaker,
>> >doesn't it behoove him to bring it up before joining up?
>>
>> The DM is the one who is deviating substantially from the norm, it's his
>> job to explain it, not the player's to ask.
>
>*IS* the DM deviating substantially from the norm?

He's not letting his players roll their own dice. Yes, he is.

> I mean, I know a lot of
>people here play by the style of DM rolls in the open, but I'm sure there
>are a like number of DM's that roll in private. So, I agree with your basic
>point, that if the DM is deviating from norm, it's his job to make it known,
>but I don't think that this particular stylistic point applies.

He's also making the game into his own little mind-game of fantasy geekoid
mental masturbation. In simple point of fact, the players are not the least
bit required to participate. If nothing they do has any effect on the game
(and it doesn't, as explicitly stated by the DM), why isn't this DM just
writing a book and cutting out the middleman? The non-participitory nature
of the game is another substantial deviation from the norm.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 2:41:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:mspra15b7b387um8oi84sr0pis4prpprq9@4ax.com...
> He's also making the game into his own little mind-game of fantasy geekoid
> mental masturbation. In simple point of fact, the players are not the
least
> bit required to participate. If nothing they do has any effect on the game
> (and it doesn't, as explicitly stated by the DM), why isn't this DM just
> writing a book and cutting out the middleman? The non-participitory nature
> of the game is another substantial deviation from the norm.

I'm quite curious to know how one can make the logical LEAP from "DM rolling
behind a screen" to "nothing they do has any effect[sic] on the game".
There's a reason the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, you know.

That I admit to fudging from time to time does NOT mean that the characters
are my pawns to do with as I will, and nothing they do makes any difference.
To jump to that extremely illogical conclusion immediately is fairly silly,
if you ask me. Why would you assume that one instance of fudging instantly
removes the players from the equation for all previous actions and all
actions to come?

If a DM accidentally misreads a die, are the players likewise a complete
non-entity? The net result is the same, after all. I'm curious, what is
the difference between accidental fudging by a legally blind DM, and the
intentional fudging on occassion by a DM who can read the dice just fine?
It happens from time to time with legally blind players and DMs in this
game; my wife is legally blind, and has to view her dice from about three
inches away to get a good read on them, and sometimes misreads them, most
often with the difference between [3|8|0] and [1|7], since the numbers are
"relatively close" to a person with poor vision. Anyways, does the
misreading of dice constitute the same level of uninvolvement, since the
application of the rules are depending on numbers that are "made up", if
even accidental? I would hope that you would say "there's a difference",
and you would be right, one is intentional, and one is not, but the net
effect is the same, that being a modification of the end result as a result
of misinterpretation of dice, regardless of intent.

In order to be consistent, you would have to declare any misapplication of
die rolls as removing the players from having any impact on the game, and
therefore it would be pointless to play the game if that were to take place.
Now, the question then becomes this: do you HONESTLY think that you have
ALWAYS read every die correctly, 100% of the time, without any failure
whatsoever, intentional or not? Can you HONESTLY say that you've never
mistaken a 3 for an 8 by accident, that you've never been tired, or
distracted, or maybe had maybe some peanut butter, maybe some cheezy poof
residue, something on your dice obscuring your reading of it, maybe it was a
non-rerolled cocked die, something that happened to cast doubt on the die
roll to cause a potential misinterpretation, intentional or not? In other
words, are you willing to say to everyone here that you are PERFECT? Are
you really willing to tell everyone in the world that you NEVER make a
mistake in reading dice, that you never have and you never will? Can you
honestly say such a thing with a straight face?

If you can't bring yourself to say that you are perfect, and we know how
perfect people are, you are not beyond the same fault that you would villify
a DM for doing, intent aside. Since the net result is the same either way,
any intentional misread has the same result as an unintentional misread, so
fudging is simply the DM's version of "smudged dice", which EVERYONE has
had, in some form or another in their lifetimes.

I fudge rarely, but it happens. It happens so infrequently that in this
magical world of D&D, I'm willing to attribute it to "the will of the gods"
without losing ANY sleep over it. So get over it. One case of fudging doth
not a campaign undo.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 2:48:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <mspra15b7b387um8oi84sr0pis4prpprq9@4ax.com>,
Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:07:32 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
>scribed into the ether:
>>*IS* the DM deviating substantially from the norm?
>He's not letting his players roll their own dice. Yes, he is.

I think in Jeff's campaign the players roll their own to-hit and damage. I
think he's talking about rolling DM dice rolls behind the screen -- enemy
to-hit/damage, plus checks where the players shouldn't know the result
e.g. did you fail to find traps because there aren't any or because you failed
your roll?

But I may well be misremembering what Jeff has said in the past.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 3:41:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 13 Jun 2005 22:48:24 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
scribed into the ether:

>In article <mspra15b7b387um8oi84sr0pis4prpprq9@4ax.com>,
>Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:07:32 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
>>scribed into the ether:
>>>*IS* the DM deviating substantially from the norm?
>>He's not letting his players roll their own dice. Yes, he is.
>
>I think in Jeff's campaign the players roll their own to-hit and damage. I
>think he's talking about rolling DM dice rolls behind the screen -- enemy
>to-hit/damage, plus checks where the players shouldn't know the result
>e.g. did you fail to find traps because there aren't any or because you failed
>your roll?

I don't know about Jeff's campaign, but in this pbemDM's campaign, the
players don't get to roll their own dice.

I have no problem with the DM rolling behind the screen, in fact I think it
is required in a lot of circumstances..but the players? And to not so much
fudge the rolls as completely ignore them...f00k dat.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 3:55:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Richard Taylor wrote:
> Silveraxe wrote:
>
> > if you fudge one, you might as well fudge them all.
> > Where do you draw the line?
> >
> where I think it's right for the game. I'll only ever fudge if the game
> would suffer.

I won't even ask whether you are the one deciding what's "right for the
game."

It has been established that most people who fudge will fudge to avoid
difficult to replace character death. Let's see how much further you
take the line between what you fudge and what you do not.

1. Hurt feelings.
If a PC has a streak of bad luck and keeps missing with his shiny new
sword, do you fudge to allow him a couple of good hits and keep him
happy?
If a specialized character has been aching all night to put his unique
abilities to use, finally gets a chance, then blows it, do you fudge?

2. Story/Plot survival.
If you plant an essential clue but the PCs miss it, do you fudge the
Spot check?
If a particularly good roll (say, a Jump check over an obstacle, a
Search for a secret door, a Pick Locks check) would allow the PCs a
shortcut through your painstakingly detailed dungeon, do you fudge that
roll?
If an NPC has to meet the party and survive, do you fudge to keep him
alive? If, on the other hand, he must die but the party doesn't feel
like fighting him, do you fudge the pot shot they half-heartedly take
at him to be a critical?

3. Drama
Do you fudge to bring a character to the brink of death, then fudge
again to not push him over?
Do you fudge to dramatically extend a task which would otherwise be
solved quickly?
Generally, do you fudge for dramatic effects?

> if it were your character on the receiving end when I'm erring
> on the side of generosity, then you'd be glad of it.

What on earth gave you that idea?

Silveraxe.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 4:13:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118676621.036217.304980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> I have to agree with Waldo. Fudging, while rare, DOES happen in my game,
> and to FORCE me to *NEVER* fudge is to remove the POTENTIAL application of
> that fudging, which HAS a use in the game from time to time. By forcing the
> DM to roll in front of you, you remove that tool from the kit.

If fudging is ok and acceptable, why do you need to hide it?
If it is an essential tool in running the game and all your players
agree with it, why not tell them about it and talk it out?

Why not take a break from the game, put on your OOC hats, and say "Hey,
wouldn't it be cool for the story if you failed/succeeded at this
check? Let's say you did, huh?" If they trust you so much and the
advantages of ignoring the roll are so great I'm sure they'll agree.

Wouldn't this be the mature thing to do? After all, they are able to
accept Christmas presents even though they don't believe in Santa
anymore. You don't need to hide and lie about it.

Silveraxe.
June 14, 2005 6:20:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Silveraxe wrote:

> > where I think it's right for the game. I'll only ever fudge if the game
> > would suffer.
>
> I won't even ask whether you are the one deciding what's "right for the
> game."

Well, I am sort of in a good position to do that.


> If a PC has a streak of bad luck and keeps missing with his shiny new
> sword, do you fudge to allow him a couple of good hits and keep him
> happy?

No.


> If a specialized character has been aching all night to put his unique
> abilities to use, finally gets a chance, then blows it, do you fudge?

Hahaha. No.


> If you plant an essential clue but the PCs miss it, do you fudge the
> Spot check?

Probably not. I had a problem a few months back with a party in which
*none* of the mid-level PCs had a Spot higher than +4. So they were
unlikely to make a DC 20 or higher Spot check.

My response was to have them keep missing Spot checks and getting in
trouble for it. "Darn, guys, nobody spotted the hidden ghouls. You're
surprised. Again." Eventually, a PC died (in part because of a missed
Spot) and the PC replaced him with a new character who is maxed on Spot
-- something like +18 at 7th level.

If the clue is really essential to the plot, it's my job to make sure
the PCs have a reasonable chance to get it. If they're doing the right
thing, I wouldn't want to see a bad roll derail the game. I wouldn't
fudge the Spot, though... more likely I'd plant another clue. Or
insert an NPC who could be talked into giving it, if they roleplay it
right.


> If a particularly good roll (say, a Jump check over an obstacle, a
> Search for a secret door, a Pick Locks check) would allow the PCs a
> shortcut through your painstakingly detailed dungeon, do you fudge that
> roll?

No. (And I've had this happen.)


> If an NPC has to meet the party and survive, do you fudge to keep him
> alive?

I'll fudge to keep him alive short of the PCs attacking him, yeah.

Example: I recently had an NPC tagging along with the PCs... Meepo the
kobold, when we ran The Sunless Citadel. A couple of times, the whole
party had to make Jump or Climb rolls. I had the PCs roll these, but
fudged them for Meepo.

Note that "fudge" doesn't mean "he automatically makes it". In this
case, it meant he made or failed it as I thought appropriate. On one
hand, it meant the 3 hp kobold wouldn't be killed by failing a Jump
check and falling into a 2d6 damage spiked pit. On the other hand, I
once made him fail a Climb check and slide screaming down a rock face,
hanging by his fingertips. A PC had to rescue him. I did this to give
the PCs a small opportunity to roleplay. And sure enough -- one wanted
to walk away, while another insisted on going after him in person.
(Earning Meepo's pathetic gratitude, for what that's worth.)

Meepo was a plot device. Having him make or fail a check was no more
random than placing a particular encounter in one room as opposed to
another. I don't feel compelled to be simulationist here.

But! I wouldn't fudge to keep an NPC alive if a PC was trying to kill
him. (Which happens all too often.) Players hate it when they try to
accomplish something and they sense you fudging to stop them. If I
don't want the NPC dead, I'll try to communicate an in-game reason not
to kill him. "You do realize that he's the only one who knows which
ship your grandfather took." If the PC doesn't hesitate ("Who cares!
I'll just have Bob do a Gather Information in Port Zigo! I want this
guy dead!") then down the NPC goes.


> If, on the other hand, he must die but the party doesn't feel
> like fighting him, do you fudge the pot shot they half-heartedly take
> at him to be a critical?

Cripes, there's a thousand ways to kill an unwanted NPC. Have his boss
show up and shank him for failing (or for succeeding in the wrong way).
Have him throw a carpet-chewing fit of rage and attack the party until
they're forced to kill him. Drop a wall on him.

For that matter, it's *really* easy to get PCs to attack vigorously.

I've never had this be a probem.


> Do you fudge to bring a character to the brink of death,

No, never.


> then fudge again to not push him over?

Rarely. I dislike seeing PCs killed by pure extreme bad luck. Bad
luck plus some suboptimal play, now, you're going down.


> Do you fudge to dramatically extend a task which would otherwise be
> solved quickly?

No. Though I have occasionally ad-libbed another task in.


> Generally, do you fudge for dramatic effects?

Very rarely. Again, the ad-lib is preferred.

....maybe I should make that clear. An ad-lib is when I quietly alter
an element of the campaign, in-game, rather than altering a die roll.

For instance, say the PCs really need to get through a door. I've
previously established that the door is too hard to be bashed down, but
that they can open it with (1) a magic key available elsewhere in the
dungeon, or (2) a knock spell in a scroll, also available elsewhere, or
(3) a really good Pick Locks roll.

Alas: the rogue character dies before the door is reached, and the
party never goes into the room with the knock scroll. They get the
magic key... but then a hostile wizard throws a fireball at them, the
PC carrying the key rolls a 1, and a random check determines that the
key is the item destroyed.

Now what are my options? I can fudge the die roll to destroy the
key... or I can come up with something else in a hurry. If I come up
with something else, that's an ad-lib.

I can move the scroll with the knock spell to someplace they're sure to
find it. I can decide that the door has a magic password, which the
ogre chieftain can perhaps be bribed, tricked or intimidated into
giving. Or maybe I can say that the door /can/ be bashed down, but it
will take so long and make so much noise as to give a 100% certainty of
a fairly nasty encounter.

Personally, I much prefer ad-libbing to fudging. And further... I like
to salt my campaign with "hooks" for future ad-libbing. If the PCs
have heard a rumor of a gigantic carrion crawler that haunts the second
level, I can seamlessly make that the bash-down-the-door encounter.

It's not something I do much. Most of my game is simulationist, and
the PCs are free to do as they please. But the fudge and the ad-lib
are both legitimate tools for the GM.

Again, the goal is maximized enjoyment for all participants.
Everything else is just means to that end.


Waldo
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 7:37:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

D.J. wrote:
>
> And since it is the DM's game,

Enough said.

Silveraxe.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 7:51:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Waldo wrote:
> Silveraxe wrote:
>
> >
> > I won't even ask whether you are the one deciding what's "right for the
> > game."
>
> Well, I am sort of in a good position to do that.

You are only in *the best* position to do that, by no means *the only"
one, and "best" only by a small margin.

<snip lots of "no" answers to my "would you fudge if ..." questions>

Then the question remains: if you only fudge once in one thousand
rolls, why do you need to hide (quote) about one third of your rolls?

What little die fudging I do, I do not hide it. If one particular roll
could shorten a slogging (but necessary for continuity) chapter in the
adventure, but it happens to fail, I *will* say "ok, let's just say
you've made it and move on." What I *will not* do is roll behind my
screen and pretend it happened.

As for your "necessary" NPC fudging, that's because you don't like
taking 10 and taking 20. If 10 isn't enough, then it is another puzzle
for the PCs. Let THEM solve the "how do we get the weakling kobold
across the ditch" problem. They'll feel better about themselves and
have more fun.

> ...maybe I should make that clear. An ad-lib is when I quietly alter
> an element of the campaign, in-game, rather than altering a die roll.

<snip>

> Personally, I much prefer ad-libbing to fudging.

Me too. As someone else said in this thread, feel free to change the
situation (as long as the changes are within the rules, reasonably
small and conceivable) "but don't dick with the dice, mmm'kay?"

Silveraxe.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 9:21:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote:
] That was the third time "I'm THE DM" was used as some kind of ultimate
] argument. Well ... even if "you're THE DM!" you cannot prevent me from
] quitting.

Most of the rolls in my campaign are always hidden. Initiative and
some surpise rolls are always visible to the players. I play 1e for
those that don't know. My players enjoy the tension of combat
initiative rolls done between the party leader and myself.

And since it is the DM's game, the reason the game is run the way it
is, is the DM is in charge. Somewhat heretical according to some in
this newsgroup. But it does say so in the DMG.

Character death is rare in my campaign, but it does happen.

As for suggestions from my players, it depends on the player. Some
players I have encountered over the years, they do and say anything
they can to turn a campaign into a Monty Haul game. And I refuse to
do that.

But I would have told you, be gone.

JimP.
--
djim70 at tyhe cableone dot net. Disclaimer: Standard.
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/new.html AD&D May 29, 2005
http://evergame.drivein-jim.net/ EQ 1 June 9, 2005
Registered Linux user#185746 http://linux.drivein-jim.net/
June 14, 2005 9:56:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Silveraxe wrote:

> > Well, I am sort of in a good position to do that.
>
> You are only in *the best* position to do that, by no means *the only"
> one, and "best" only by a small margin.

Er... how is this inconsistent with what I said?


> Then the question remains: if you only fudge once in one thousand
> rolls, why do you need to hide (quote) about one third of your rolls?

Well, there are a lot of non-fudge rolls that have to be hidden. Spot
and Search, most obviously.

Then there are rolls where I want to tell the PCs the outcome but I
don't want to tell them how I got it. For instance, let's say the PCs
are having a conversation with a hostile NPC halfling. The PC wants
information but is getting nowhere. In frustration, he turns away. I
say, "Suddenly, the halfling lets out a bloodcurdling shriek. With
astounding speed, he whips out a dagger and stabs you for (rolling
behind screen) *twelve* points of damage."

The PC's obvious assumption would be that the halfling is a rogue who
just sneak-attacked for something like d3 + 3d6 damage. But who knows?
Maybe he rolled high with just two sneak attack dice. Maybe he rolled
badly with five. Maybe he's got barbarian levels and that shriek was a
rage attack. If I roll the damage dice in front of the screen, though,
the PCs will know pretty exactly what they're dealing with ("Oh look, a
third or fourth level rogue. With no Strength bonus.") I don't think
I'm obliged to give thm that information.

Another example of this would be dragon breath. There are players who
know the MM so well that if they see me roll 10d10+5, they'll instantly
know the blue dragon is a Young Adult. I think it's entirely
appropriate to roll behind the screen and just say "the dragon breathes
for 58 points of damage".

Then there are also a whole class of rolls that are not random but that
I don't want the PCs to know are not random. Frex, suppose I know that
the PCs are going to meet an NPC who will be unfriendly. Maybe there's
an in-game reason for that -- he's heard of the PCs, and doesn't like
them -- or maybe it's just a fixed parameter of the scenario. But I
may not want them to know that it's not random. So I'll ostentatiously
roll, then frown and say, "the cleric glares at you and mutters what
sounds like a curse under his breath."


> What little die fudging I do, I do not hide it.

There's that too. I occasionally handwave or fast-forward.


> As for your "necessary" NPC fudging, that's because you don't like
> taking 10 and taking 20.

No, it's because the NPC belongs to me and I can decide if he makes or
fails a roll.

It also extends to things like saving throws. Usually I play those
straight, but I may decide for my own reasons that I want Meepo to fail
one.


> > Personally, I much prefer ad-libbing to fudging.
>
> Me too. As someone else said in this thread, feel free to change the
> situation (as long as the changes are within the rules, reasonably
> small and conceivable) "but don't dick with the dice, mmm'kay?"

I'm not sure I see the difference, though. Really. If I want to mess
with the world, that's just as potentially unfair as messing with the
dice. (No, more.)

Also, the boundaries between the two are pretty blurry. Suppose I put
the PCs up against a dragon with 150 hp. The battle goes down to the
wire... two PCs are down, one is out of spells, and it's just the party
tank vs. the dragon, both of them low on hp. Say I don't want to kill
the party.

If I fudge a few attack rolls and have the dragon miss, that's fudging.
But suppose I unilaterally decide that the dragon has 130 hp instead
of 150? So that it only has 5 hp left instead of 25, and the fighter
has a chance to kill it with one blow? I'm not dicking with the dice,
but ISTM this is pretty much the same thing.

Actually, I'd probably rather mess with a die roll then change a
parameter in midflight like that. But you get the idea.


Waldo
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 11:52:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:41:47 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:mspra15b7b387um8oi84sr0pis4prpprq9@4ax.com...
>> He's also making the game into his own little mind-game of fantasy geekoid
>> mental masturbation. In simple point of fact, the players are not the
>least
>> bit required to participate. If nothing they do has any effect on the game
>> (and it doesn't, as explicitly stated by the DM), why isn't this DM just
>> writing a book and cutting out the middleman? The non-participitory nature
>> of the game is another substantial deviation from the norm.
>
>I'm quite curious to know how one can make the logical LEAP from "DM rolling
>behind a screen" to "nothing they do has any effect[sic] on the game".
>There's a reason the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, you know.

I'm not making that leap. I'm making *A* leap based on the DM's contention
that his pet NPC was supposed to survive, and so the rolls he performed for
the players were invalid.

That's not fudging, that's cheating, and removing the input of the players
from the game. There *IS* no game, just the DM trying to put one over on
the players that anything they do matters.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 2:06:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:923ta15s9jqbgjokfbe8uibn3de36grso5@4ax.com...
> >I'm quite curious to know how one can make the logical LEAP from "DM
rolling
> >behind a screen" to "nothing they do has any effect[sic] on the game".
> >There's a reason the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, you know.
>
> I'm not making that leap. I'm making *A* leap based on the DM's contention
> that his pet NPC was supposed to survive, and so the rolls he performed
for
> the players were invalid.
>
> That's not fudging, that's cheating, and removing the input of the players
> from the game. There *IS* no game, just the DM trying to put one over on
> the players that anything they do matters.

....."IN THAT INSTANCE". You forgot to add that at the end of your last
sentence. If it serves the DM's purposes to have a given NPC live, despite
the best efforts of the party to the contrary, that's an instance where
nothing the players do matters, you're right. But that doesn't make
everything they do instantly null and void.

And there can be no "DM cheating", in the strictest sense. We, as
participants in this game, accept a level of suspension of disbelief in
order to play this game. The DM can be mostly free from accusations of
cheating because of this. He's not cheating so much as he's "laying things
out in a way that contradicts the norm". But DMs have a degree of
responsibility in the game that allows for a bit of "fudging", or, if you
prefer, "cheating".

Haven't you ever experienced a special DM trick that is beyond the scope of
the existing rules? For instance, maybe there's a room filled with magical
paralyzing poison gas. Where's the rule for that little trick? What set of
spell effects would create that? Is the DM cheating by presenting that to
you? Or is he simply exercising an appropriate level of control? I
recently had a door with a sort of "magical combination lock" on it, and the
PC's had to figure out the combination as part of a puzzle. I have no clue
what kind of magic would be required to make that work, but it was there.
Was I cheating?

Bottom line here is that the DM is never outright "cheating", because he is
considered "above the law" from most perspectives. He has a lattitude that
the players don't have, in order to run the game. Of course, a level of
trust must exist between players and DMs, and it's important for DMs to know
what their players will trust the DM to do, and what they won't. My players
trust me to fudge only in rare instances, and trust me to roll behind the
screen without much fudging. It's obvious that such trust would never exist
between you and any DM. That's your prerogative.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 2:36:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118733237.642598.137200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> If fudging is ok and acceptable, why do you need to hide it?
> If it is an essential tool in running the game and all your players
> agree with it, why not tell them about it and talk it out?

There is a degree of nudging and winking that goes on that makes it
acceptable. The players don't mind a bit of fudging here and there, but
they DON'T want it in their faces. They are willing to suspend their
disbelief that they can or can't accomplish something, as long as their
disbelief isn't challenged directly.

> Why not take a break from the game, put on your OOC hats, and say "Hey,
> wouldn't it be cool for the story if you failed/succeeded at this
> check? Let's say you did, huh?" If they trust you so much and the
> advantages of ignoring the roll are so great I'm sure they'll agree.

They are willing to nod and smile when I do it for them, but their
suspension of disbelief will only go so far. Doing what you describe above
would shatter that border. They work with me a lot like that, for the sake
of a good game.

> Wouldn't this be the mature thing to do? After all, they are able to
> accept Christmas presents even though they don't believe in Santa
> anymore. You don't need to hide and lie about it.

If you don't lie about it, the person on the giving end of the gift isn't
willing to give you any more gifts. "I don't believe in Santa, but can I
get some gifts from him anyways?" Doesn't work like that. The players gain
something very real for their suspension of disbelief, that being the
greater enjoyment of the game. They are willing to tell me that they
believe me so that they can enjoy the game more. I know they don't believe
me, they know that I know, and so on. But we pretend. It's a funny game
like that. ;) 

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 2:53:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> In the above sentance

"sentence" :) 

> "nothing they do has any effect on the game", the word used was incorrect.

Erm, no. It was right.

> It should have been "affect", and the
> entire sentance SHOULD have read "nothing they do has any AFFECT on the
> game." "the game" is the direct object, "affect" is the transitive verb.

Wrong.
"AFFECT" in the sentEnce you propose is a noun. The verb is "to have."

> "Jeff affected the game"(right) vs "Jeff EFFECTED the game"(wrong).
> Effect is a noun. Affect is a verb, and applies to an object.

True. So?
The original sentence was: "Jeff HAS an EFFECT on the game."
"To have an effect" means the same as "to affect."

Silveraxe.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 4:35:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Sv6dncAJ47NUWjDfRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
> news:Ie-dneRu2LQODDDfRVnyuw@pipex.net...
> > > the player has
> > > more responsibility to tell me what he would quit for than I have to
> > tell
> > > him every nuance of my game.
> >
> > Yeah right.
>
> Look, the list of "quit-worthy offenses" for *MOST* players is pretty
damn
> short. Whereas, the list of styles and preferences for most DM's is
pretty
> damn long. I'd rather hear the player's list of quittable situations
over
> having to iterate my list of stylistic choices. That way, the odds of
> something being left out are decreased dramatically.

What you'd rather hear has no bearing on whose responsibility it is to
bring up play style variance.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 4:35:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:a6qdne5EU5-YXDPfRVnysg@pipex.net...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Sv6dncAJ47NUWjDfRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> > Look, the list of "quit-worthy offenses" for *MOST* players is pretty
> damn
> > short. Whereas, the list of styles and preferences for most DM's is
> pretty
> > damn long. I'd rather hear the player's list of quittable situations
> over
> > having to iterate my list of stylistic choices. That way, the odds of
> > something being left out are decreased dramatically.
>
> What you'd rather hear has no bearing on whose responsibility it is to
> bring up play style variance.

I'm not about to lay out every nuance of my DMing style to a new player,
they can pick that up as they go along. Sure, they'd get the broad strokes,
the tenor of the game up front, but that's about it.

If a new player were to join the game, they would get the broad strokes like
this: We're here to have fun, we're relaxed, there's very little rules
lawyering, munchkinism or power gaming that goes on. If there's discussion
to be had, I'm willing to listen, but my word is final. We make up a lot of
adjudications on the fly, so just roll with it. We are combat light,
treasure light, and story heavy. Are there any questions?

At that point, I would expect the player to give me a list of "must haves"
in order for the player to enjoy the game. I would not change the game to
suit the new player, as our game has already been established as working for
the other players. If there's something that is a deal-breaker, I'd like to
hear it up front, rather than 4 sessions into the game. The list of must
haves for the player is undoubtedly shorter than the list of my nuances, so
I'd leave it up to him to let me know what would cause him to quit.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 7:46:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
> I fudge for dramatic effect from time to time, but NOT when it comes to PC
> death. I don't tend to do huge amounts of damage, and then all of a sudden
> NOT do huge amounts of damage, just because a PC has few hit points. That
> would stretch suspension of disbelief in a rather obvious way.
>

Ahem. You did say that you purposely targeted to kill a PC wizard
because he had too much XP.

Gerald Katz
    • 1 / 11
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!