Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 tzor Dec 13, 2003 18:24:34	In 1985, TSR published “Lankhmar⁚ City of Adventure” for the AD&D game (first edition). The scenario borrowed heavily from the works of Fritz Leiber. One of the features of the scenario was the notion of powers that governed the world of Nehwon and had authority even over the gods. They were known as Chance and the Lords of Necessity. (The 1993 release of the 2nd edition “Lankhmar⁚ City of Adventure” also included Fate as a power and some authorities on Leiber indicate that Death was a power not a deity, but I’m digressing here.) Over time I took these two powers to heart in my campaign worlds. In time I began to realize that Necessity and Chance actually represented two important elements in any successful long-term campaign. With that in mind I would like to expound on the importance of Necessity & Chance for the DM in any well-designed campaign. In any campaign, short term, or long term, the DM is by nature the agent of Necessity. It is, after all, the DM’s campaign world and only the DM has the overall vision of where he wants the campaign to go. The DM designs his world, typically, around the players, whether as an integral part to the whole or as an important element in some part of a grander design. While there may be “random” encounters, typically many encounters have a greater purpose in mind, even if that is only to advance the skills and abilities of the heroes of the story, the Player Characters. But Necessity does not rule alone. Necessity must on occasion yield to Chance. In the typical campaign, chance is the dice. There are times when the well planed schemes of player and DM fail because of a bad roll of the dice. The NPC might fail a saving throw you thought he would easily make. A battle might become too easy, or too difficult. This is when the question of fudging results comes into the mind of the DM. There are good arguments on either side, and I am proposing something in the middle. Generally speaking, I would let Chance’s decisions against Necessity hold, unless there is a serious potential campaign shattering result. While the fall of the dice could cause the DM (and sometimes the players) to rethink future plans, part of the game is dependant on the laws of averages that are determined by those very same dice. This does not mean that the DM should make all rolls in the open – although some may choose to do so – but it does mean that for the most part, the DM should take the roll of his or her dice seriously unless there is serious need for the result to be otherwise. So the next time you look at the roll you just made as DM with a look stop and think for a moment. The roll may be inconvenient, but does is it a campaign breaking event? If not, give Chance it’s say, and let the have its day. :D
#2 thanuir Jun 18, 2007 10:03:01	How do campaigns "break"? I can only think of significant changes, and most of those are caused by player actions, given that they are played at all. Player characters changing the setting are a good thing, I thought. Where am I wrong?
#3 vonklaude Jun 24, 2007 7:00:00	But Necessity does not rule alone. Necessity must on occasion yield to Chance. In the typical campaign, chance is the dice. There are times when the well planed schemes of player and DM fail because of a bad roll of the dice. The NPC might fail a saving throw you thought he would easily make. A battle might become too easy, or too difficult. This is when the question of fudging results comes into the mind of the DM. There are good arguments on either side, and I am proposing something in the middle. Generally speaking, I would let Chance’s decisions against Necessity hold, unless there is a serious potential campaign shattering result. While the fall of the dice could cause the DM (and sometimes the players) to rethink future plans, part of the game is dependent on the laws of averages that are determined by those very same dice. This does not mean that the DM should make all rolls in the open – although some may choose to do so – but it does mean that for the most part, the DM should take the roll of his or her dice seriously unless there is serious need for the result to be otherwise. So the next time you look at the roll you just made as DM with a look stop and think for a moment. The roll may be inconvenient, but does is it a campaign breaking event? If not, give Chance it’s say, and let the have its day. :D As a note for DMs, there is often no need to fudge the result, when you control the target number. For example, the Barbarian is climbing a wall, which you are highly desirous he gets over. How high is the wall? What surface? What will happen if he misses a roll? Do you want to give him any circumstantial adjustments. A DM can swing a wall from being very hard (40' high,sheer, slimy, spikes on top for -2 on final roll to get over, and a 60' drop on the other side) to quite hard (same wall, not sheer, not mossy, no spikes, short drop on other side, and heck I'll allow your 8' reach to start your climb, and +2 on the first roll since your friend is boosting you, and +2 on the last because there is a bit of facia there) to simplicity itself (well, the wall to the Princess' garden is only 12' high, you reach 8', so that's one roll with your friend boosting you for +2). My personal tendency is to go with the number rolled, but mess with the target level. Sometimes the players still fail, but even then I can allow another shot, or make the failure have unimportant consequences. It surprises me that people get so het up about rolls. Players always seem to feel it's fair provided that: the level you set feels reasonable, once set you stick to it, and it flows with the story. Chance favors the best odds. -vk