Judging the Game

[drisky]

I disagree with the roller coaster thing, the biggest advantage of tabletop games is the freedom, you don't have to give people the illusion of choice when they have actual choice. I prepare for a single session and basically have an a, b, or c of paths that they could possibly take.

For example one of the early missions of my shadowrun game, the players were presented with a mission in which they were to take out an organized crime lieutenant by someone being abused by them. If they did a proper investigation, they would find that their client is actually someone in the organization trying to push them self up in the ranks. Then they can take him out instead for a higher prize and a new ally with the people they didn't kill. If they don't look in to it, the they end up making a recurring enemy of their targets adopted daughter. From their I can start planing out their next sessions based on how they did the mission. Also if they do something really out of left field like kill a primary villain early or blow up a city, I'll just figure out the repercussions by the next session.

I also somewhat disagree with the idea that you can never lie about your rolls. Yes they should have some sort of punishment for doing something stupid, but death should be significant. If I'm running a long form game, I'd only want 1 or 2 player deaths max, at the same time I have had problems with my players starting to feel a sense of invincibility so the line have to be drawn somewhere. The thing is I've sometimes lied about dice both in favor of the PCs and the antagonists if I really had to, I reserve the right to cheat for the sake of the overall game, it is what the GM screen is for.

 

[Kaihlik]

I try and not judge fun on an encounter by encounter basis the experiance should be fun if not every single moment. You should attempt to be accomodating to a player while letting them know where you stand on issues like character death so they know where they stand before hand. If someones view is too incompatable with the rest of the group and me then maybe they shouldn't be playing with the group. If someone can't accept a characters death that results from a natural evolution of the game maybe they shouldn't be playing at all.

If people are dying because of poor choices then I should talk to the player about it and discuss ways of them not repeating their mistakes. If John doesn't want to die to a dragon why the hell is he standing beside Steve who is trying to draw its attention. Yes I can't ensure all the time that everyone is going to have fun but that doesn't mean its not my job to try.

Maybe its just me but in my experiance players are capable of accepting the consequences of their actions both good and bad and as long as the GM is doing his job and keeping everyone in mind, have fun. I've never had situations where the players are immature enough to complain about their own mistakes (oh and rust monsters are lame devices to use in any game).

I make sure people are having fun by making sure every player has a chance to contribute and by looking for areas that simply are detrimental to the game to remove. If a plot element looks like it will fall flat and break suspension of disbelief then I will drop it. If the grapple rules don't allow an epic chase to result in the bad guy being tackled to the ground then I will change them.

I agree with JakobBloch and have only just realised this is why I didn't understand where you stood before. I don't believe that Agency invalidates the requirement for GMs to ensure everyone is having fun. I don't believe that ensuring Agency results in players having fun, it can but it is not guarenteed.

Kaihlik

 

[Callate]

I think the article paints things as too black and white: agency or railroading. Success and fun, or failure and non-fun. And in parallel: success, or death.

And frankly, I really disagree with the notion of dice as essential tools of player agency.

Say that in a fantasy game there's a town with an evil mayor who's been wreaking all manner of havok and leaving the townspeople in a state of constant fear and dread, yatta yatta. With minimal prompting, the players decide to slay the villain and free the town from his reign of terror. They learn that the mayor will be vacationing at his summer home in a week, away from his guards and without his more powerful magic items, and concoct a quite ingenious plan to use earth-moving magic to bury him in his own wine cellar on a day when he's anticipated to be spending most of the morning there contemplating which vintages to serve to his guests at an evening's banquet. (This is all off the top of my head, so forgive me if it's a little weird.) The party's thief and wizard will magically jump over the summer home's south wall, avoiding the minimal guard, and putting the wizard in range to use the burying spell; the thief's skills as an escape artist, wall climber, and rope user are present as a back-up for extraction in case it isn't possible to get out in the same way.

Only... The party failed a couple of early rolls in gathering information and sensing intent. The mayor is actually a disguised demon, and far more powerful than they've been led to believe. One of the mayor's loyal henchman has been giving them the "information", including the summer house blueprints and schedule information on which they've been basing their plan. A ward cuts out the magic they're using to jump over the wall in mid-leap, causing the thief to fall and break her ankle. The wizard, trying to reach the point where he thinks the house's supports are, falls into a pit trap and dies. The rest of the party is ambushed by guards who they didn't know were going to be there when they try to stage a rescue.

This could all be the results of pre-determined "agency" and a couple of bad rolls. The players might have planned brilliantly, and be massacred by the measures that the DM decided earlier were in place all along.

Conversely, Thok the barbarian attacks the mayor in the middle of a speech with a weapon he doesn't know is magical, rolls a couple of critical hits while the guards fail their rolls, and runs away, holding the mayor's severed head, laughing his head off.

A good GM can fudge and still retain player agency perfectly well. The poor wizard in the original example takes something approaching the minimum damage from the pit trap and is able to concoct a way to warn the rest of the party before they're ambushed and rescue the crippled thief. That's about all it would take. And that, to my mind, is about what a good GM would do.

But more to the point, a good GM recognizes that failure can also be fun, and certainly shouldn't be fatal in most circumstances, especially when the players haven't done anything especially reckless and unheard of to warrant death. Some failures are the stuff that players talk about for years. The arrow missed the mayor, but the quick-talking thief convinces him that the unlucky guard who was quick to react and draw his sword was the real assassin, and the one the thief was aiming for. That time the party was taken prisoner and as a result learned the missing piece of the villain's plot that had been eluding them to that point. When the party's wizard failed to recognize the curse on the goblet until it was too late- which caused him to evade capture, because the bounty hunters weren't looking for a woman. Every time a plan falls to pieces and leads to brilliant improvisation.

I'm going to venture that most people who play RPGs do so not to play average people, but heroes. The guy who gets the girl, kills the villain, throws off a brilliant one-liner, and rides off into the sunset. Or the guy who goes down swinging so his friends get to live. Or pushes the self-destruct button on the inside of the bomb before it goes off. And while heroic actions certainly do have consequences- some of the best known heroes of mythology have spent most of their lives trying to undo or make up for the tragedies wrought by their mistakes- heroes should never be punished with untimely and unsatisfying death for doing nothing wrong, no matter what the dice say. The rules can be tinkered to a degree, but tinkering with the rules mid-game is even worse than tinkering with dice in terms of causing the players to feel disconnected from the world. The occasional dice fudge is not the end of all player agency.

One last thing... Of course the GM can't do anything about the fight a player had with his wife or the awful day she had at work, and there are even limits to how much the GM can do if one of his players is looking for something brooding and gothic, one is looking for a light and distracting story, and one just wants to roll as many dice, kill as many monsters, and gather as much loot as possible. But "could" have fun is still too light a word. The GM should make an experience where the player "should" have fun, all else being equal. "Could" seems to me to imply a set of expectations, outside of which there will be no fun, thank you very much. If the GM thinks the fun to be had is in investigating the caverns underneath the hills and the players think the fun is in swapping stories with the dwarven fishmonger, that's okay. If the time spent swapping stories means that the dread curse of Darak'Halam will have time to come to fruition and destroy the world because the players have a different notion of what's "fun" than the DM, who has it in his notes that this is what will happen on such and such a day... Well, screw "consequences of agency", frankly, the GM's the one with a problem.

 

[xdgt]

Well to me RPGs are an in a sense an imitation of life, albeit a life in a far off ,amazing ,fantasy land but still a life - it doesn't have to be real but its at least should try to be realistic, and as we all know sometimes life is a *****, lying about dice rolls is trying to cheat in life wether for or against the players. To me integrity is not something worth sacrificing for fun ,the players should know that just like sometimes good things happen to them so do bad things ,sometimes those bad things involve a party member dying and lying about dice simply makes his death insignificant. They do however live in a fantasy land and as such death is not necessarily the finish line ,i've witnessed plenty of adventures whose sole purpose was to find the right ingridients and a competent caster so as to bring their fellow adventurer back to life. Death is simply another story to brag about back at the tavern.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The gamemaster has many responsibilities, but guaranteeing that players have fun isn't one of them.

This almost made me growl, but reading the article has sorted it out.

I've played with a number of GMs who run a story and the players are just incidental. Most of the "fun" I've had in those situations is from goofing off.
I've also played with a few that write the story in a line and freeform. And they are great fun, but a guilty treat, as you don't feel your character is growing.

The really good GMs have a plotline set, and allow each character to "breathe". If High Lord Thief wants to climb a tower, pick a lock and place a rose on the pillow of his beloved - he should succeed...and probably set himself up for a big fall afterwards.

If he rolls a 1 on his first step up the tower though, you've got a player instantly trapped by the rules; so it's the GMs job to allow the player to shine - despite his shadow.

Maybe he trips and smashes into the tower, allowing a friendly guard to wander up to see what's going on. From there - the player - if he's smart, can work this to his advantage, despite critically failing the first roll.

One of the HUGE transatlantic differences I've ran into is the "boxed text" rules. In the US, the dice are the swords of Damocles. The rules decide the results.
In the UK, the results decide which rules to use. You want to parley with the Dragon? Sure... You want to bring the National Guard into Arkham? Sure...
You want to solve the American Civil War by peaceful methods? Sure...

Equally, the UK base will fight for peace, while the US will fight for war - often no matter what the "reality" of the situation is.

Admittedly, this isn't a hard/fast difference but it does show sometimes.

E.G. Lord Scargill was quite miffed to see Shub-Niggurath appearing in the centre of his house, at a party.
San Check gave me 2 points lost, but this bounder was pushing in.

I stood up (IRL) and yelled "Get that monstrosity out of my house!". 22 points of damage from an auto-hit. SPLAT.

I had fun there, despite being reduced to a gelatinous pulp (try a spatula), but the Americans I was played with asked me why I threw away that extra firepower. I just said that it's what the character would do.

GMs are there to provide a space for players to have fun, the players have to bring the fun - and a little extra for the GM as well.

 

[Caiti Voltaire]

I think you've misunderstood, story is still important, it's just not as important to having fun as many may think. As an alternative to a preordained plot, the world can be created, the background (culture, events, etc) set, and the players can be set loose as adventurers, not actors. The story is the story of those players as they interact with the world. The GM still adds his own telling to the story through events that happen along the way, but when the party decides to stand and face a dragon, it's because they want to, not because the story won't advance until they defeat it.

So essentially you're making the argument that improvisation is not a bad thing and certainly I do not disagree, I just disagree with the notion I get from the story that linearity in that kind of game is a bad thing. Done well, it isn't a bad thing at all. The same goes for 'sandboxing' it to borrow the video gaming term, really - done well it can be good, done poorly it just seems like the GM is making stuff up as he/she goes along.

The bottom line to me is fun. If a game Im playing is not fun, regardless of medium, I will find an alternative that is fun. Period. That goes for making a game (in the GM sense as well as in the 'I have the Source SDK and too much time on my hands' sense), as well as playing one.

Bottom line: This is something I do for entertainment. It should be fun for me. What is fun for me may differ from what is fun for others. Trying to paint it in broad strokes like the article does never really works, because different people are different from one another.

 

[tjcross]

I agree with what i saw in judging the game. i mean fudging the rolls is like playing with all the cheats on a videogame fun for a few sessions then boring as all challenge is sucked away i don't agree with storytelling being last but then again i am a very inexpierenced gm for gurps(generic universal roleplaying system) most of my campain i just have a basic hack-o slash-o magic cast-o dungeon and let my players goof around (i allow magic by rhymes so cantrips as they are called are like a genies wish you may get what you want but probably not) i let my players do what they want and then improvise (i only do quick 1-hour games) and we all have fun. in my more serious games we follow what was said here i've had a few charecters die and they still come back (i don't know about d&d since i have an outdated book but gurps uses a point system that you can buy advantages stats skills and spells or take disadvantages to get more points) it's complicated to make a character in gurps then add in what the game world countrys are there specialists what the stores sell ect leads to a fun game that is complex but i love it. also they give basis for equipment worlds ect. but basically the gm can change anything he wants.

 

[ItsAPaul]

Yes, you really are responsible for making sure people have fun. Any rpg player ever knows this, and its sad that you got this published with that statement in it.

 

[BlueInkAlchemist]

The gamemaster has many responsibilities, but guaranteeing that players have fun isn't one of them.

This almost made me growl, but reading the article has sorted it out.

I've read a couple of Alex's articles that started this way. Something is written that makes me pop an eyebrow, if not begin to seethe, and then the more I read, the more I understand his point. It's a style that takes some getting used to, but the more of Alex I read, the more I agree with him.

Yes, you really are responsible for making sure people have fun. Any rpg player ever knows this, and its sad that you got this published with that statement in it.

What makes you say that? Do you think that a good GM is one who controls every aspect of the game to "ensure" that people have fun? Is a game that's not fun because a player refuses to cooperate with the others and insists on things being done their way somehow the GM's fault? I'm curious as to why you think Alex's take on the matter is so very wrong, seeing as you've done nothing whatsoever to elaborate upon your argument.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Love the piece Macris.

I've been a DM for a number of years and a player long before that (been playing since the late 80s). I agree with your sentiments, although I do fudge the dice on occasion.

Yet, I have also tried to make it as fun as possible, but a lot gets in the way. Item fetisiation for instance can make the game un-fun for a player. If they lose something, or if they roll badly, or if they have to wait to act too long. I've seen all sorts of emotions, but when I don't railroad them, I allow them to get into crazy situations and it all works--those are the best games.

 

[RagnorakTres]

snip

May I ask if you've ever tried the GURPS system? I ask merely because it's my favorite system (both to play and to GM) and I'd like to hear an industry expert's opinion on it.

And I'm afraid I have to disagree with your statement that storytelling is the least important part of GMing. This is just my experience, and I'm by no means the most experienced GM, but a good GM balances all the aspects you've mentioned. No one of them is more important than the other. Perhaps it's the mentality of my players (a bunch of FF nerds and Disgaea geeks), but they don't seem to mind a bit of railroading or traveling at the speed of plot if it adds drama.[footnote]Aspiring GMs, please note that I am by no means encouraging the overuse of Purple Prose [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PurpleProse], but your use of description really gives the players a feel for the world. If you use barren descriptions, just the facts, they won't do much or feel very immersed. Contrariwise, if you use too much description, you leave nothing to the imagination and prolong the sessions unnecessarily. Find a happy medium...not an easy task, I know, but take heart! I did it, so can you![/footnote]

I will agree that it's not your responsibility to make sure your players have fun. The GM's responsibility is to build the world and tell the players what they experience, not keep everyone alive and laughing. And I like this "Agency Theory of Fun" you outline. It seems to fit with my experiences pretty well.

 

[Archon]

Yes, you really are responsible for making sure people have fun. Any rpg player ever knows this, and its sad that you got this published with that statement in it.

My friend, you've charged into the High Court and spat at the King. What do you have to say in your defense so that his men do not strike you down?

Spoiler: Click here for translation!

You have all the time necessary to make your case, and expand upon your position, and yet all you've accomplished is to throw an insult with no backing. This is a bad idea in any part of the forums. Take the time to state your position, what you disagree with and why, and how you run things, so that others may better understand where you're coming from. See the above posters for examples, and also examples of people who have given you the lie in your first, and only, assertion that 'any rpg player ever knows this...'

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Fun, ah fun. In the groups I am involved in, one loves to be brought to single digit hp, 1 hp makes them practically orgasm with delight. Another really hates to ever be defeated in any sense of the word. If an enemy is too powerful he calls foul, winges. Another is annoyed if an enemy ever has a similar ability to his, it offends him that an npc can break the rules a little in the same way that he does with feats and abilities.

They all love daring situations, hard combats, so that is what I try to give them. The essence of fun as they subjectively experience it, though, differs. A dm would go mad trying to please them all. So I don't.

 

[r_Chance]

Yes, you really are responsible for making sure people have fun. Any rpg player ever knows this, and its sad that you got this published with that statement in it.

Sorry you can't make sure people have fun. They have to be willing. And, in a group there are going to be different opinions on what "fun" is, as others have pointed out.

I'd say everyone who continues playing in a game is having "fun". Why do it if not? Still, not everyone is going to enjoy a given games / gamemasters style. So, if you don't... move on. Find "your" game / style.

I pretty much agree with Archon on DMing. I started with original D&D in 1974 and am currently running the same homebrew camapign world using Pathfinder. I built my world. I judge the players actions in it. I'm the "adversary" when appropriate, be it an ogre, a stubborn official, or a harsh winter storm. And I've littered my sandbox world with scores of adventure threads and ideas as well as locations that involve adventure. Things players can pick up on and pursue or travel to, or not. Not a path they have to follow. My game has thrived on players choices, and the consequences of them. I'd personally place the "storytelling" bit further down the list because the story the players will chose evolves from the players, detailed NPCs, the environment itself as well as set "adventure ideas".

One additional comment, as player risk / mortality has decreased in RPGs some of the sense of risk / fun has diminished as well. I'm not saying you should kill PCs for fun btw. Just saying a sense of risk and danger adds to the fun of the game. That sense of risk is often provided by the occasioanl player fatality. Besides, that's what Raise Dead is for

My 2cp.

*edit* Enjoyed the article btw. Funny how I can see a "generational divide" in opinions. I'd say the majority of players who started in the 70s and 80s agree with you while the later players (started in the 90s with White Wolf or later) tend to be offended by your placement of storytelling in 4th place. Different styles of games and playing imo.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

As one of the people last time who said making sure the players are having fun, I had to frown at your claim that "fun" isn't part of the GM's job, but on reflection I do agree with what you say. I suppose the GM's job isn't as much creating or providing fun, but facilitating it. Still, I do strongly believe that 'fun' is the overarching imperative of a GM's job. A game that isn't fun is a game that isn't worth playing. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but it's the GM's job to at least provide all players with an equal (and as large as possible) opportunity to have fun. I do agree with your ranking of a GM's priorities, but the concept of 'fun' is something that should be present in every layer of the cake, in one way or another.

I found the part about player agency very inspiring. While it didn't contain anything I didn't already apply in my own games, you managed to describe something that was a vague idea in the back of my head (less than an idea in fact - more like a general attitude) in a very clear and easy-to-understand way.

After that, things go downhill again. Not with the quality of the article (which is good), but with how much I agree with the article. Fudging dice is something I consider a tool in any GM's arsenal, and one of the many ways with which to enforce Rule Zero. Taking your example, the new player gets their character killed in an unlucky critical hit. In some situations, this is perfectly fine. Shit happens, after all. But there are also situations where, for whatever reason, the death of that character is simply not desirable. Whether it is because you don't want to scare away a new player, because you don't want to wait half an hour for the new player to roll up a new character, or whatever. Dice insert a very large random factor into games, and in some cases this goes directly against the concept of agency. Did the character die by stupidity/poor planning, or did they die because they randomly rolled a 1 despite their best plans? If it's the latter, die fudging can be justified. The overriding factor is fun: Does fudging increase or decrease the fun? This should be judged case-by-case, not in one sweeping generalization. Of course fudging should be used sparingly and with extreme caution, because as mentioned it's no fun if the players feel the GM has too much control over things that should be 'random', whether it's in their advantage or not. However, it's certainly not a bad thing by default if the GM knows what he's doing.

Pretty much the same goes for railroading and presenting 'faux' choices. This is often frowned upon, but they can be great tools. Sure, you should let the players make their own choices, and of course those choices need to have realistic, meaningful consequences. But there is no reason why you shouldn't let the 'rule of fun' influence the way you decide those consequences. Let's say the players are looking for the some BBEG who is going to end the world, who you've hidden in the Dark Dungeon. However, for whatever reason the players seem to believe the BBEG is hidden in the Secret Forest. At this point, there are several things you could do. You could force a hint on the players that they should really go to the Dark Dungeon, but no matter how subtly you do this, you'll run a serious risk of being exposed as a railroader. And while there's nothing wrong with being a railroader, there's a LOT wrong with being exposed as one. You could just let them experience the consequences of their actions by having them dick around in the Secret Forest for the rest of the session while the BBEG ends the world from across the country, too far away for the players to ever do anything about it. However, that wouldn't be fun. A better way to deal with the situation would be to change the circumstances. After all, as long as the players don't know about something yet, it doesn't exist. So within the bounds of what's reasonable, you're free to change anything you want. Maybe the Secret Forest suddenly contains the means to stop the BBEG. Maybe it has a portal that will take the party to another world before this one is destroyed. Or maybe the players were never wrong about the BBEG's location after all, and he was in the Secret Forest all along.

 

[Helmutye]

A very interesting article, and while there are some points I disagree with I must say that it was very well presented and argued its points beautifully. I will be thinking about this article for some time to come!

However, in regards to the rather uncompromising view of Agency, I have had several bad experiences with GMs who played it hardcore and followed rules to the bitter end. When a dramatic and exciting storyline is squished because the GM was not willing to let a few rules conveniently slide, or when the party unknowingly makes the "wrong" choice and ends up spending a five hour session with nothing to show for, it has been my experience that the campaign usually ends shortly thereafter.

For example, a short while ago me and my friends ended a Legend of the Five Rings campaign that was being run by a dedicated no-fudger. At one point in the adventure we were able to discover a number of clues that gave us the location of the secret hideout of a saboteur-sorcerer that we were trying to bring to justice. We were fairly low level characters, and we had reason to suspect that the saboteur was rather powerful, so we spent about an hour and a half planning how we would set up a cunning ambush and catch him unawares. I won't go into too many details, but suffice to say the plan was well thought out, imaginative, and creative. But when we went to go set up the ambush, as soon as we came within sight of the door to the hideout we were all called upon to make saving throws at an almost impossibly high difficulty. We all failed, and were forcibly put asleep. We woke up some time later to discover that the hideout was cleaned out and there were no clues for us to follow. We had basically wasted a whole session going up against someone who was way, waaay out of our league. The GM did not fudge any rolls, and everything he used technically did exist in the books, and apparently we failed several Intelligence type rolls when trying to plan the ambush. We could have passed on our findings to our superiors and let them deal with it, I suppose. But that would have been lame, not fun. The way it worked out was not fun, and we did not feel empowered. Quite the opposite, in fact.

At this point the usual argument is that such failures are simply the way things work out sometimes. You can't win 'em all. That's just how life is sometimes. That is what the GM said, too. But the whole reason we (or at least I) play games is to escape from cruel reality, to live through a story where things are fun and exciting. I don't always have to win, but if I lose I want the loss to be at least as interesting as the victory would have been. A glorious battle where we sell our lives dearly and, with our dying strength, make sure the world remembers who we were and what we did, is beautiful! I love it when my characters die, because the way I play usually means they will die in an entertaining way! But the very worst thing a game can be is boring and frustrating. I get enough boring, awkward frustration in my real life, thank you very much!

One of the golden rules I try to follow as a GM is this:
Before you make a player roll, figure out what will happen if they succeed and what will happen if they fail. Whether they succeed or fail something interesting should happen. If success or failure would result in something uninteresting happening, you should just go ahead with the interesting bit and not even both with the roll.

You shouldn't make it hard for players to find the fun in your game.

 

[Captain Ninja]

i don't know why i read these, they just make me want to try DnD that much more, its a shame i cant get a group together to start, anyway great article i really got what you mean about the agency thing

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

I respectfully disagree on some casual notes.

Storytelling is one of the few artistic moments that a GM may have for bringing an environment to life for their players. It creates immersion and overall better storylines.

"Fun," as it were, is central to the notion that one is playing a "game." I will not suppose to say that it is something the GM should take direct responsibility for - your commentary concerning the need to create an environment where fun could be had is essential.

The danger I would say is at the far side of 'meaningful decisions.' If the GM consistently judges the decisions of a party as being paltry in logic or rationality, he or she may succumb to a very poor habit I have seen among some GMs - "Punishing," players. If every decision leads to nothing but heart-ache and strife, no character will ever want to make a decision. I have watched players leave games for this very reason, the final adieu being followed by, "I'm just not having fun anymore."

I would say then, that your descriptions of meaningful decisions, agency, and the realistic potential to fail are all valid, however, the GM should recognize that a ratio of success is also necessary for players to have fun, regardless if the decisions were legitimate or not.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

i don't know why i read these, they just make me want to try DnD that much more, its a shame i cant get a group together to start, anyway great article i really got what you mean about the agency thing

Where are you located? There are often more resources available then one might think.

 

[megalomania]

Yes, you really are responsible for making sure people have fun. Any rpg player ever knows this, and its sad that you got this published with that statement in it.

Sad that he got it published with that statement in? He is the CEO of the company that publishes The Escapist, so I think he can pretty much publish whatever he wants!

Anyway the point he was really trying to make is that if a GM runs the game right he wont have to be 'making sure people have fun', people will actually just have fun of their own accord! In trying to make the game fun the chances are the plot will railroad and the bad dice rolls will be fudged for the players benefit which ultimately breaks the immersion; by letting the plot evolve and making sure the bad dice roll is not calamitous the immersion is maintained, even if some bad stuff happens along the way.

Its a classic case of the harder you hold something the more slips through your fingers!