# My DM just told me he fudges rolls....



## Twichyboy (Nov 29, 2011)

Hello all, ive just recently run into a problem that gas never occurred to me before, as I'm a longtime DM but a new player, my DM revealed to me after only one session of our new campaign that he fudges rolls to make combat more interesting

I quickly expressed my opinion that combat rolls should not fudged and asked him to not fudge mine

I now however am in a awkward position because I do not believe I can trust my DM to do so, who says he doesn't make the high level boss I poison make his save despite a rolled one? Whenever I go into combat does it really matter what I do or what roll if he's just going to make it more "interesting"?

Essentially I'm at a loss of what I should do, but I feel that in an instant all my interest in the game has been lost to a single sentence, and I can't exactly quit as these players and the dm are all my close friends and I'm kind ofa needed character

So what should I do about this? Also what are your views about fudging rolls? Just based on this all my future games as DM I plan on rolling my dice in the open, this solution doesn't work in this current situation however as we play online


----------



## delericho (Nov 29, 2011)

It's a dirty little secret that almost every DM fudges sometimes. They might shave a few points off damage caused to drop a PC to -8 instead of -10, or have NPCs avoid using coup de grace attacks, or invisibly inflate villain hit points, or ignore a failed save vs poison, or...

Even DMs who try really hard not to fudge the dice almost all do so at some point. Very, very few DMs can honestly say they have _never_ fudged anything. (And if you try running a game for a couple of months, you almost certainly will, too.)

The only thing is, we're not supposed to let the players know.


----------



## Ringlerun (Nov 29, 2011)

As a DM i fudge dice rolls all the time.  99% is for the benefit of the players.  There is nothing less heroic than entering the first room and having a party wipe from a few bad rolls on the players part.

And there is also nothing less heroic than to have the final climatic battle end in one round because of a failed save.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Nov 29, 2011)

Where is it written that the DM is bound to the results of the dice?

The dice are an aid to the players and the DM, not the other way around. Most DMs explicitly fudge numbers now and then, and there are a lot of gray areas of interpretation even in combat. If the DM is doing this in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, it could be a problem, but then the problem is the DM's attitude towards you in general.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 29, 2011)

Twichyboy said:


> I now however am in a awkward position because I do not believe I can trust my DM to do so, who says he doesn't make the high level boss I poison make his save despite a rolled one? Whenever I go into combat does it really matter what I do or what roll if he's just going to make it more "interesting"?



That seems a little dramatic.  Fudging doesn't usually mean making up all the events in combat whole cloth regardless of what the dice say or don't say.  It means a little nudge here and there to make the game better.


> Essentially I'm at a loss of what I should do, but I feel that in an instant all my interest in the game has been lost to a single sentence, and I can't exactly quit as these players and the dm are all my close friends and I'm kind ofa needed character



There's no such thing as a needed character.  Personally, I'm of the opinion that the GM should bring a game suited to the player's he gets--regardless of what he gets--rather than try to force the group into a rigid, "balanced" party structure if they want to thrive.  But even if your GM isn't of that opinion, there are always alternatives to a missing character.  If the GM can't work around that, then he's a pretty poor GM in my opinion.

That said, I think if you leave in a huff because you want all dice out in the open or whatever, then I think you're the one being extreme.  By all means do it if you really can't enjoy the game otherwise--life's too short to play games we don't enjoy--but you really might want to consider a bit of reasonable compromise.


> So what should I do about this? Also what are your views about fudging rolls? Just based on this all my future games as DM I plan on rolling my dice in the open, this solution doesn't work in this current situation however as we play online



Fudging rolls is fine.  In our group, we do it semi-frequently, and even openly.  Part of this is an ongoing discussion about the poor balance of the Paizo adventure paths and how without fudging they can only successfully be played by really hardcore tactician style play, which we don't enjoy.  So our GM fudges openly, telling us exactly what he's doing, while simultaneously griping about how crazy a particular encounter was designed.

When I run for the group, I fudge less, and certainly less openly.  But at the same time, I make up a lot of stats on the fly anyway.  In that kind of environment, I'm not even sure that fudging is always meaningful as a concept.


----------



## IronWolf (Nov 29, 2011)

I think the vast majority of DMs fudge at some point or other. I try to limit my fudging and let the dice fall as they may. I am probably most guilty of adjusting HP on the fly, either throwing some extras at the critters or on other occasions reducing the number.

Usually it is because I have mis-gauged the encounter to one of too great difficulty. I learned when I made my return to DMing that sometimes it is better to fudge or make very poor tactical decisions on the critter's behalf than it is to slaughter the party because you thought a creater with 8 attacks and 15' reach was an appropriate challenge to a mid-lowish level party.


----------



## Mercurius (Nov 29, 2011)

[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] said what I was going to say 100% - must spread XP first.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 29, 2011)

Well, I'd make sure to have a serious talk with the GM (which it sounds like you have). You shouldn't give him an ultimatum or anything (it's his game), but if he insists on fudging dice, I can understand not getting the same enjoyment out of combat (or other scenarios, if he fudges dice there, too).

I play with a group of close friends. If one started to run a game and started to fudge dice in combat, I'd probably make a character that wasn't focused on combat at all, because combat wouldn't be fun for me. I've come to love looking at the result of the dice, seeing the results, and shaking my head in amazement. There's something magical, to me (yes, it's very personal), about seeing amazing results when everything is on the up-and-up.

If he insists on fudging on other dice rolls, too, I'd probably have another talk, and this time I'd stop playing if it couldn't be resolved. He should at least be able to not fudge your rolls (which you've asked for). It's not like you've asked him to not fudge rolls for the others or anything. If you have more fun when your rolls aren't fudged, and he'll fudge rolls for others so they can have a more "interesting" combat (but not for you), then at worst you're risking your character every combat (which it sounds like it's what everyone is probably okay with).

If it was me, and I knew my rolls were getting fudged in and out of combat, I'd bow out, as I couldn't connect with the game. I'd be constantly pulled out of immersion, wondering if the GM is fudging rolls right now, or if I'm only here because of a certain "roll". Just my take, though.

Fudging dice is not an objectively bad thing. It's not my thing, but there's nothing wrong with it if others in the group like it. I'd just express to him that you really lose enjoyment when you feel your rolls are fudged, and that you'd love to love his game. Maybe suggest he use an online dice roller just for you? It's a little extra, but you're all close friends, so not too hard. Something like Online Dice Roller  Home should be good enough for what you need.

I hope that helps. As always, play what you like


----------



## steeldragons (Nov 29, 2011)

Twichyboy said:


> Hello all, ive just recently run into a problem that gas never occurred to me before, as I'm a longtime DM but a new player, my DM revealed to me after only one session of our new campaign that he fudges rolls to make combat more interesting
> 
> So what should I do about this?




Thank him profusely.



delericho said:


> It's a dirty little secret that almost every DM fudges sometimes.
> -snip-
> The only thing is, we're not supposed to let the players know.




Delericho is correct. It is UNSPOKENABLE!

IDSS (International Dungeonmaster Secret Service) agents are en route right now to collect your DM for a "visit" with..._the Council._

...You may want to start looking for a new DM... 

--SD


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 29, 2011)

How did you feel when you found out about Santa?? 

I think you should just ignore the comment. Don't think about it. Don't talk about it.

Fudging is like Fight Club.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 29, 2011)

Bad, bad, DM!

Never let the players _know_!


----------



## Umbran (Nov 29, 2011)

delericho said:


> The only thing is, we're not supposed to let the players know.




I prefer to be up-front about it, like other playstyle choices.  It shouldn't have come as a surprise to the player.  At the start of my current campaign, I asked the players each individually if they minded if I fudged the occasional die roll.  They were all quite okay with it, and I avoided the very situation the OP is in.  

There are some GMs who drive the GM Fiat with a heavy foot on the accelerator and clutch, but in my personal experience they are rare.  Most simply give a nudge every once in a while, and often enough it is effectively just to correct for a misjudgement they (or an author) made in adventure or encounter design. 

Which is not to say you (you, meaning the OP, not delericho) have to like it - that's your choice.  I would not, however, expect the game to change for you.  You are one, and the rest of the group is many, after all.  As Hobo says, in the long run, no single character is indispensable.  Your tactical role can be filled by someone else, or managed otherwise.  Your plots can be dropped or reshuffled.  If you know you aren't going to like the game because of this, it is best to bow out early, so the group can readjust.

But honestly, I think you're probably making a mountain out of a molehill.  Fudging rolls now and then is not tantamount to predetermining all results in the game, no matter what some folks around here may say.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 29, 2011)

You might want to sit down with the other players and discuss this. How many of them know he fudges? How many of them have particular feelings about fudging? 

If the other players are OK with the fudging, it's your expectations that will have to change. But you may find that the others feel the same way you do, at least to an extent. In that case, the DM should stop fudging. 

There may also be a middle ground. For example, I can't think of any instances in which I've fudged or would fudge in favor of the NPCs to thwart the PCs as a group (though I may do so to delay one PC in favor of another whose already got something really cool going on in the interest of sharing spotlights). I may retcon some things onto the NPC's sheet based on what PCs are doing or talking about because it was a good idea I didn't initially think of when designing them. But that's about it. I usually fudge to *thwart my NPCs* good luck with dice. I'll leave some of the damage modifier off a harsh, low-probability critical. I'll have them fail a save they otherwise would have made when the PC plan has been really good. You may be able to get him to agree to that sort of fudging.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 29, 2011)

The question you need to ask yourself, twitchboy, is what kind of game do you feel you are playing?  Are you playing a boardgame, or are you playing a roleplaying game?

If you treat D&D combat like a boardgame (which many people do, and there's nothing wrong with that)... then sure, I can certainly understand why the fudging of rolls would be bothersome.  In boardgames, the players are trying to 'win' the game through legitimate means.  You wouldn't want dice fudging in Monopoly or Risk, so why would you want it here?

However, if you treat D&D combat as part of a roleplaying game... the central aspect of an RPG is 'story'.  Every combat tells its own part of a larger story, and the hope is that every part of the story is interesting, compelling, and exciting to witness and participate in.  However, the DM knows quite a bit more than the PCs do about the story that a particular combat is a part of... and if fudging a roll here and there helps maintain or even raise the excitement of the story, then in the long run it usually makes for a better game.

So for instance:

Your Ranger just Criticalled on the big monster and did some ungodly amount of damage that brought him down from not even bloodied to 2 hit points.  The DM decides to wipe off those last 2 HP as well in order to make this huge attack be a massive killing blow... rather than have the monster take the shot but then wimper on the ground for a bit with 2 HP just to wait for another PC to walk over and finally clonk him over the head.  Bit anticlimactic.

Or:

The party is climbing a mountain face to get to the dragon's roost and through a series of really bad rolls during the skill challenge, one of the PCs fall from the climb.  And just through extreme sheer bad luck, the damage roll for Falling Damage is just so high (much higher than what the DM really expected to have occur for this encounter) that the PC goes directly to negative bloodied and is instantly killed.  Now the DM planned for the climb to be treacherous and for the PCs to need to expend resources on their way to the dragon's roost, but not to completely eliminate one of the players before even getting there (since rather than continue onto the roost, the party would probably turn around and go home in hopes of getting a Raise Dead).  So he fudges the damage roll so that the PC does not actually get insta-killed, just horribly maimed and lying on an outcropping halfway down the mountain.  The PCs now have several compelling decisions to make rather than what would have been probably the single one of "go home".

Whether either of these decision points are worth 'fudging' or not are open to individual DMs and what they think would make for good drama (like I'm sure there are some DMs who would consider the death of a PC from a fall more interesting dramatically than having him maimed and unconscious on a ledge halfway down).  But they do illustrate points where fudging rolls due to really unexpected results can help provide possibly better story or 'moments'.  And at least in my opinion... when a PC gets to experience a 'big moment', or have to make a hard decision... that's when compelling and interesting drama or joy occurs.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Nov 29, 2011)

Do you think you could compromise with your GM that they won't fudge rolls related to your character specifically?  It would still give the GM freedom to fudge combats to make them more interesting but it would give you the _let the dice fall as they may_ aspect that you want.


----------



## Bullgrit (Nov 29, 2011)

> Are you playing a boardgame, or are you playing a roleplaying game?



Either way, it's a *game*. Fudging takes out the game part of the exercise. And for me, the game part is at least half the reason I play RPGs -- they ain't called "Role-Playing Storytime" or "Role-Playing Theater".

I would and have quit games where the DM was fudging supposedly to make more fun. 

Bullgrit


----------



## Xer0 (Nov 29, 2011)

Twichyboy said:


> Hello all, ive just recently run into a problem that gas never occurred to me before, as I'm a longtime DM but a new player, my DM revealed to me after only one session of our new campaign that he fudges rolls to make combat more interesting
> 
> I quickly expressed my opinion that combat rolls should not fudged and asked him to not fudge mine
> 
> ...




No fudging as a DM? Really? Wow. I just figured that was something that we all just did.

I'm in favor of fudging, when it's needed. If my fudging of the dice keeps my players alive long enough to do something awesome, I'm all for it. I want my players to be awesome. Dying, that's not awesome.

I'll fudge the dice if needed to keep the villain alive just that bit longer to make the story better. For me, it's all about the story, the dice are just along for the ride.

Now, if you don't want your GM to fudge dice when you're involved, talk to him about it. Express your feelings on the subject of dice fudging and stress to him that you don't want rolls to be fudged. If he agrees, you're going to have to trust him. If you can't, time to find a new GM, because this game is all about trust.


----------



## nedjer (Nov 29, 2011)

If the GM was using fudged rolls to beat-up on PCs constantly, or fudging so frequently that even dumb play and deliberately taking on impossible opponents doesn't hurt - then I could see the concern. However, until it came-up you seem to have felt that your PC was under threat at times, that the game wasn't a cakewalk for the PCs and that the party deserved its rewards (maybe not?).

So, it sounds a bit like the GM's taking you on an adventure and reckons you'd rather trade a more enjoyment for a bit less simulation


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 29, 2011)

Unless thinking that you didn't "earn" the win isn't as enjoyable? That's how my players view fudging. But, if the group doesn't mind, of course, then maybe he can convince the GM not to fudge his rolls (which he has already asked for, mind you). As always, play what you like


----------



## kitsune9 (Nov 29, 2011)

As a DM, I can see that fudging rolls is okay to make the game interesting, but the DM shouldn't "show his hand" in that way, because then it does become a trust / cheating issue. A DM's idea of a climatic and exciting game now suspends the disbelief of the players who may not believe that the roll of the dice behind the screen are what they really are. I used to fudge rolls from time to time, but never, ever told my players that I did the practice. 

Nowadays, I don't use a screen and all my rolls are in the open except for when the rules require a roll to be made in secret and those I no longer fudge. I have found that there's a lot more drama when the players see the rolls than when I roll and call out the result.


----------



## Bullgrit (Nov 29, 2011)

If a DM fudges die rolls to make the experience best, why roll the dice at all?

If the DM will ignore a failed save to avoid a first round defeat of the BBEG, why roll the die at all? If the DM will change the damage dealt to avoid killing a PC, why roll the die at all? Etc. etc. etc.

Bullgrit


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 29, 2011)

Twichyboy said:


> So what should I do about this?



Ask the referee to roll anything that pertains to your character in the open.

For an online game, you can uses something like the dice-roller here on EN World. Both of you can see the results in seconds, and you both have a permanent record of what was rolled when, by whom, and for what.

If that doesn't work, then you need to decided how important the game is to you if you can't trust the referee. For me, no gaming is better than bad gaming, and if I don't trust the referee, then that's bad gaming.







Twichyboy said:


> Also what are your views about fudging rolls?



I roll everything in the open and I let the results stand.

I like the uncertainty that the dice bring to the game.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 29, 2011)

I have said this before I won't play with a DM who will not fudge or rolls in the open. 

As a DM I sometimes fudge. I fudge and lessen the HP on an NPC if I think I have overpowered it or I can see that my players are getting bored and frustrated with the combat. I have also increased the HP if I think the encounter is turning into a cake walk and it has been awhile since they have had a tough encounter. 

I have players who hate dying it is not fun for them to die especially if it over something stupid like bad rolls so yes I fudge and bring them to -8 instead of out right killing them. 

As a DM I don't find a huge turn over on characters because they keep dying a whole lot of fun it means I have to keep readjusting the story to fit in a new character.


 My players like to role play and they hate the you look trust worthy join us and oh here is a bunch of magical equipment that is worth a lot of gold but we are just going to give it to you out of the goodness of hearts style play.

Now if I have player that says don't fudge on my character then I won't I will let the dice fall where they may. And yes I expect the player to trust me if he does not then I don't want him at my table. 

But as the DM I reserve the right to adjust encounters on the fly. I had an experience with a DM who was very rigid  he didn't believe in fudging at all on anything. I learned a lot of what not to do from him. 

At the start of the game he gave everyone a magic item mine was a bow that had worked against elves. We were playing Eberron and my character was a ranger heading towards Cyrean Avenger and my first favored enemy were elves. 

We played every other week for a year and I never saw any elves. Finally we encountered some evil drow cultist who were about to sacrifice a child to open a gate. No one was close enough to stop him so I used my bow and rolled and confirmed a crit. It was the first time the bow's special quality came out in play. I rolled max damage and with the extra damage I did 101 points of damage. 

I was so excited because I felt that wow it is finally my turn to shine in combat I thought it was going to be one of those moments you talk about. But no the DM had given the cultist a brooch of shielding with 120 charges. Which he did show me after the game he knew I was very upset. So my attack did nothing. 

He was not cheating and I guess by the rules he really didn't do anything wrong and those are the breaks. Oh yeah it was my last arrow so I didn't get another chance and in the end it was the druid, cleric and rogue who took out the cultist like they did in almost every combat we ever had. 

As the DM he was in control he could have quickly readjusted the NPC and let me have a chance to shine and since it was the first attack no one would have known anything different.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 29, 2011)

double post... crap, ENWorld has been sluggish lately.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 29, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> If a DM fudges die rolls to make the experience best, why roll the dice at all?
> 
> If the DM will ignore a failed save to avoid a first round defeat of the BBEG, why roll the die at all? If the DM will change the damage dealt to avoid killing a PC, why roll the die at all? Etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Bullgrit



Look, just because a GM fudges rolls that are obviously "unfun" in his estimation doesn't mean that suddenly there's no place for dice, for randomization, for there being a game at all.  Stop trying to take such an absurdist, binary approach.


----------



## Asmor (Nov 29, 2011)

delericho said:


> Even DMs who try really hard not to fudge the dice almost all do so at some point. Very, very few DMs can honestly say they have _never_ fudged anything. (And if you try running a game for a couple of months, you almost certainly will, too.)




I'm willing to fudge most things, but not dice. Dice are sacrosanct.

Every time I roll a die, the spectrum of outcomes is set before the roll. Whether it's a roll to look up a table, a roll for damage, or a roll to hit, any applicable modifiers are all set beforehand. The roll itself is made in the open for all to see.

The moment you start screwing with the dice, just get rid of them. Some people say they only fudge dice "when it matters." Well, if the dice are reliable except when it matters... Then the dice don't matter.

That said, I generally don't fudge things in the middle of combat, except if I have made a mistake and a combat that wasn't meant to be anything more than a quick skirmish looks like it might destroy the players through no fault of their own. In that case, I prefer to fudge things without altering the rules. Enemies might suddenly make less optimal moves, provoke more attacks of opportunity, not use their strongest power, etc. The rest might run away when one of them is killed. That sort of things.

Most commonly, my fudging will be to add or remove enemies to or from a combat as I'm setting it up, in order to tailor the difficulty to the group on the fly.


----------



## Bullgrit (Nov 29, 2011)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Look, just because a GM fudges rolls that are obviously "unfun" in his estimation doesn't mean that suddenly there's no place for dice, for randomization, for there being a game at all. Stop trying to take such an absurdist, binary approach.



I’m asking a question of those who say things like this:







> fudges rolls to make combat more interesting
> 
> As a DM i fudge dice rolls all the time.
> 
> ...



In situations where the DM will only accept a certain result, (will fudge a roll to get the result he/she wants), why roll at all? It’s a simple question, for explanation. It’s not meant to antagonize anyone.

I'm not suggesting that fudging on one roll means all rolls should be thrown out. I'm asking about the roll that gets fudged -- if the DM will only accept a certain result from the roll, why roll that particular chance at all? If the DM doesn't want the BBEG to fail this first round saving throw, and will change the result to a save if it fails, then why roll that die for that situation?

Bullgrit


----------



## billd91 (Nov 29, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> I'm not suggesting that fudging on one roll means all rolls should be thrown out. I'm asking about the roll that gets fudged -- if the DM will only accept a certain result from the roll, why roll that particular chance at all? If the DM doesn't want the BBEG to fail this first round saving throw, and will change the result to a save if it fails, then why roll that die for that situation?




In the case of many rolls, particularly damage rolls, it's not that a particular result is in mind as much as particular results that come up may be unacceptable and are changed to ones that are. For example, on a 4d6 scorching ray, I'm content with the vast majority of outcomes. But I might not be so keen on a crit result that comes up higher than 40. 

For pass/fail checks, why not roll them? If they come out the way you want them, no need to fudge, right? It's only when the dice don't give you the preferred result that you fudge in the first place. Besides, sometimes it's only in the moment that you intuitively feel that the story unfolds better with a particular result.


----------



## Storminator (Nov 29, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> I’m asking a question of those who say things like this:In situations where the DM will only accept a certain result, (will fudge a roll to get the result he/she wants), why roll at all? It’s a simple question, for explanation. It’s not meant to antagonize anyone.
> 
> Bullgrit




I've embraced this philosophy. If I have no interest in a failed roll, I don't call for a roll. Frex, in our last session the assassin wanted to kill one of the palace bureaucrats and blame it on a rival clan. I called for a Thievery roll. The outcome of killing the commoner was a forgone conclusion, it was only the quality of the frame up I was interested in.

So sometimes, don't roll at all.

PS


----------



## Umbran (Nov 29, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> It’s a simple question, for explanation. It’s not meant to antagonize anyone.




It is a simple question, but let's be clear - first you asked:

_"If a DM fudges die rolls to make the experience best, why roll the dice at all?"_

Then you asked:

_"In situations where the DM will only accept a certain result, (will fudge a roll to get the result he/she wants), why roll at all?"_

Surely you see those are different questions, no?  The first is kind of absurd.  The second is better, but shows a lack of understanding of what the GM is probably doing.

When I fudge a die roll, it is not because I have a clearly preconceived and detailed notion of exactly how things should turn out.  It is that I see the immediate result of one die roll as being particularly undesirable.  I am not forcing all dice towards one conclusion, I am forcing one die away from one conclusion.  There's still a world full of other results that I'm not going to alter.  

Why did I let you roll the die at all?  Well, there are several possible reasons.  First off, I may not have foreseen that conclusion - I'm not perfect, after all.  Second, there's the concept of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".  I'll let the dice speak until they start using foul language, and then only bleep the really bad bits.  That doesn't mean I've written their script in full, you see.

So, the BBEG rolls an attack, and hits.  Well, that's okay.  Rolls a crit.  That's still okay.  Rolls max damage such that he'll drop the PC in one stroke before that PC has even gotten to act in this climactic battle, so the player's going to be sitting out for the next half hour of the session feeling useless?  Maybe not.  Maybe I'll tone down that damage.  

That doesn't mean I wont let the PC die.  Just not on that particular hit.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 29, 2011)

The first rule of DM fudging is, you do not talk about DM fudging. 

To me, fudging is a tool to compensate for flaws in the ruleset. I tend to run things loose and on the fly, and as such I have often found myself at the mercy of badly written rules and badly balanced statblocks. This results in a challenge that I had intended to be "tough but beatable" turning into either a TPK or a cakewalk. When that happens, I'm apt to fudge to bring the encounter more in line with what I'd intended. One of the things I love about 4E is that the balance is much tighter, so I very seldom have to do that any more.

My philosophy is that this type of fudging is merely correcting for the faults of the system. I'm making the encounter into what it was always supposed to be, and would have been if the rules hadn't been written by crazed troll monkeys*. I've come to believe that fudging to bring about a specific outcome (e.g., party wins the fight, none of the PCs dies) is a bad idea. No matter how skillfully it's done, the players will eventually figure out what's going on, and then the thrill is lost.

And, like others, I generally avoid fudging the dice these days. There are other, subtler tools available--adjusting monster hit points on the fly, for instance, or changing the effect of a power that hasn't been used yet.

[SIZE=-2]*Actually, writing an RPG ruleset that is balanced _and_ playable _and_ fun is extremely hard. I know, I've tried. However, I feel safe in saying that anyone who goes into the RPG design business is at least 60% crazed troll monkey anyway. You have to be to want to take on that kind of challenge for that kind of reward.[/SIZE]


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 29, 2011)

Adding an impromptu circumstantial modifier to a die roll for mechanical or narrative reasons is within the purview of a Game Master.  Best not to think of it as "fudging" since that implies it is against the rules, which it is not.  If someone is looking for a game where all dice are rolled in the open and never change due to circumstances overseen by a facilitator, they should look beyond the RPG format.  If someone feels that a facilitator is making adjustments egregiously, they should certainly discuss the matter with the Game Master but only with the understanding that what the GM is doing is within the rules.  This is not a trust issue since the GM is acting within the bounds of fair play.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 29, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> If someone is looking for a game where all dice are rolled in the open and never change due to circumstances overseen by a facilitator, they should look beyond the RPG format.




Mmm... just to note, a lot of DMs roll in the open and never adjust the results. It's a valid play style and many prefer it.


----------



## rogueattorney (Nov 29, 2011)

I don't like fudging as a player or a DM.

I want things rolled in the open to the greatest extent possible.

If rolling in the open ends in a result we, as a group, don't like, we can discuss it and change it if needed.  But it's a group decision and everyone knows what's happening.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 29, 2011)

Usually the desired result isn't a foregone conclusion, and usually these situations aren't pass/fail binary.  I fudge damage rolls, on occasion, for example.  I don't just make up damage; if it's high enough to kill a character "who's time hasn't quite come yet" then I'll lop a few points off and give him a chance to turn things around.  Or if it's a combatant and the fight is starting to get long and tedious, I'll have him suddenly drop even though "by the book" he's still got a few more rounds worth of hit points left in 'im.

But yeah; there's certainly a point to be careful and not ask for rolls if you really aren't going to be willing to accept what may be the results of them.  Sure, I can buy that.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Nov 29, 2011)

deleted - duplicate post


----------



## NewJeffCT (Nov 29, 2011)

I never fudge die rolls as a DM.

If it means that a boss encounter is a cakewalk for the PCs, or that it results in a TPK, so be it.  (The way I roll, the first is much more likely...)

However, I usually have a secret DM-Ex-Machina built into a combat encounter just in case things go bad.  Something like a friendly NPC that the players were supposed to meet the following sessions shows up early and heals a PC or distracts the bad guy or something like that.  Or, maybe the bound & gagged merchant's daughter the PCs are trying to rescue slips her bonds and trips the charging orc leader.

In case of an easy boss encounter, there is always another bad guy around the corner - behind Darth Vader was Emperor Palpatine after all.  However, I never throw in extra surprise monsters if things go badly for my bad guys (no "grudge ogres" as one guy calls them.).  If the players do well thanks to good rolling and/or good planning, then I let them enjoy the rewards.


----------



## Bullgrit (Nov 29, 2011)

Umbran said:
			
		

> It is a simple question, but let's be clear - first you asked:
> 
> "If a DM fudges die rolls to make the experience best, why roll the dice at all?"
> 
> ...



I think the problem here is that someone(s) is jumping in front of a question actually directed at someone else. My question only seems absurd if one assumes it is directed at someone(s) it is invalid for. 

If you, (general use: You), don’t fudge “all the time” to make things more interesting, or to change outcomes, or to have battles go the way you want, or to tell a better story, then my question isn’t directed to you. I thought that would be obvious. It apparently wasn’t, so I quoted the specific statements I was questioning. Apparently that still didn’t clear it up. I don’t know how to make it better other than maybe saying: My question is not directed at Hobo, (or Umbran); it’s only directed at those specific people who made the specific, extreme statements.

Bullgrit


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 29, 2011)

Yeah, Bullgrit, I got that.  My point is that actually only _you_ are making the assumption of that kind of extremity.  In other words, you're creating the classic strawman; exaggerating a position to the point where it's ridiculous, and then obliquely asking people to defend _that_.

The whole point Umbran and I have made is that nobody has made that extreme of an assumption.  If you only want the people who run games that way to respond, get ready for the deafening sound of a few crickets.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 29, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> Mmm... just to note, a lot of DMs roll in the open and never adjust the results. It's a valid play style and many prefer it.





Totally up to the GM, though counter to the traditional "play style" of RPGs.  I'd even go so far as to say that if all of the dice are meant to be taken at face value and rolled in the open, the game is more akin to games that need no facilitator, like a boardgame or a wargame.  "Valid?"  I'm not sure its validity enters into the discussion because it suggest there is a right or wrong way to have fun.  However, once you adopt nontraditional ways of playing a type of game, it does become something else, or at least a hybrid.

Let's come at it from a different direction.  If, for instance, I am playing a traditional miniatures wargame with, say, six players and five of us have small factions of combatants going up against one player with a larger army and we decide that the one player is going to know a lot of information that the other five don't (such as he is the one player to be able to hide forces and only reveal them when encountered) and that one player is also able to make rolls secretly and tell the players the outcome of the rolls (though not required to show the dice rolls).  Further, let's say that the five players will each take on the part of the leader of their factions, perhaps even giving them voice at the table, while the one player does so with many of the leaders of his own army.  Still a wargame?


----------



## Bullgrit (Nov 29, 2011)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Yeah, Bullgrit, I got that. My point is that actually only you are making the assumption of that kind of extremity. In other words, you're creating the classic strawman; exaggerating a position to the point where it's ridiculous, and then obliquely asking people to defend that.
> 
> The whole point Umbran and I have made is that nobody has made that extreme of an assumption. If you only want the people who run games that way to respond, get ready for the deafening sound of a few crickets.



Um, in my post I quoted statements from people in this thread. I didn't make up those statements.

Look, dude, I have no interest in going back and forth with you. Really, I've asked a question of someone else.

Bullgrit


----------



## was (Nov 29, 2011)

the only time I fudge is when I've accidently overpowered an encounter and I only fudge enough to give the players a 50/50 shot at winning...fudging anything else is unacceptable to me


----------



## Will Doyle (Nov 29, 2011)

The DM's screen is there for a reason - and historically one of those reasons is definitely for fudging.

For years, I've flip-flopped between fudging and not. I've tried rolling consistently the open, declaring my actions before rolling. I've tried keeping everything a secret, rolling the dice behind the screen sometimes just for drama's sake. 

Nowadays, I find myself fudging rolls very infrequently, if ever - but I still roll most checks behind the screen. Fudging for me is typically upping solo HP if they're proving a cakewalk, upping monster damage on the fly, and so on. For me, that's the stuff that belongs behind the screen. It's my notepad I want to shield, not my dice.

Nowadays, for drama's sake, I only tend to roll all-important dice out in the open. The hit roll when a character is at near-bloodied negative, the save for an enemy when they're about to be pushed into a lava pit, and so on. Even though I try to play it straight when it's rolled behind the screen, rolling in front of the players for crucial rolls does add a lot of gravitas.


----------



## am181d (Nov 29, 2011)

I see a lot of straw man arguments in this thread. The "classic fudge" is:

NPC rolls really well for damage. DM puts PC at -8 instead of -12. This gives the other players a couple rounds to scramble rather than killing the PC outright. 

Situations like this don't come up very often. Usually no more than once in a session, and generally not most sessions. 



was said:


> the only time I fudge is when I've accidently overpowered an encounter and I only fudge enough to give the players a 50/50 shot at winning...fudging anything else is unacceptable to me




This makes sense broadly, but how on Earth would you measure 50/50?


----------



## Lord Crimson (Nov 29, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> I never fudge die rolls as a DM.
> 
> If it means that a boss encounter is a cakewalk for the PCs, or that it results in a TPK, so be it.  (The way I roll, the first is much more likely...)
> 
> However, I usually have a secret DM-Ex-Machina built into a combat encounter just in case things go bad.




This, to me, is a false dichotomy.

Sure, your way of doing it is a little more _artistically _pleasing. But you're _still _fudging.

Dropping a few extra HPs off of a hit or a foe isn't really all that different, _conceptually_, than having an NPC suddenly run into the room and play heal-bot or soak up hits for a round or two. 

You've _invented _this character's presence at this time and place in the story to justify the continued survival of the PCs because it makes for a-more-interesting-story/more-fun/less-suck/whatever for them to survive.

It just _looks _prettier than changing/ignoring a die roll or two.

And choosing _not _to roll the dice is simply another form of fudging in and of itself, since that choice is _just _as arbitrary and informed by what the GM decides is more or less fun.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Nov 30, 2011)

Oh, so much XP I want to give, but the XP buttons aren't working!

Like Delericho and Dausuul say: Rookie mistake #71 is telling your players that you fudge. Most of us do it. Those of us who do it well maintain plausible deniability.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 30, 2011)

Will Doyle said:


> The DM's screen is there for a reason - and historically one of those reasons is definitely for fudging.
> 
> For years, I've flip-flopped between fudging and not. I've tried rolling consistently the open, declaring my actions before rolling. I've tried keeping everything a secret, rolling the dice behind the screen sometimes just for drama's sake.
> 
> ...




I used to fudge, but overtime I noticed it had a negative impact on the game for me and the players. Once I stuck to a stricts "all rolls in the open, let the dice fall where they may" policy it really improved things for everyone. When I do use a GM screen it is for my notes or simply for the convenience of having the charts on hand.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 30, 2011)

Personally, I don't fudge and often roll life or death rolls in the open, but as part of an RPG I reserve the right to make circumstance modifiers as I see fit.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 30, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> I used to fudge, but overtime I noticed it had a negative impact on the game for me and the players. Once I stuck to a stricts "all rolls in the open, let the dice fall where they may" policy it really improved things for everyone. When I do use a GM screen it is for my notes or simply for the convenience of having the charts on hand.




Naturally! Roll out in the open! Then fudge the figures behind the scenes if necessary...


----------



## NewJeffCT (Nov 30, 2011)

Lord Crimson said:


> This, to me, is a false dichotomy.
> 
> Sure, your way of doing it is a little more _artistically _pleasing. But you're _still _fudging.
> 
> ...




I think it's a lot different - the bad rolls for the players and/or the good rolls for the DM still stand, it's just that they get some in-game help.  It's like bringing in a relief pitcher in a baseball game.

By the way, while I often have that 'unplanned' ally in reserve, I've only had to use the unplanned ally like that once in 4 1/2 years.

Also, I make all combat rolls (to hit, damage, saving throws) out in the open.  Things like NPC reactions and opposed rolls, I do behind the screen because the PCs don't need to see what their bonus is.


----------



## prosfilaes (Nov 30, 2011)

Xer0 said:


> I'm in favor of fudging, when it's needed. If my fudging of the dice keeps my players alive long enough to do something awesome, I'm all for it. I want my players to be awesome. Dying, that's not awesome.
> 
> I'll fudge the dice if needed to keep the villain alive just that bit longer to make the story better. For me, it's all about the story, the dice are just along for the ride.




I'm not necessarily against fudging, but described that way it doesn't seem very fun. Through brilliant play or terrific luck, can I drop the villain early? No? Through awful play or terrible luck, can I die? No? Then where's the game?

(And as a spellcaster, whose most likely to hit the villain with a save or die or save or suck, it is absolutely no fun if I get a whiff of the fact that the villain will automatically make his save on Feeblemind or Power Word: Kill the first round.)



Mark CMG said:


> Totally up to the GM, though counter to the  traditional "play style" of RPGs.  I'd even go so far as to say that if  all of the dice are meant to be taken at face value and rolled in the  open, the game is more akin to games that need no facilitator, like a  boardgame or a wargame. ... However, once you adopt nontraditional ways of playing a type of game, it does become something else, or at least a hybrid.




In a world where Amber and Dread and Nobilis are RPGs, I think a different style of dice rolling is a pretty weird thing to say makes an RPG not an RPG. (Note there's no fudging in Dread; once someone has set hands on the Jenga set, the DM has no control.) The DM always has huge powers to define things without fudging dice; he defines the other side, he dictates what they do, including suboptimal attacks and all-out retreat, and can introduce new NPCs (for and against the PCs) at will. What no dice fudging says he can't do is say that the villain's meteor swarm didn't do 64 points of damage, or that the villain saved against feeblemind. I think I'd rather play a game that was less random rather then play a game that claims it's random and then lets the DM bypass the randomness in the name of story.

My current DM gives us and him mulligans, and that cuts down on the randomness without taking freedom away from the players.


----------



## nedjer (Nov 30, 2011)

meta-fudge is an option, i.e. it's an open roll, but on key rolls players are prompted along the lines of: are there any more factors or circumstances we should take into account here? This lets the players review their options and lets you present useful information again. I.e. a metagame fudge, not an in-game fudge.

It's not unusual for this to lead to +2 to +4 on a roll that's key to the party. Maybe because there's a tendency to stick to what usually works OK - when a better combined or individual use of a party's skills and the terrain, etc . . . is waiting to be sparked.

Is that acceptable for those who plain don't like a fudge?


----------



## Flatus Maximus (Nov 30, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> If a DM fudges die rolls to make the experience best, why roll the dice at all?
> 
> If the DM will ignore a failed save to avoid a first round defeat of the BBEG, why roll the die at all? If the DM will change the damage dealt to avoid killing a PC, why roll the die at all? Etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Bullgrit




This just can't be repeated enough. It's a _game_. Where outcomes are determined by _dice_.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Nov 30, 2011)

I tend to use 'built-in cheats' like the hero point mechanic from Mutants and Masterminds, rather than other forms of cheating.  Making it codified in such a way helps it to sit better with me than more underhanded methods.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Nov 30, 2011)

As far as I'm concerned, "fudge" is changing a result after it is partially or fully resolved under the existing ruleset and/or o table expectations. Dice rolls are the obvious place, but so is having an NPC do something blatantly out of character to save a PC. I haven't done any of that in over 20 years, and don't plan to start again. (Before that, I fudged everywhere from "barely" to "all the time".) With the kind of people I enjoy running games for, I have found this leads to better play, they like it more, and there is plenty of roleplaying. Nor, having a fairly good understanding of basic probabilities, have I had any trouble maintaining this.

That is separate from the DM making decisions and judgments, including where appropriate, metagaming decisions. I do that all the time. So I'm not taking out the 4th encounter out of 5 because the party is terribly beat up. I'm not adding an extra encounter because they had an easy time. And I'm certainly not changing a die roll to help or hinder. But I might take out or add an encounter, or modify an encounter before it starts, or any number of such things, because the pacing will work better if I do. 

I suppose many won't see any difference. If the 4th encounter comes out, the party has an easier time. However, it makes a difference to *me*. I'm fairly certain that I'm objective about it, too, because I've taken the encounter out when the party was banged up, and I've done it when they weren't.

I don't believe that fudging goes undetected for very long by the vast majority of players, no matter how skillful. They might not recognize particular instances, but they will know if it is happening in general. 

On those handful of times when the metagaming and other such resources (e.g. fate points) are insufficient to smooth out any rough edges in the rules system, we have replaced any need to fudge with retcon, based on a group discussion. *Once* in the last 20 years, we retconned a near TPK right out of reality, because the group wanted to continue with the characters. We explained it as a bad dream that the characters experienced, then took the campaign elsewhere. Thus, the action we had just played out affected the tone of the campaign and ultimately meant far more than me fudging the outcome to save them would have. And they chose that result, instead of me guessing. Most of the time, they prefer that results stand.

I don't fudge. But I'll let the group collectively fudge if that is their conscious and deliberate decision.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 30, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> In a world where Amber and Dread and Nobilis are RPGs, I think a different style of dice rolling is a pretty weird thing to say makes an RPG not an RPG.





Oh, I'm well aware that there are alternate (non-traditional) RPGs and hybrids, as I posted above.  Along the same lines, if I simply called LURCH! The Zombie Chess Game Chess, it would also be inaccurate or imprecise.  It's based on chess and has some similarities but it isn't the same thing.  True to say, though, that some cleave closer than others and my chess example is more obvious than some others.




prosfilaes said:


> My current DM gives us and him mulligans, and that cuts down on the randomness without taking freedom away from the players.





That's really no different than the so-called "fudging" and, in fact, extends the allowance to the players, FWIW.


----------



## SkredlitheOgre (Nov 30, 2011)

Personally, I think in a game where the rules are a framework with which to have fun, fudging can be part of that fun, but to me, it comes down to play style of the GM and group.

In my group, we're there to sit around, BS, and have fun.  Everyone rolls in the open and the current GM has openly admitted that he fudges rolls.  He also will raise or lower armor class and hit points of whatever we're fighting to make the challenge more appropriate.  And you know what?  My group doesn't care.  If two of us step in and critical or at least do serious damage, he'll just look at us and say, 'Yep.  Adding a zero,' meaning he just added a 0 to the amount of hit points the enemy has.  Granted, it's not usually increased by a factor of 10, but it's happened once.  Usually he just doubles the hit points.

We tell this to whoever wants to join our group.  We've had a couple say 'Cool' and then end up leaving for other reasons and a few say 'Sorry, that's not my bag.'  We don't take it personally, because that's _our_ play style and I know that doesn't fit everyone else's style.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Adding an impromptu circumstantial modifier to a die roll for mechanical or narrative reasons is within the purview of a Game Master.



Before the die roll, to better reflect the context or circumstances of the action? No problem.

After the die roll, specifically to (a)void the consequences of the die roll? No, thank you.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 30, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Before the die roll, to better reflect the context or circumstances of the action? No problem.
> 
> After the die roll, specifically to (a)void the consequences of the die roll? No, thank you.





It's like an action point with insight.  I've seen games where a GM will suggest a player use one of their action points, although not revealing the die roll, while strongly hinting that a single point will make the difference.  There's realy no difference between that and just adjusting a roll as the GM in a game where no action points exist.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Nov 30, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> I never fudge die rolls as a DM.
> 
> If it means that a boss encounter is a cakewalk for the PCs, or that it results in a TPK, so be it.  (The way I roll, the first is much more likely...)
> 
> ...




I....really think I would rather have a DM who fudged rolls than brought out the deus ex machina.  Can't stand that stuff and it is sure to frustrate me faster than any amount of fudging I can think of.

As to the OP - if you don't think you can overcome your problem with fudging (and the DM isn't willing to not fudge your PCs rolls - which I think is a fine compromise btw) you'd probably be better off not playing.  I would make sure the group knew why you are feeling compelled to leave though.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Adding an impromptu circumstantial modifier to a die roll for mechanical or narrative reasons is within the purview of a Game Master.  Best not to think of it as "fudging" since that implies it is against the rules, which it is not.



No, you're thinking of cheating. If the GM is changing things (commonly die rolls) that would (or should) naturally happen in-game to push towards or away from a particular narrative outcome (a TPK, a player killing the 'boss' in one hit, etc.), then it's fudging, in my mind. And, Mark CMG, you're more than intelligent enough to know what I mean, here. I may have missed some semantic point, but I think the spirit of what a couple people are trying to communicate is clear for you to see.



Mark CMG said:


> If someone is looking for a game where all dice are rolled in the open and never change due to circumstances overseen by a facilitator, they should look beyond the RPG format.  If someone feels that a facilitator is making adjustments egregiously, they should certainly discuss the matter with the Game Master but only with the understanding that what the GM is doing is within the rules.  This is not a trust issue since the GM is acting within the bounds of fair play.



With Rule 0, yes, the GM can cheat. Some people don't like certain brands of cheating. Certain groups advocating that certain types of cheating be banned from play as part of the social contract seems basic, to me.



Mark CMG said:


> Personally, I don't fudge and often roll life or death rolls in the open, but as part of an RPG I reserve the right to make circumstance modifiers as I see fit.



The Shaman really hit this one out of the park, but I want to give my take, too. If the circumstance modifier is to reflect the natural change of the circumstances in-game, and is not simply an excuse for the GM to push towards or away from a particular narrative outcome, then it's fine. Once it becomes just a tool for him to push towards or away from a particular narrative outcome, and less about the circumstances, he's fudging, in my mind.

Again, I expect you to get the spirit of what I'm saying. You're more than sharp enough to pick up on my (probably) poorly worded... words. As always, play what you like


----------



## prosfilaes (Nov 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Oh, I'm well aware that there are alternate (non-traditional) RPGs and hybrids, as I posted above.  Along the same lines, if I simply called LURCH! The Zombie Chess Game Chess, it would also be inaccurate or imprecise.




So let me get this straight; if you play D&D RAW, it's not a RPG? 



> That's really no different than the so-called "fudging" and, in fact, extends the allowance to the players, FWIW.




It is different; it's an above the board limited action. I know if I'm casting Feeblemind, and he has his mulligan left, he can use it to reroll a failed save. And if he fails again, he just fails.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Nov 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> It's like an action point with insight...



Yeah, I suppose it is. But your "action point with insight" is just as unpalatable to me as fudging, so I'm not sure what point you're really making.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> There's realy no difference between that and just adjusting a roll as the GM in a game where no action points exist.



No difference between a limited resource allocated by the player and the referee ignoring the result after the roll is made?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with that.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 30, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I may have missed some semantic point (. . .)





Yup, you use the word "cheat." 




JamesonCourage said:


> With Rule 0, yes, the GM can cheat.


----------



## enrious (Nov 30, 2011)

By rule, a 3.x DM is incapable of cheating.  Dunno about the other versions, but it's in black and white.

Of course, that's a different question of when, how often, and for what reason should a DM override dice.

Which is really the question.   

And every answer is right and every answer is wrong.


EDIT: --- Crossposted with Mark ---


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 30, 2011)

Vegepygmy said:


> Yeah, I suppose it is. But your "action point with insight" is just as unpalatable to me as fudging, so I'm not sure what point you're really making.






prosfilaes said:


> So let me get this straight; if you play D&D RAW, it's not a RPG?
> 
> It is different; it's an above the board limited action. I know if I'm casting Feeblemind, and he has his mulligan left, he can use it to reroll a failed save. And if he fails again, he just fails.






The Shaman said:


> No difference between a limited resource allocated by the player and the referee ignoring the result after the roll is made?
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with that.





Again, while I don't personally do it, I don't think classifying an adjudication that offsets an inequity perceived by the GM (before or after the fact)  as "fudging" or "cheating" or any other manner of derogatory hyperbole is appropriate.  As to whether it is more explicit in the rules than "Rule 0" or not, as some of you seem to find more acceptable, as far as I can see it is simply dressing it up to make it easier for some to allow who might otherwise find it not as tolerable.

On a humorous note, four quotes in twelve minutes is a new record for me!


----------



## Rogue Agent (Nov 30, 2011)

My two bits:

(1) When I , as a player, have realized that fudging is going on I simply disconnect from the experience and stop enjoying the game. This is not a conscious choice on my part; it's just the reaction that I have.

(2) As a GM, I have observed that the most memorable moments are often the result of "unfortunate" rolls that, if I were the sort of person who fudged my rolls, I would have fudged right out of existence.

So, IME, people claim that they fudge in order to "make the game more interesting/fun". But that's not actually the result. In fact, fudging usually has exactly the opposite result.

Ergo, I don't fudge. And don't play with those who do.

Query for those who do: Do you also allow your players to fudge their die rolls at will? Or are you the only person at the table capable of figuring out what would be "fun" for people?


----------



## prosfilaes (Nov 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Again, while I don't personally do it, I don't think classifying an adjudication that offsets an inequity perceived by the GM (before or after the fact)  as "fudging" or "cheating" or any other manner of derogatory hyperbole is appropriate.




Wiktionary says of fudging "Always deliberate, but not necessarily dishonest or immoral." I wasn't using fudging as "derogatory hyperbole", but merely the most common and well-known terminology for this behavior.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 30, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Wiktionary says of fudging "Always deliberate, but not necessarily dishonest or immoral." I wasn't using fudging as "derogatory hyperbole", but merely the most common and well-known terminology for this behavior.





Adjust or adjudicate also are deliberate wthout any suggestion that the actions even _might_ be dishonest or immoral, but perhaps we have differing views on that score.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Yup, you use the word "cheat."



Yeah. I do. You didn't really address the context of my post, though, so if you have thoughts on it, I'm open to them.


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 30, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> If a DM fudges die rolls to make the experience best, why roll the dice at all?
> 
> If the DM will ignore a failed save to avoid a first round defeat of the BBEG, why roll the die at all? If the DM will change the damage dealt to avoid killing a PC, why roll the die at all? Etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Bullgrit



I like to make good "play" decisions in a game. And I hate the stuff described above. When it is better mechanically to take a "save or suck/die" spell, I will take this spell and want to feel bright about it for taking the more effective spell.
The DM fudging the roll to make my best spell a waste of my round and rewarding the mechanically inferior "fireball boom" spell by not fudging this save it destroys the "game" aspect for me. Good choices should be rewarded and not declared "no-fun / no-climatic".

---

I also play mostly PbP lately, with rolls and stats open to everyone to see. So far (the past years) this didn't result in no-fun situations and actually increased the suspension during combat.

Killing the BigBad with one spell can be also memorable in a good way. And the changes are not that high it happens all that often.

---

For a middle ground I like the rules in Mutants & Masterminds 3rd, using hero points to "fudge" results, but doing it in the system. Epically with the later option to get a HP as a player when you need it for a sudden complication.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 30, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> Naturally! Roll out in the open! Then fudge the figures behind the scenes if necessary...




That is certainly one approach, but I would still consider that fudging. Don't get me wrong, this is not an absolute thing, you have to be somewhat flexible if you made an honest mistake as GM or something. There will be edge cases in all things. But I really like establishing a sense of consistency and because the players know I don't fudge they approach combat with more caution (and retreat when things go bad). 

The system I use actually would make it hard to fudge results behind the scenes (there are ways to do it but it is a much more naturalistic game than say D&D where there is plenty of room to fudge around the rolls). All characters (NPCs and PCs) have the same number of wounds, so I wouldn't be able to get away with having a foe drop early or something.


----------



## steenan (Nov 30, 2011)

A game requires a social contract - set of rules and expectations that all players (including the GM) share. Without it, a group will, sooner or later, encounter a situation like the one described in the OP, when styles and expectations clash and somebody's fun is ruined.

There is no good answer if fudging is good for the game or not. It depends on what people want and expect. There are also different kinds of what can be called "fudging", at least by some people:

1. Interpreting rules according to their intent, not wording, and removing various loopholes when they show up in game
2. Adding modifiers or overriding rules to have the game world behave in a consistent and sensible way
3. Modifying creature stats on the fly to correct mistakes in encounter balance
4. Overriding rules and rolls to keep characters from dying or otherwise becoming unplayable
5. Overriding rules and rolls to preserve GM's story from random factors (includes 4)
6. Overriding rules and rolls to preserve GM's story from player actions

6 is an obvious sign of railroading. 5 is sometimes called railroading too, but it's accepted by significantly more players. 3 and 4 are expected by some players, accepted by some and loathed by some. 1 and 2 are nearly necessary in all systems with any degree of simulation - trying to put all details in the rules would make them overcomplicated and unusable.


What follows is my personal opinion on the topic:

1 and 2 are normal. 3 and 4 are acceptable if I know about it beforehand, but not otherwise. I don't want to play in a game where 5 or 6 is used, as I don't believe that GM's pre-designed story is any more important than what comes from events in play. Also, if 4 and above are seen as necessary in a group, this group is probably playing a wrong game.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Nov 30, 2011)

steenan said:


> 1. Interpreting rules according to their intent, not wording, and removing various loopholes when they show up in game
> 2. Adding modifiers or overriding rules to have the game world behave in a consistent and sensible way
> 3. Modifying creature stats on the fly to correct mistakes in encounter balance
> 4. Overriding rules and rolls to keep characters from dying or otherwise becoming unplayable
> ...




Good list.  I think there is one other issue that sort of covers the whole list, and also is fundamental in the social contract:  If you want a lot of immersion--especially in a system that has flaws for the groups' expected playstyle--then the least immersion-damaging option may be for the DM to _quietly_ fudge away extraneous results.  Now, even in this kind of game, I'd want to know that was an option, if not the particulars.  But others may not care--or more likely, assume that to be the case.

In a game where you don't care as much about immersion and/or want to balance it with deliberate metagaming as a tool to get the story you want--then it often makes more sense to fix the flaws rather than keep fudging around them.  "Action points" and other such currency is a metagaming safety net of just this sort.

Accordingly, I'm fairly convinced that the only logically consistent case that can be made for fudging by an experienced group is ultimately related to preserving immersion.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 30, 2011)

steenan said:


> A game requires a social contract - set of rules and expectations that all players (including the GM) share. Without it, a group will, sooner or later, encounter a situation like the one described in the OP, when styles and expectations clash and somebody's fun is ruined.
> 
> There is no good answer if fudging is good for the game or not. It depends on what people want and expect. There are also different kinds of what can be called "fudging", at least by some people:
> 
> ...




I don't regard 1 and 2 as fudging; to me, fudging implies a level of subterfuge (you don't tell the players you're doing it). As indicated in my post above, I practice 3 to greater or lesser extent depending on the ruleset. I used to do 4 but have discontinued the practice, and I consider both 5 and 6 to be railroading.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 30, 2011)

Good list.



steenan said:


> 3. Modifying creature stats on the fly to correct mistakes in encounter balance




When I DM and I notice that this kind of situation is occurring, my normal technique is to modify the behaviour of the creature rather than its stats - maybe it attempts to flee rather than fight to the bitter end against badly wounded foes, maybe the intelligent creatures decide to capture for info or ransom rather than TPK the adventurers, and so on.


----------



## was (Nov 30, 2011)

am181d said:


> I see a lot of straw man arguments in this thread. The "classic fudge" is:
> 
> NPC rolls really well for damage. DM puts PC at -8 instead of -12. This gives the other players a couple rounds to scramble rather than killing the PC outright.
> 
> ...




its usually a snap judgement on the the fly..generally based on the current health of the pc's and bbeg and the average damage done by each..and ur right, the easiest way is to fudge the damage rolls and blame it on horrible dice.


----------



## Lord Crimson (Nov 30, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> I think it's a lot different - the bad rolls for the players and/or the good rolls for the DM still stand, it's just that they get some in-game help.  It's like bringing in a relief pitcher in a baseball game.
> 
> By the way, while I often have that 'unplanned' ally in reserve, I've only had to use the unplanned ally like that once in 4 1/2 years.
> 
> Also, I make all combat rolls (to hit, damage, saving throws) out in the open.  Things like NPC reactions and opposed rolls, I do behind the screen because the PCs don't need to see what their bonus is.




You can _think _it's a lot different. But it _isn't_ in any way other than aesthetically.

You made up a character and put that character someplace they weren't and only revealed the existence of that character when it was necessary to save the party - but pretended that character didn't exist if it wasn't necessary.

Hell, if anything, you've potentially de-protagonized your PCs _and _fudged _at the same time_.

The moment you've had that NPC conveniently show up, you've fudged. The moment you have the monster conveniently change targets to the NPC (or even another PC), you've fudged. The moment you have that NPC conveniently armed with some kind of healing magic (or conveniently have some healing magic in the monster's treasure), you've fudged.

I don't think this fudging is a bad thing, mind you. But that's because I acknowledge that a GM is not a computer running an infinitely-detailed simulation tracking exactly where each NPC in the universe _actually _is and exactly what's the likelihood of said NPC being equipped the way that s/he is and exactly what the "aggro rating" (to borrow from WoW) a given monster has for each combatant in the field. Just like I don't assume the GM is perfectly cognizant of or even interested in every possible outcome when s/he picks up the dice.

This fudging is what the GM must do to be a GM, of course, every time s/he makes a decision - about the existence of an NPC, about what said NPC knows and can or will do, about the power level of the monsters in this particular dungeon or room. 

And sometimes the GM _unwittingly _fudges simply as a result of options s/he didn't think about or realize. Seriously, the number of times I've had monsters fight to the bitter end when I _should _have had them run or forgot about the NPC that was with the party but wasn't attacking this whole time or choices that I was tactically ignorant of... The list goes on.

But just because you're dressing it up better doesn't make your fudging any less extant.

Or, as Mark points out, better we call it adjudication - because that's what's being done. 



Plane Sailing said:


> Good list.
> 
> 
> 
> When I DM and I notice that this kind of situation is occurring, my  normal technique is to modify the behaviour of the creature rather than  its stats - maybe it attempts to flee rather than fight to the bitter  end against badly wounded foes, maybe the intelligent creatures decide  to capture for info or ransom rather than TPK the adventurers, and so  on.




But, again, modifying behavior_ is just another form of fudging_.

If you or the writer of the monster description initially wrote that creature as "fighting to the bitter end", you're arbitrarily changing those preset behaviors because having it wipe the PCs is no fun. You've fudged. Even if that "preset" wasn't there, you're fudging when you arbitrarily make that decision based on what's _convenient _(for the PCs, for the story, for the fun, _whatever_) rather than what is the most brutally efficient.

But you're not a bad GM for that. In fact, you're probably a good GM, since you're attempting to maximize everyone's fun but not TPKing the party because of a bad choice on your part or a run of bad luck on theirs.

But, yet again, _you're still fudging_.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 30, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> When I DM and I notice that this kind of situation is occurring, my normal technique is to modify the behaviour of the creature rather than its stats - maybe it attempts to flee rather than fight to the bitter end against badly wounded foes, maybe the intelligent creatures decide to capture for info or ransom rather than TPK the adventurers, and so on.




I avoid this like the plague. Every time I've done it in the past, the players immediately grasped what I was doing and why, and it left a sour taste in everyone's mouth.

I prefer to silently adjust the monster's hit points or not-yet-used abilities. It's almost impossible to tell that it's happening, and as long as I do it in good faith (that is, re-calibrating the basic encounter difficulty to what I meant it to be, rather than trying to negate the effect of player luck or tactics), I consider it "fair play*." It's worth noting that especially in 4E, almost every time I do this, I'm increasing the monster's hit points rather than reducing them, or boosting its abilities rather than nerfing.

[size=-2]*By which I mean, I would not mind having a DM do it when I was playing, though I would prefer not to know when it was being done.[/size]


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 30, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Yeah. I do. You didn't really address the context of my post, though, so if you have thoughts on it, I'm open to them.





Someone saying they are open and actually being open are two different things sometimes.  Pointing out that you consider applying "Rule 0" to be a "cheat" was a way to point out that we have some bit of a divide in our approaches to the game and understanding of how RPG rules systems work.  Further, your use of the word "cheat" suggests that there is an adversarial relationship between GM and other players in an RPG, which I further do not believe, therefore the idea that a facilitator of a game could "cheat" acts as a non sequitur in RPG discussions with me, as it is a foreign idea, unrelated to RPGs in my estimation.

So, the point is (though I think you already understand this), the GM cannot cheat because the GM is neither an adversary nor bound by the guidelines of a game system.  If a GM feels something has gone awry, with the rules or the dice, the GM makes an adjustment.  Is it possible that it can be done more elegantly?  Sure, maybe even quite often.  But despite the GM being the introducer of conflict for the characters, the GM is not in conflict with the players, and so cannot "cheat."


----------



## olshanski (Nov 30, 2011)

I far prefer non-fudging games.  Part of the pleasure for me is in estimating the chance of success, analyzing the risks, and then taking calculated risks.

If I figure that I have an 80% chance of killing an opponent on my hit, but if that fails, the opponent has a 30% chance of killing my character... I have to decide whether to flee or stay and fight.

If a DM is fudging rolls, it throws my calculations out the window and the game loses a lot of the appeal.... (at least the combat portions of the game.)

If a climactic big-boss battle ends "anticlimactically" in 1 or 2 rounds, I don't mind.  If a wandering group of peons gets lucky and rolls a lot of critical hits, and the party rolls poorly, resulting in the deaths of 1-2 party members on an "inconsequential" encounter, that is also fine.  If the party is TPKed because the DM didn't balance the encounter properly, that is also fine.  I'd much rather have all of the above rather than a fudging DM.  I will not play in a game if the DM is fudging.  
How do I know if a DM is fudging?  I like to see all rolls in the open with no screen.  If a roll is hidden I assume the DM is fudging.

I understand that many people like to fudge rolls, and many players like to play in games where the DM is fudging.  Its not to my taste and I feel very strongly about it.  I'd rather not play than play with a fudging DM.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 30, 2011)

Lord Crimson said:


> But, again, modifying behavior_ is just another form of fudging_.
> 
> If you or the writer of the monster description initially wrote that creature as "fighting to the bitter end", you're arbitrarily changing those preset behaviors because having it wipe the PCs is no fun. You've fudged. Even if that "preset" wasn't there, you're fudging when you arbitrarily make that decision based on what's _convenient _(for the PCs, for the story, for the fun, _whatever_) rather than what is the most brutally efficient.
> 
> ...




Clearly we are on opposite sides of an opinion here. I don't consider that fudging at all - I consider it being a good GM who is able to react to situations well (the reason why I prefer a human GM to a computer any day of the week and twice on Sundays).

I consider it a strange approach to assume that anything that was written down at one point must be chiselled in stone as if it were the laws of the Medes and Persians. I treat everything written down as guidelines or defaults, but subject to variation depending upon the situation.

Of course, it is only a reasonable technique if the behaviour is rational - and if a PC falls into a swarm, or is being devoured by an ooze, there is nothing more that can be done than if they fell into a pool of lava!

Players in my games expect creatures of animal intelligence or higher to behave as rationally as is appropriate (and in a module that is normally highly different to the boring and irrational 'always attacks and fights to the death' which was littered everywhere through Keep on the Shadowfell, for instance!)

Cheers


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 30, 2011)

olshanski said:


> How do I know if a DM is fudging?  I like to see all rolls in the open with no screen.  If a roll is hidden I assume the DM is fudging.




That's an entirely unwarranted assumption. There are plenty of non-fudging-related reasons for the DM to hide die rolls. Furthermore, as I pointed out above, a DM rolling in the open can still fudge quite easily.

If non-fudging is important to you, here's what you do: Define what you mean by fudging, then ask the DM not to do it. If the DM agrees, you're good. If not, don't play. If the DM agrees but you think s/he's going to fudge anyway, why are you playing with a liar?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 30, 2011)

olshanski said:


> If the party is TPKed because the DM didn't balance the encounter properly, that is also fine.




Out of interest, does this suggest you prefer a system where all encounters are balanced to give the party a tough enough time before the encounter is defeated? Do you never play in 'status quo' style games were the bandits live on this hill, the dragon lives on that mountain and the rats are in the sewers, and the PCs find that they have a variety of 'easy', 'moderate', 'hard' and 'pretty impossible' encounters (as was certainly suggested in the 3e DMG, I don't know whether the 4e DMG had anything to say on the matter)





olshanski said:


> How do I know if a DM is fudging?  I like to see all rolls in the open with no screen.  If a roll is hidden I assume the DM is fudging.




So if you want to search for traps, you want to see the roll out in the open - how do you know whether you searched and failed, or there were no traps? You are creeping up on someone, and you think he hasn't heard you but actually he has, and he is waiting to ambush you; can't happen if all rolls are public. Some rolls have to be behind screens, otherwise even failure gives you information you shouldn't have!

Just curious.


----------



## Lord Crimson (Dec 1, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> Clearly we are on opposite sides of an opinion here. I don't consider that fudging at all - I consider it being a good GM who is able to react to situations well (the reason why I prefer a human GM to a computer any day of the week and twice on Sundays).




I agree that it's a sign of good GMing.

I just can't understand why "stacking the deck" via the decisions you do or don't make as a GM is any different than "stacking the deck" by ignoring numbers that sabotage enjoyment of the game.

In one case you're foregoing a roll because the result would be inconvenient. In the other, you're choosing to ignore elements of said roll that exceed the parameters you wanted/expected.

In both cases, moderation is called for. Because extreme abuse of either results in railroading.

But one isn't more or less legitimate than the other.



Plane Sailing said:


> I consider it a strange approach to assume that anything that was written down at one point must be chiselled in stone as if it were the laws of the Medes and Persians. I treat everything written down as guidelines or defaults, but subject to variation depending upon the situation.




That's not what I'm saying. In fact, if you take my whole post, you'll see that I'm against that very thing. 

My point is that your interpretation and/or selective use of those guidelines is, in fact, fudging the game in certain ways. 

If the "rules" are _just guidelines_, why are dice rolls being given this "written in stone" status? Shouldn't the dice _also _just be guidelines?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 1, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Someone saying they are open and actually being open are two different things sometimes.



I would appreciate it if you would never try to rewrite my motives. If I say I'm open to your thoughts, I am. Please do not say otherwise. Thank you.



> Pointing out that you consider applying "Rule 0" to be a "cheat" was a way to point out that we have some bit of a divide in our approaches to the game and understanding of how RPG rules systems work.



I understand completely what you were pointing out. Of course, I'm using the same language that the 3.5 DMG did. It has a section on "DM Cheating and Player Perceptions". It goes on to talk about "you really can't cheat" because of Rule 0, but the wording is present for a reason: _some player's view it as cheating_. That's the point of the title, after all.

Which is what I commented on in my post, and what you kinda glossed over. People have different views on it, and my group's social contract definitely differs from yours. However, the point was exactly that. Some types of fudging are seen as such cheating to certain groups, and not to others. It'll differ from group to group. Saying, "it's never cheating" is definitely a viable view on it, but saying "it's never cheating to any group at any time, no matter what they think" is pretty unacceptable, to me. I assume you don't think that's the case.



> Further, your use of the word "cheat" suggests that there is an adversarial relationship between GM and other players in an RPG, which I further do not believe, therefore the idea that a facilitator of a game could "cheat" acts as a non sequitur in RPG discussions with me, as it is a foreign idea, unrelated to RPGs in my estimation.



I don't feel like an adversary, I feel like an arbiter. I feel like I'm not on the player's side, nor the NPC's side. To that end, it's especially important to me that I don't cheat. I don't favor the PCs or NPCs when it comes to rolls, ideas, innovative gambits, and the like. They both follow the same rules, and fudging one way or another makes the game less enjoyable for my players.

Can't you see how being as close to impartial as possible would be important to some players (my players feel they've only really "earned it" with this style of play)? And how that means it's very important to _not_ be adversarial, but also try never to fudge?



> So, the point is (though I think you already understand this), the GM cannot cheat because the GM is neither an adversary nor bound by the guidelines of a game system.



I guess we'll agree to disagree here? I mean, as a strong believer in house rules, I'm pretty much okay with a "this is cheating" clause being in any game as part of the social contract.



> If a GM feels something has gone awry, with the rules or the dice, the GM makes an adjustment.  Is it possible that it can be done more elegantly?  Sure, maybe even quite often.  But despite the GM being the introducer of conflict for the characters, the GM is not in conflict with the players, and so cannot "cheat."



I guess that's your view. I can say it doesn't hold true for my group, and while it seems like you're making an objective statement, I can only assume you're only speaking for your group and those that agree with you. Because, if it is more broad, I can say that I disagree, and that you're wrong. As always, though, play what you like


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 1, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I don't feel like an adversary, I feel like an arbiter. I feel like I'm not on the player's side, nor the NPC's side. To that end, it's especially important to me that I don't cheat. I don't favor the PCs or NPCs when it comes to rolls, ideas, innovative gambits, and the like. They both follow the same rules, and fudging one way or another makes the game less enjoyable for my players.




This is how I view things. I am there as a referee. For some groups this is an important part of the fun and fudging detracts from their enjoyment. It isn't for everyone. But it is a perfectly valid approach to the game.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 1, 2011)

Rogue Agent said:


> Query for those who do: Do you also allow your players to fudge their die rolls at will? Or are you the only person at the table capable of figuring out what would be "fun" for people?




As I do not go out of my way to look at every roll of the dice my players throw... my answer is 'Yes, absolutely.'  I have no idea if they ever do or not, and really don't care... and thus I fully expect that any of them might have done so at some point or another.  If one of them has missed their attack four rolls in a row and has gotten really annoyed/pissed off about it, and that fifth time they hit... maybe they fudged, maybe they didn't.  Don't know, don't really care.  The game for us is about having fun... and if fudging the roll makes them feel a little bit better and feel like they are contributing to the fight... so be it.  I can work around anything they do as need be.  I don't feel this game is a competition-- me vs the players-- so there's no reason for me to worry about it.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Dec 1, 2011)

Take the best of both. Turn the need for fudging into a consumable resource used in the open.


Call it action points or fudge points, but give players a significant number of points to spend towards plot control so that bad rolls don't wreck the fun in a vital scene. But can also be used to turn acts of normalness into awesomeness.

Trailblazer's action point system is a good example of this. Characters get a number of points per level, spending one allows modification of your own d20 rolls by adding a 1d6 (or larger), or cause foes to reroll successful rolls, boost AC, etc. Players can conserve action points (fudge points) for very significant moments, or can use them up like ammunition. The party could pool some points from each character's stash that could be used for any player in dire need.

I can't imagine a game would need that many action (fudge) points per character level. It's all in the open, and the fudging can simply be a resource to consume!


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 1, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> As I do not go out of my way to look at every roll of the dice my players throw... my answer is 'Yes, absolutely.'  I have no idea if they ever do or not, and really don't care... and thus I fully expect that any of them might have done so at some point or another.  If one of them has missed their attack four rolls in a row and has gotten really annoyed/pissed off about it, and that fifth time they hit... maybe they fudged, maybe they didn't.  Don't know, don't really care.  The game for us is about having fun... and if fudging the roll makes them feel a little bit better and feel like they are contributing to the fight... so be it.  I can work around anything they do as need be.  I don't feel this game is a competition-- me vs the players-- so there's no reason for me to worry about it.




I am the same way I even let my players roll their hit points and stats without me having to see them do it. And since I have been doing that I have not noticed anyone who always rolls max hit points or have uber powered characters with a lot of 18s.

I trust my players to be pretty honest and if they feel the need to pad the roll for their hit points now and then I don't think it is gaming breaking.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 1, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I understand completely what you were pointing out.





It doesn't actually seem like you do, nor that you get the idea that since it isn't adversarial, since there isn't a competition between referee/DM/GM/facilitator and other players, then it cannot be cheating.  It's that premise I find false, so we'll have to agree to disagree on the other points you tried to make.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 1, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> When I DM and I notice that this kind of situation is occurring, my normal technique is to modify the behaviour of the creature rather than its stats - maybe it attempts to flee rather than fight to the bitter end against badly wounded foes, maybe the intelligent creatures decide to capture for info or ransom rather than TPK the adventurers, and so on.



This is my _default_ approach to running encounters.

Most intelligent foes value booty over blood, so live prisoners who can be ransomed or enslaved are preferable to a pile of corpses. Accepting a surrender and honoring the terms - "Give me your horse and your gold and I'll let you go free" - is better than taking unnecessary casualties to get the same thing and means others may be less likely to fight in the future as well. An honorable opponent, or at least one concerned with reputation, may choose a less lethal approach altogether - a duel to first blood, a joust to three broken lances.

Fanatics and the entrapped may fight to the death, but fleeing or surrendering are preferable for most foes - casualties comprising as little as one-quarter of a force's strength may result in a rout. I've had a foe commit suicide rather than submit, as it fit the personality of the character and the situation.

With less intelligent foes such as animals, predators likely cease to attack if they can get even a single prey item, and they will try to drag it off or simply defend it if they can, though not at the risk of their own lives unless they are sick or starving. Animals and like defending their young or a territory can be defeated simply by moving away in many instances, and an 'attack' in such an instance may be a bluff rather than an attempt to kill.

Unwavering killers who stand and fight to the bitter end are the rare exception, not the norm, in the campaigns I run. This has nothing to do with fudging, and everything to do with a pretty basic understanding of behavior.

In the context of the campaign, this may compel the adventurers to pursue, which is fun to play and may produce interesting situations of their own, as Beowulf discovered while following a wounded Grendel.







Plane Sailing said:


> So if you want to search for traps, you want to see the roll out in the open - how do you know whether you searched and failed, or there were no traps? You are creeping up on someone, and you think he hasn't heard you but actually he has, and he is waiting to ambush you; can't happen if all rolls are public. Some rolls have to be behind screens, otherwise even failure gives you information you shouldn't have!
> 
> Just curious.



Referee: "So if you don't detect any traps, what does your character do next?"

Player: "If I don't detect any traps in the lock mechanism, I'll go ahead an attempt to unlock the chest." 

Referee: "Okay, roll to check for traps."

*_Sound of dice clattering, followed by a groan_*

Referee: "You check the mechanism as carefully as you can but find nothing, but as you insert your wrench to put tension on the tumbler, a sharp pin sticks you in the finger. Roll a save."

In other words, declare the full action of which checking for traps is a part, then roll. Easy-peasy.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 1, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I don't feel this game is a competition-- me vs the players-- so there's no reason for me to worry about it.



I feel the game is very much a competition, the players and their characters versus an indifferent game-world.

The rules of the game provide a semblance of the physics-engine of that game-world, and the dice are the hand of Fate.

As referee, I'm the adventurers' biggest fan, but to the extent practicable, I let Fate and that engine decide the outcome on behalf of a game-world that only cares about the adventurers to the extent the players and their characters can make it sit up and take notice under the rules by which that world operates.


----------



## prosfilaes (Dec 1, 2011)

Lord Crimson said:


> You can _think _it's a lot different. But it _isn't_ in any way other than aesthetically.




I don't know what that means in this context. If we think it's a lot  different, and we respond to it differently, then it is different. 



> You made up a character and put that character someplace they weren't and only revealed the existence of that character when it was necessary to save the party - but pretended that character didn't exist if it wasn't necessary.




Which doesn't sound at all like fudging a die roll.



> The moment you've had that NPC conveniently show up, you've fudged. The moment you have the monster conveniently change targets to the NPC (or even another PC), you've fudged. The moment you have that NPC conveniently armed with some kind of healing magic (or conveniently have some healing magic in the monster's treasure), you've fudged.




If you want to make up language, then go ahead. But I don't think when someone objects to something, redefining everything else to be the same solves anything.



> But, again, modifying behavior_ is just another form of fudging_.




Human, humanoid, or monster behavior is not set in stone. When Feeblemind is cast, it's down to Lady Luck what happens to the monster. When it's the monster's turn to move, it's down to the GM what the monster does.



> But, yet again, _you're still fudging_.




Why don't you call it adjudicating? Then we can use fudging to refer to what we're talking about.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 1, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> It doesn't actually seem like you do, nor that you get the idea that since it isn't adversarial, since there isn't a competition between referee/DM/GM/facilitator and other players, then it cannot be cheating.



Um, I consider any game with rules set up by the group that someone bypasses to be cheating. If I'm playing a game where we go around the group and everyone says one word and we make funny sentences, and someone says an entire sentence, we'd call that cheating. And there's no winning or losing in that.

It's a matter of what's fun. The idea that you don't think I understand the basic premise you're putting forward is pretty amusing to me.



> It's that premise I find false, so we'll have to agree to disagree on the other points you tried to make.



Well, that's not my premise, but you can disagree with me if you want to, and I'm okay with that. As always, play what you like


----------



## Umbran (Dec 1, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Um, I consider any game with rules set up by the group that someone bypasses to be cheating. If I'm playing a game where we go around the group and everyone says one word and we make funny sentences, and someone says an entire sentence, we'd call that cheating.




And that's fine, just so long as you are aware that that's an uncommon definition.  In common language, cheating usually carries the meaning of breaking rules for purpose of gaining advantage, generally using deceit or trickery.   Breaking the rules is not necessarily cheating.

If we had that game, where we go around the group and everyone says one word and we make funny sentences, we are using "game" to mean "structured, amusing activity".  We aren't talking about scoring, or win conditions.  I am fine with such a use of "game".

If in that game, I speak a whole sentence, I have broken the rules.  But, getting up to get a ham sandwich isn't in the rules either, and doing that wouldn't be "cheating", would it?  Saying that full sentence is against the rules, but maybe doing so at just the right time, in just the right way, would be really funny.

Games are not the only place we see rules.  There are rules, both explicitly stated and implied or common understanding, to other things - art, literature, social decorum, and so forth.  But, sometimes the author or artist breaks the rules specifically for effect.  The playwright who pointedly doesn't use a gun he places on stage in Act 1, the poet who deviates from the rhyme or meter scheme she starts a work with, the diplomat who under-dresses just *slightly* for a formal event to make a point, and so on.*

Just as "game" has multiple meanings, so does "rule".  "Rule" can be "law, which must be punished if broken" or "generally accepted practice, perhaps with good reason, that should be deviated from only carefully".  And we ought to be careful when we are sliding from one to the other of those definitions.

Now, someone will say that if the GM can break the rules, so can the player!  Why don't you allow the player to break the same rules?

My answer is that they could, but it would be less wise.  The GM and player have different roles in the activity.  They follow different meta-rules for good play, and therefore have different rules they can break for best effect.


*the forum poster, breaking the rules of grammar with a sentence fragment


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 1, 2011)

The real question is, what is worse: finding out your DM fudges rolls or your wife fakes orgasms?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 1, 2011)

Umbran said:


> And that's fine, just so long as you are aware that that's an uncommon definition.In common language, cheating usually carries the meaning of breaking rules for purpose of gaining advantage, generally using deceit or trickery.   Breaking the rules is not necessarily cheating.



It probably is in some circles. According to a couple sites, the definition can mean either breaking rules, or breaking rules for an advantage:


			
				thefreedictionary.com said:
			
		

> cheat
> v. cheat·ed, cheat·ing, cheats
> 2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game





			
				merriam-webster.com said:
			
		

> Definition of CHEAT
> transitive verb
> 1
> a : to practice fraud or trickery
> b : to violate rules dishonestly



I feel that my definition has more than met the above sentiments, and that it's common enough in my circles. I can't speak to the world at large, but I can agree that it is often used with the implication of doing so to gain an advantage. However, I've also seen people "cheat" to help someone else win or the like (like letting a very small child break rules in a game), and other players being upset (like other slightly older children with a better grasp of the game). That's extremely similar to "fudging" within this discussion, in my mind.



Umbran said:


> If we had that game, where we go around the group and everyone says one word and we make funny sentences, we are using "game" to mean "structured, amusing activity".  We aren't talking about scoring, or win conditions.  I am fine with such a use of "game".
> 
> If in that game, I speak a whole sentence, I have broken the rules.  But, getting up to get a ham sandwich isn't in the rules either, and doing that wouldn't be "cheating", would it?  Saying that full sentence is against the rules, but maybe doing so at just the right time, in just the right way, would be really funny.



It might be funny, but it might rub certain groups the wrong way, no? Like if someone makes a funny comment that pulls people out of immersion or distracts them from their turn? I mean, yeah, I laughed, but that doesn't mean I'd rather it didn't happen.

Laughing is one type of engaging enjoyment. I do it a lot. I like it in my RPG time, too. However, I expect other forms of enjoyment, and would in the one-word game, like flexing creativity and improvisation. It's an amusing mental exercise. Breaking the rules would certainly be excusable sometimes to me, but if it happened often or wasn't pretty darn funny, it'd probably grate on me a little.



Umbran said:


> Games are not the only place we see rules.  There are rules, both explicitly stated and implied or common understanding, to other things - art, literature, social decorum, and so forth.  But, sometimes the author or artist breaks the rules specifically for effect.  The playwright who pointedly doesn't use a gun he places on stage in Act 1, the poet who deviates from the rhyme or meter scheme she starts a work with, the diplomat who under-dresses just *slightly* for a formal event to make a point, and so on.*



Right. So, not in the context of game, I agree.



Umbran said:


> Just as "game" has multiple meanings, so does "rule".  "Rule" can be "law, which must be punished if broken" or "generally accepted practice, perhaps with good reason, that should be deviated from only carefully".  And we ought to be careful when we are sliding from one to the other of those definitions.



I totally agree. Which is why I was saying for certain groups, this is a problem. When Mark CMG stated that the GM can _never_ cheat, I disagreed because it's only true some of the time.



Umbran said:


> Now, someone will say that if the GM can break the rules, so can the player!  Why don't you allow the player to break the same rules?
> 
> My answer is that they could, but it would be less wise.  The GM and player have different roles in the activity.  They follow different meta-rules for good play, and therefore have different rules they can break for best effect.



I agree with this, too. If it is to be done, I'd prefer this approach to it.



Umbran said:


> *the forum poster, breaking the rules of grammar with a sentence fragment



I don't even notice it unless it's really bad. I don't care too much about grammar when I post, either. I've always liked your style, Umbran. Thanks for the discussion. As always, play what you like


----------



## Halivar (Dec 1, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> It probably is in some circles. According to a couple sites, the definition can mean either breaking rules, or breaking rules for an advantage:
> 
> Originally Posted by thefreedictionary.com
> cheat
> ...



Am I still cheating if I'm the one who decides what the rules are? That's part of the social contract at my table: what I say goes. In all things. I am not bound by any constraints placed on me by the players. Other DM's in my group are treated likewise.


----------



## enrious (Dec 1, 2011)

Halivar said:


> Am I still cheating if I'm the one who decides what the rules are? That's part of the social contract at my table: what I say goes. In all things. I am not bound by any constraints placed on me by the players. Other DM's in my group are treated likewise.




Given Merrian-Webster's definition of rule as being:


> Definition of RULE
> 1
> a : a prescribed guide for conduct or action b : the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members c : an accepted procedure, custom, or habit d (1) : a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties (2) : a legal precept or doctrine e : a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct




And given that in D&D (and quite a few other games) the DM/GM is expressly permitted to violate or alter the rules, then if you're playing one of those games then no, a DM/GM cannot cheat if they violate or alter the rules.

After all, a DM/GM in that circumstance isn't violating the rules - they are abiding by them - because they include permission for the DM/GM to violate them.

This is a better koan than the sound of one hand clapping.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 1, 2011)

If everyone agrees on how the game is to be played, and one person chooses to violate that agreement--I consider that cheating, yes. You can call it breach of promise if you prefer, or lying.

I'd draw an analogy to sleeping with someone other than your husband/wife. You're not "cheating" in the sense of trying to gain an advantage in a competition, unless your marriage is extra screwed up. But we do still use the word "cheating" to describe such activity, and I think it's appropriate... unless, of course, you have an open marriage, in which case it's fine.

Likewise, if you and your group agree that it's okay for the DM to fudge, then it's not cheating when the DM does it. However, if you and your group have agreed that the DM _will not_ fudge, then it's cheating. If you don't have an explicit agreement on what's acceptable... well, then it gets iffy.


----------



## enrious (Dec 1, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> If everyone agrees on how the game is to be played, and one person chooses to violate that agreement--I consider that cheating, yes. You can call it breach of promise if you prefer, or lying.
> 
> I'd draw an analogy to sleeping with someone other than your husband/wife. You're not "cheating" in the sense of trying to gain an advantage in a competition, unless your marriage is extra screwed up. But we do still use the word "cheating" to describe such activity, and I think it's appropriate... unless, of course, you have an open marriage, in which case it's fine.
> 
> Likewise, if you and your group agree that it's okay for the DM to fudge, then it's not cheating when the DM does it. However, if you and your group have agreed that the DM _will not_ fudge, then it's cheating. If you don't have an explicit agreement on what's acceptable... well, then it gets iffy.




I agree, assuming everyone explicitly agrees to it.  And note, this doesn't mean everyone has to like it, just that some amount of comprise has occurred.

What I don't get is for anyone to accuse another of having bad/wrong/naughty fun.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 1, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> It might be funny, but it might rub certain groups the wrong way, no?




Of course it might.  It wasn't intended as an argument for _carte blanche_ discarding of rules whenever anyone wants.

But last time I checked, rubbing someone the wrong way didn't justify accusation of being a "cheater".  You seem to want to dismiss the connotations there, but I think they are heftier than your arguments. 



> Right. So, not in the context of game, I agree.




Well, I was trying to be demonstrative, not exhaustive.  The point is that both the term "game" and "rule" are pretty flexible, such that yes, sometimes it is appropriate in context of a game, too.



> I totally agree. Which is why I was saying for certain groups, this is a problem. When Mark CMG stated that the GM can _never_ cheat, I disagreed because it's only true some of the time.




Yes, well, certainly Mark's a bit overstated there.  But arguing that you can call *any* violations of rules a cheat is no better, in my humble opinion.  They are both overstatements, and one doesn't justify the other.

Better to simply come up with a single counter-example, as this is sufficient to disprove an absolute.  For example: In a tournament context, it is possible for a GM to cheat, intentionally altering play to influence the standing of a player in the lists.  This is a case where the RPG play *is* competitive, and the idea of cheating certainly applies.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 1, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Yes, well, certainly Mark's a bit overstated there.





Indeed, though appropriate in context.




Umbran said:


> Better to simply come up with a single counter-example, as this is sufficient to disprove an absolute.  For example: In a tournament context, it is possible for a GM to cheat, intentionally altering play to influence the standing of a player in the lists.  This is a case where the RPG play *is* competitive, and the idea of cheating certainly applies.





A fair example that goes beyond the context of my statement.  Certainly, in situation where a rule system is being used in an alternate state, this falls under the above suggestion of mine that there are hybrids, then there can be situations where even I would use the word "cheating" to describe some behaviors.  For example, if an RPG system is being used as part of a tournament at a convention where the players are all acting independently to achieve individual goals and the rules they expect to play are given in advance, then a GM favoring one particular player by adjusting die rolls on the fly (before or after the fact, would be, in my eyes, an example of a GM cheating _on the part of that one favored player_.  But in this situation I would have to counter that the RPG system was being used as a sort of hybrid of RPGs and wargaming.  I've run such games and would not condone changing the results of dice in the favor of one player over another.

So, too, in tournament play where several groups were playing independently from one another and against one another, if the rules of the tournament state that all of the groups were under the same rules, then I would also consider it _cheating for one group_ to have dice rolls changed to favor one group over another (no matter whether it was a single GM running multiple groups or separate GMs where one was changing die rolls and another was not.  But, again, this is a hybrid situation where the RPG system is being used to create a game tournament more akin to wargaming tourneys, and the GM in this situation isn't cheating for the GM but for one group over another.  It's also a but out of context for my previous statements though I believe I covered that with my points on hybrids and alternate systems.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 2, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> I Certainly, in situation where a rule system is being used in an alternate state, this falls under the above suggestion of mine that there are hybrids...




The thing is, in order to speak about hybrids, you have to rather strictly define, "this is an RPG, and that is not".  I don't want to draw that fine a distinction.

As far as I am concerned, it is an RPG if played in my home, or in a convention tournament.  I think trying to draw a line, such that I'm telling someone, in effect, "You're not playing a *real* RPG, that's a _hybrid_," runs places I don't want to go.  YMMV, of course.

I will say that, surely, the different contexts matter in how the game is played, and what the expectations at the table will be.  That is my entire point.  I prefer to think of the game as still the game, and that it is flexible in its use, rather than to try to classify those different uses as different games.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 2, 2011)

Umbran said:


> The thing is, in order to speak about hybrids, you have to rather strictly define, "this is an RPG, and that is not".  I don't want to draw that fine a distinction.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, it is an RPG if played in my home, or in a convention tournament.





Naw.  I think it's fair to say that for tournament play (whether player versus player or group versus group) the RPG system might be used but that additional rules or modifications are in effect and adpating the game beyond its design.  And, as I have said, in those cases you certainly need to include some extra restrictions to ensure consistency from group to group, etc.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 2, 2011)

Halivar said:


> Am I still cheating if I'm the one who decides what the rules are? That's part of the social contract at my table: what I say goes. In all things. I am not bound by any constraints placed on me by the players. Other DM's in my group are treated likewise.



Nope, you're not cheating. Your social contract is such that you're not breaking any rule to deviate from the written rules, alter combat statistics, change any tactics unnaturally, or the like. You're completely fine, in my mind.

It's other groups that this isn't in the social contract for that I consider it cheating. You're breaking the agreement made by your friends in regards to playing the game. To me, that's cheating. You're clear, though. As always, play what you like 



Umbran said:


> Of course it might.  It wasn't intended as an argument for _carte blanche_ discarding of rules whenever anyone wants.
> 
> But last time I checked, rubbing someone the wrong way didn't justify accusation of being a "cheater".  You seem to want to dismiss the connotations there, but I think they are heftier than your arguments.



I disagree, but that's okay. To me, if someone says they're going to do something (or not do something) explicitly, and then they purposely go against what they said, most people consider that lying. In the context of a game, I think it's fair to call that cheating. The dictionary definitely supports my thoughts on this, too.

Now, if there's no agreement being broken, obviously it's not cheating. If people don't mind fudging, it's all cool. Alter away. I honestly hold no ill will to those who play that way. I just strongly disagree with the assertion that "the GM can never cheat" when I think I've clearly shown that's not the case in every circumstance.

If you disagree, that's understandable. We both think our point of view is a little clearer (which is why we have them) 



> Well, I was trying to be demonstrative, not exhaustive.  The point is that both the term "game" and "rule" are pretty flexible, such that yes, sometimes it is appropriate in context of a game, too.



Well, yes, but as I hesitate to throw around actual definitions (because it rubs people the wrong way), I find that doing so can be enlightening to a conversation. As we're currently speaking within the context of a game, and the definition clearly relates to games, I think I'm more than justified in holding to my view.



> Yes, well, certainly Mark's a bit overstated there.  But arguing that you can call *any* violations of rules a cheat is no better, in my humble opinion.  They are both overstatements, and one doesn't justify the other.



Only if it's meeting the definition of cheating, of course 



> Better to simply come up with a single counter-example, as this is sufficient to disprove an absolute.  For example: In a tournament context, it is possible for a GM to cheat, intentionally altering play to influence the standing of a player in the lists.  This is a case where the RPG play *is* competitive, and the idea of cheating certainly applies.



That still meets my definition: "*2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game*" and "*b : to violate rules dishonestly*". In your example, the GM is breaking (new tournament) rules when he alters play. If there is an agreement not to, he's also violating rules dishonestly. I feel my definition does not suffer from your counterexample.

I still hold to my previous example of "cheating" to help a very young child play better. A slightly older child might complain because it's "cheating" -that is, breaking the rules to help a particular outcome occur. Well, the adult is just trying to help the younger child, and make it more fun for them. However, the side effect is that the slightly older child is having less fun. This is a pretty good representation of fudging, in my mind.

I understand that people disagree with me. I just personally don't feel I like have any real holes in my understanding or argument. I am, however, totally okay with other groups fudging. More power to them, have fun and game on. It just doesn't work for _my group_. As always, play what you like


----------



## prosfilaes (Dec 2, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> But in this situation I would have to counter that the RPG system was being used as a sort of hybrid of RPGs and wargaming.




Again, you seem to be picking on very standard and old-school ways of playing RPGs as being variants.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 2, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Again, you seem to be picking on very standard and old-school ways of playing RPGs as being variants.





Not really.  These days, I really only get to play "old school" games a few times a year (mostly at Gary Con) so some of what I base this on is experience at a handful of other conventions and gamedays, plus gameplay with a couple of groups who enjoy mixing it up with many of the more current systems and games.  Of course, I don't restrict myself to RPGs but also play many wargames and boardgames, often in campaigns and tournaments.  My FLGS, a few blocks down the street, is easily one of the top ten stores in the country (if not top five) with an extensive gaming area where we have been holding the Chicago Gameday (organized here on EN World three times a year for the last decade).  Sometimes I assist with organizing and/or run games or tourneys (run more than organize) and I always make sure to check out how its being done in other quarters.  My experience dates back to the early Seventies when I joined a couple of local gaming clubs to wargame and subsequently play RPGs when D&D came out in 1974.  My first big convention was Gencon in 1976 and I've been attending that one most years, probably two or three out of every four, since.  In eighteen days I mark the ten year anniversary of the small ePublishing company I began and though it isn't a huge endeavor, it has made me even more attentive to the ins and outs of gameplay, including organized gameplay.  I know, I know.  It doesn't give me a lot to go on but it's all I've got.


----------



## Rogue Agent (Dec 2, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> Of course, it is only a reasonable technique if the behaviour is rational - and if a PC falls into a swarm, or is being devoured by an ooze, there is nothing more that can be done than if they fell into a pool of lava!




Right. I think it boils down to motivation: If an NPC changes their plans or outlook because the situation suggests that they should, that's not fudging. If an NPC changes their plans because you, as a GM, want the change the outcome of the encounter, that's fudging.

Or to put it another way: Is the GM throwing the game so that the PCs would win when they should have lost? That's fudging. Is the GM cheating the players so that the PCs lose when they should have won? Also fudging.

The actual techniques employed (changing dice rolls, shifting target DCs, adding reinforcements, conveniently "forgetting" that the NPC has a _fireball_ they could use to finish the group off, etc.) is, IMO, irrelevant.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 2, 2011)

Rogue Agent said:


> Right. I think it boils down to motivation: If an NPC changes their plans or outlook because the situation suggests that they should, that's not fudging. If an NPC changes their plans because you, as a GM, want the change the outcome of the encounter, that's fudging.
> 
> Or to put it another way: Is the GM throwing the game so that the PCs would win when they should have lost? That's fudging. Is the GM cheating the players so that the PCs lose when they should have won? Also fudging.
> 
> The actual techniques employed (changing dice rolls, shifting target DCs, adding reinforcements, conveniently "forgetting" that the NPC has a _fireball_ they could use to finish the group off, etc.) is, IMO, irrelevant.



Worth repeating.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 2, 2011)

Start fudging your own rolls.  Tell him when he stops, you'll stop.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 2, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I disagree, but that's okay. To me, if someone says they're going to do something (or not do something) explicitly, and then they purposely go against what they said, most people consider that lying. In the context of a game, I think it's fair to call that cheating. The dictionary definitely supports my thoughts on this, too.




Hm.  See below...



> That still meets my definition: "*2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game*" and "*b : to violate rules dishonestly*". In your example, the GM is breaking (new tournament) rules when he alters play. If there is an agreement not to, he's also violating rules dishonestly. I feel my definition does not suffer from your counterexample.




The point was that it deals with the issue without having to keep pointing at a definition.  I'll try to explain why that's important in a moment.



> I just personally don't feel I like have any real holes in my understanding or argument.




The hole, at least in this one small corner of the discussion, is that in human communication, "technically correct" doesn't always equate to "right".

You keep pointing to a technical definition, and say by your definition, you're right, so you're right.  But, if you step up to someone and call them a cheater or a liar, what comes into mind isn't *your* technical definition, but the common one, with a rather different set of connotations.  The hole is that you don't get to set the definitions that get used.

On top of that, whether you intend it that way or not, what you're doing is a commonly used form of passive-aggressive rhetorical judo.  A word is known to have emotional connotations.  The speaker swaps around technical definitions, so that while the word technically still applies, the emotional connotations don't, but the word continues to carry them regardless.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 2, 2011)

While I do not commonly fudge rolls, it does happen on occasion to make the game work better. I love my d20s, but sometimes they are a bit too contrary.


----------



## Traveon Wyvernspur (Dec 2, 2011)

My opinion is that most DM's fudge rolls and that's fine, just don't tell the players and don't do it ALL the time.

I have done it on occasion to make things more interesting and add some more edge-of-your-seat scenarios happen. A bit of drama and chaos in the fight with the BBEG is awesome, especially if there is danger involved. The way I do it is if the PCs are way over-powered then I amp up the BBEG a bit on the fly and allow him to hit the PCs more often with a fudged hidden roll, or if the PCs are almost to a TPK due to really bad rolling on their parts along with my miscalculation of how hard I made the fight, I'll fudge rolls to have the bad guys missing more or doing less damage to the PCs, usually it's a correction on my part that I have to adjust the difficulty setting one way or the other to account for my own mistakes. It's the DM's job to keep the campaign running and this is just another function of it.

If you don't personally do fudging as a DM, that's your choice, but as a player just go with the flow and have fun with the campaign and story, don't get caught up in what the DM is doing behind the screen just pay attention to what your character is doing.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 3, 2011)

Umbran said:


> The hole, at least in this one small corner of the discussion, is that in human communication, "technically correct" doesn't always equate to "right".



Ah, my Achilles' heel. Well, two, actually. I am so used to being right, and, as a writer, so used to words making me so.



> You keep pointing to a technical definition, and say by your definition, you're right, so you're right.  But, if you step up to someone and call them a cheater or a liar, what comes into mind isn't *your* technical definition, but the common one, with a rather different set of connotations.  The hole is that you don't get to set the definitions that get used.



I do understand your point, but in a written medium, I find using definitions help clear up thoughts in a discussion. When I say "breaking the rules is cheating" and I get back "that's an overstatement", my first reaction is to say, "no, it's not." And, it's not. But, in terms of productive discussion, if I think in terms of literal definition, and you advocate your case from a more casual, colloquial view, I think we're probably talking past one another on the original point I was trying to make.

I understand what you're saying here. I really do. I do, however, think it depends on where you're from, and how the word is used locally. I can't speak for the internet at large, but as I've said, my phrasing is not uncommon in my circles. I might very well be different from yours, or the country as a whole.



> On top of that, whether you intend it that way or not, what you're doing is a commonly used form of passive-aggressive rhetorical judo.  A word is known to have emotional connotations.  The speaker swaps around technical definitions, so that while the word technically still applies, the emotional connotations don't, but the word continues to carry them regardless.



Well, I don't intend to strip it of emotional connotations. Some people consider fudging to be a form cheating, with all the emotional connotations that implies, even if the fudging is there to help them. If I'm playing the game of Life with my young cousins, and I give each person one million dollars instead of them losing $80,000, one of my cousins would object. She has before to people playing to help her (when she can spot it). She's only five, but she's pretty sharp.

Does she get upset? Well, she gets disappointed, but she'll accept it (she's good at following what an adult says to do). However, my players do indeed have an emotional reaction if they find out I save them or help them (or hurt them for that matter) through fudging. I definitely did not hope to strip out the emotional connotations with my use; indeed, they're pretty vital to what I'm trying to convey.

I do get where you're coming from, Umbran. And I'm not saying that my experience is near universal, when it comes to player views, personal views, or colloquial usage of definitions. What I do intend to do, however, is show that some players view fudging as "cheating", and that saying so isn't an overstatement at all. It has just as much emotional charge as the "normal" usage of "cheating". As always, play what you like


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Dec 3, 2011)

Rogue Agent said:


> Right. I think it boils down to motivation: If an NPC changes their plans or outlook because the situation suggests that they should, that's not fudging. If an NPC changes their plans because you, as a GM, want the change the outcome of the encounter, that's fudging.
> 
> Or to put it another way: Is the GM throwing the game so that the PCs would win when they should have lost? That's fudging. Is the GM cheating the players so that the PCs lose when they should have won? Also fudging.
> 
> The actual techniques employed (changing dice rolls, shifting target DCs, adding reinforcements, conveniently "forgetting" that the NPC has a _fireball_ they could use to finish the group off, etc.) is, IMO, irrelevant.




If the creature the DM created bases it's decision upon the environment the DM created it is legitimate.

If the creature the DM created bases it's decision upon the DM's will it is illegitimate.

Is this your theory?

I have a saying I use all the time to friends, colleagues, and employees:  You never know what somebody else is thinking...you might think you do; but, you never do.


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 3, 2011)

If fudging is cheating, is rolling the dice just to keep the players unaware of something (when there's nothing to decide) also cheating?

In my opinion fudging is just a point between the two extremes of "I already know what happens, but I'll still roll the die" and "this will be completely decided by the die roll".


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 3, 2011)

Hassassin said:


> If fudging is cheating, is rolling the dice just to keep the players unaware of something (when there's nothing to decide) also cheating?



What rule is that breaking? Is there an expressed social agreement that this doesn't happen?



> In my opinion fudging is just a point between the two extremes of "I already know what happens, but I'll still roll the die" and "this will be completely decided by the die roll".



I'm glad you have a group that works for you, and a way that works for your group. I love how I can be in the minority (apparently) and the hobby is mutable enough for me to play, too. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 3, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> What rule is that breaking? Is there an expressed social agreement that this doesn't happen?




In my opinion there are no rules for the DM, just guidelines. If there's an agreement that the DM plays by the same rules, then I can see how someone might also think making misleading rolls would qualify.

In any case, it totally depends on what has been agreed to. I just think the default is that due to Rule 0 the DM can do whatever he wants.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 3, 2011)

Hassassin said:


> In my opinion there are no rules for the DM, just guidelines. If there's an agreement that the DM plays by the same rules, then I can see how someone might also think making misleading rolls would qualify.
> 
> In any case, it totally depends on what has been agreed to. I just think the default is that due to Rule 0 the DM can do whatever he wants.



To a certain extent, that's probably true in most groups. I know that it's not true for other groups, and that deviating from what you agreed explicitly to do (or not do) will upset many groups or players. So, yes, it depends on what you agree to.

Fudging is the same thing; that is, it depends on what your group agrees to. Your default is not mine, though the GM will get away with a lot. That means if I do fudge, my players will be upset, because we have agreed that doing so is less fun.

If I was to play in your group, I'd go by your rules without really questioning them. If the play experience became less fun for me because of suspected fudging or abuse, I'd bow out. However, if it was subtle enough that I didn't catch it, or it was never abused (as is likely the case), I probably wouldn't care (because I wouldn't know about it).

If I was told at any time, though, that fudging was practiced, I'd probably have to never suspect it again, or bow out. I just feel like I need to earn it, and fudging lessens that feeling for me, and it draws my attention to the dice, and out of immersion.

But that'd be my problem, not yours or your groups' problem. You're not cheating, from the sounds of it. Thanks for the discussion. As always, play what you like


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 3, 2011)

Wild Gazebo said:


> If the creature the DM created bases it's decision upon the environment the DM created it is legitimate.
> 
> If the creature the DM created bases it's decision upon the DM's will it is illegitimate.
> 
> ...




I don't see the relevance of the last bit. Whether the players can detect the fudging is a separate question from whether fudging is taking place. I have learned to fudge in ways that are virtually undetectable; but it's still fudging.

How easy it is to detect "behavioral fudging" depends on the DM. I have never been able to pull it off--the players always realize what I'm doing and why. (This is why I quit doing it and turned to hit point and power manipulation instead.) But even if I could do it so well nobody ever knew, _I_ would know, and I would consider it just as much a fudge as any stat-block adjustment or die-roll fakery.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 3, 2011)

Hassassin said:


> In my opinion there are no rules for the DM, just guidelines. If there's an agreement that the DM plays by the same rules, then I can see how someone might also think making misleading rolls would qualify.
> 
> In any case, it totally depends on what has been agreed to. I just think the default is that due to Rule 0 the DM can do whatever he wants.





Well that's true enough.  If the GM agrees to an alternate game whereby Rule 0 (or its equivalent "these rules are only guidelines") is abolished, then he certainly would have to stick to the letter of the rules and would not be able to adjust dice.  Of course, in this case a fundamental element of RPGing is being removed from the game and a GM might not even be necessary.  I can imagine adventures akin to choose your own adventure books where the regular players take turns reading out the situations and they collectively make their choices and flip through to the next crossroads.  Encounters could be played out on the tabletop and the players could take turns rolling for the opponents, all rolls in the open, since the rules are as written and no arbitrary adjustments or adjudications need to be made.  What the various people met might say or do can all be in the adventure, decided beforehand, so the players could also play/read out those few interactions as needed.  Of course, the more I think about this the more I think a computer would make this a lot easier.  Still, if a group setting out to play an RPG wishes to decide as a group that certain rules are ignored, like Rule 0, they can certainly do so and should all abide by that decision for the game they would then be playing.  The question becomes, What elements are crucial to the RPG experience and what can be removed without fundamentally changing the game to something else?"


----------



## Glade Riven (Dec 4, 2011)

My 3rd rule of Dungeon Mastering: Win if you can, lose if you must, but _always cheat_.

How I cheat...well, that's actually quite importaint. I don't try to fudge things to help out players. Usually, that has the opposite result and gets a PC killed. Conversely, trying to kill them usually leads to player success. Dice rolls I don't fudge, but enemy HP and AC may be adjusted on the fly. Minions can and will be used (reinforcements, retreats, etc; 4e or Pathfinder). This is to control combat pacing. If a battle is taking too long, I'll cut HP down and have minions run away. If a battle is going way, way too quick, I'll bring in a few more minions for the good guys to chop down. I don't pull punches for the PCs, but it seems the harder I try to kill them, the better they roll. Combat is still quite lethal (for some reason, minions can be good at getting off lucky shots).

Now, Skill Checks...well, this is more of a house rule than a cheat. As written, skill checks are usually a simple pass/fail. I use more of what I call a gradiant method, which can result in a partial success or a partial failure. Say the rogue is trying to sneak up a wall before the patrolling guard comes back around, and she just makes the check. So, success, but barely...she squirrils up the wall, but knocks a loose brick out that falls to the ground. The guard then gets an impromptu check to notice it, but because it was a successful stealth/climb check the guard has a high threshold to notice something out of the ordinary. A slight failure on the stealth/climb check results in a more alert guard - which may check out the noise. A nat 1 would result in a completely botched attempt to silently climb, and a nat 20 would allow for the character to slip past the guards with no issues. 

It's a more dynamic system that allows for a more flexible experiance. _The dice still matter._ After all, where the dice and modifiers land on the gradiant determines the results.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 4, 2011)

Wild Gazebo said:


> If the creature the DM created bases it's decision upon the environment the DM created it is legitimate.
> 
> If the creature the DM created bases it's decision upon the DM's will it is illegitimate.



The distinction was fudging or not fudging; nothing was said about "legitimate" or "illegitimate."







Wild Gazebo said:


> I have a saying I use all the time to friends, colleagues, and employees:  You never know what somebody else is thinking...you might think you do; but, you never do.



The comment said nothing about presuming to know what anyone else is thinking.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Dec 4, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> The distinction was fudging or not fudging; nothing was said about "legitimate" or "illegitimate."




Sorry if my comments seemed like they were made by a child entering the room...'cause they kinda were.  I haven't read this thread and was participating in the thread that was spawned from this one...and accidentally clicked here. 

The legit/illegit was derived from the idea that there was judgement be made on fudging...which I guess there wasn't.  It seems that post was about clarity of terms:  which seems strange to me still.

I'm not sure how one would judge the motivation of a character somebody else makes in order to define a term used to describe a tool used by the originator to referee the world the character inhabits.  Does that sound confusing?  Because it was meant to.




The Shaman said:


> The comment said nothing about presuming to know what anyone else is thinking.




Well.  I'm not sure how motivation is measured without having an understanding of motive.  And I think it is fair to say that motive can be allusive without knowledge of the want and/or need of the character is:  which I think can most clearly be understood by his thoughts.  Now certain assumptions could be posited based on personal gain and instinctive survival; but, again, the thought process of the character would have to be intuited without knowledge.

I supposed what threw me--and impressed me--was that people would deem to define a term based on the make believe motivations of make believe people in a make believe environment as opposed to the wishes of the person who created all of the make believe motives, people, and environment.

The distinction is so abstract to me--and so unbelievable beautiful--that I found it hard not to comment....regardless of how relevant my discussion was.

The saying that I say...quite often...is just that.  I think it applies to all of this, especially internet forums, where people tend to believe the worst as opposed to the most logical.  And even if that is/isn't true:  there is never a guarantee that comprehension is achieved or true motive ascribed. 

I hope your new definition of fudging does everything you need it to do.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 4, 2011)

Wild Gazebo said:


> I supposed what threw me--and impressed me--was that people would deem to define a term based on the make believe motivations of make believe people in a make believe environment as opposed to the wishes of the person who created all of the make believe motives, people, and environment.



I don't think it's that complicated, really. At crunch time, do you make decisions based on in-game elements like npc personality and the nature of the game-world, or do you make them on metagame factors like pacing or plot immunity for the player characters?

Frex, if the baron de Bauchery's well-known and well-earned reputation is for tying up loose ends by killing his prisoners, should I make an exception for the adventurer who falls into his grasp? Do I choose for him to be 'true' to his established characteristics in the game-world - and avoid stock villain mistakes - or do I decide that the baron keeps the prisoner alive long enough to give the other adventurers a chance to rescue him?

The latter is fudging, by the definition offered upthread, a definition with which I concur. It has nothing to do with the established quality of the game-world and everything to do with the gamemaster ignoring that game-world for out-of-game reasons.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 4, 2011)

I don't fudge because I assume the game works and it will deliver the experience we want if we stick to the rules.  If that doesn't happen, either I change the game or change the rules so they deliver the experience we want.

One big problem I have with fudging is that, _if it's not known to the players,_ they can't make proper decisions - they don't have enough information.  They don't know the game they are actually playing.


----------



## Glade Riven (Dec 4, 2011)

Well, I certainly don't hide my methodology from my players. I even encourage them to try the unorthodox - what many players would call crazy. Stuff like a monk going Prince of Persia to run-dash across a wall to avoid a pit using an acrobatics check. Strangely enough, it works...even when there is a high number to beat. Folk have epic, cinematic moments of success and failure and everyone has a good time.

I also don't keep them from doing something outright stupid - like mouthing off to the people that they are suppose to be on the same side with, or irritating the town watch and getting thrown out of town.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 4, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> One big problem I have with fudging is that, _if it's not known to the players,_ they can't make proper decisions - they don't have enough information.  They don't know the game they are actually playing.




They don't know the stats of the monster behind the screen either. So I don't see how lack of knowledge of fudging is any different.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 6, 2011)

billd91 said:


> They don't know the stats of the monster behind the screen either. So I don't see how lack of knowledge of fudging is any different.




I would argue that the players need at least _some_ idea of the monster stats behind the screen in order to make informed decisions.  But anyway.

The way monster stats work is part of the system.  They interact with the choices that players make.  In order to hit a certain AC, you need to roll a certain number "to-hit".  Choosing Weapon Focus changes the to-hit number you need.  Players consider this when choosing Weapon Focus over Weapon Specialization or Toughness or other feats.  In addition, in combat, you know that you can get bonuses to your to-hit roll if you execute specific tactics, eg. flanking.

At those times when the DM fudges, those choices don't matter.  A PC is hit and taken down to -10.  The DM fudges so that the PC is at -8.  There's no incentive to take Toughness over Weapon Focus.

The player needs to determine why and when a DM fudges in order to make informed decisions.  If the DM fudges when PCs take dramatic action, then you can invest in flamboyant character build options and rely on dramatic action to save you.  

I don't have a problem with that style of game; what I criticize is that it's hard to get information to the players if the DM hides the reasons for and occurrences of fudging.  It's easier to allow the players to make informed decisions if you make those fudging instances a transparent part of the system.  If the players are informed that, for example, dramatic action is going to save your PC - since that's the kind of style that you want to play - and you make that known to the players, I think you'd get more of it.  Sounds like win-win to me.

But. 

I can see this being a problem, however, if the players _don't want to know_ that the DM is fudging things.  They want to believe that "things just worked out the right way," that luck & fate conspired to make that encounter come out in a satisfying way.  So when you make that last-ditch stand to save the party with the odds stacked against you, and you come out on top, you don't want to know that the DM fudged the results so that the odds were in your favour.  That would cheapen the experience.

That makes sense to me, even if I don't share the same aesthetic.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 6, 2011)

*A little secret*

I eliminated the problem you are facing by making all my rolls in front of the players. I never make a roll behind the screen for combat. Not saves, not to hit rolls, or damage rolls. So if the thing rolls a 1, they can cheer around the table. And they can groan when it rolls a 20.

I don't let them see stealth or perception checks though. They don't need to see that.

But hey, come closer, a little closer. I don't want my players to hear. It's a secret. I do fudge the hit points or modifiers at times. Sometimes I do it in the player's favor, sometimes in the monsters favor. Depends on how I want the combat to go. I think it's the better way to do things. Fudging rolls makes players really paranoid. Fudge the modifiers or hit points or numbers, they never know better. Much wiser than fudging rolls.

If you mention anything to my players, I'll tell them you're a mentally ill conpiracy theorist that needs to be locked up.

Hope this post helps.


----------



## Traveon Wyvernspur (Dec 6, 2011)

oops double posted.


----------



## Traveon Wyvernspur (Dec 6, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> I eliminated the problem you are facing by making all my rolls in front of the players. I never make a roll behind the screen for combat. Not saves, not to hit rolls, or damage rolls. So if the thing rolls a 1, they can cheer around the table. And they can groan when it rolls a 20.
> 
> I don't let them see stealth or perception checks though. They don't need to see that.
> 
> But hey, come closer, a little closer. I don't want my players to hear. It's a secret. I do fudge the hit points or modifiers at times. Sometimes I do it in the player's favor, sometimes in the monsters favor. Depends on how I want the combat to go. I think it's the better way to do things. Fudging rolls makes players really paranoid. Fudge the modifiers or hit points or numbers, they never know better. Much wiser than fudging rolls.




This is exactly how I do things too and feel they should be done.


----------



## Janx (Dec 7, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> But hey, come closer, a little closer. I don't want my players to hear. It's a secret. I do fudge the hit points or modifiers at times. Sometimes I do it in the player's favor, sometimes in the monsters favor. Depends on how I want the combat to go. I think it's the better way to do things. Fudging rolls makes players really paranoid. Fudge the modifiers or hit points or numbers, they never know better. Much wiser than fudging rolls.




this touches on another aspect of the fudging issue.

playing with the dice rolls in public view and vowing to never fudge sort of assumes the system is so perfect and balanced (and run correctly by the GM), that all encounters are "fair".  I quoted that word and use it loosely for a reason.

In the realm of not changing die results, but changing HP on a BBEG, how is that different than the work you did during adventure design, where you decided the BBEG would have 200 instead of 100 HP?

What rules guided you that said 200 HP is fair for the NPC to have when you designed the encounter?

If you can build unreasonable or unfair during the design stage legally, what makes changing things during the execution stage illegal?  Functionally, the outcome is equivalent.

Personally, if I have decent challenge level calculations that I follow during the design stage, I then can assume that my BBEG is of a correct difficulty level over the party, and that whatever happens from the dice rolls should be accepted as fair.

I don't know about 4e, but prior editions have yet to hit that mark.  As such, I think that drives some GMs to make in-game corrections when they are realized.

When I fugde, it is generally to save the life of a PC that would otherwise die so quickly that the player cannot make a course correction.  Frex, round 1, the BBEG hitting the PC for enough damage to kill him.  The PC would have no chance to realize he is in over his head and withdraw.  Whacking him down to 2HP makes it pretty clear that his next action should be to change tactics, or he will die.  You can bet, the next round will kill the PC if I score a hit and the PC was dumb enough to stick around.

I never give the bad guy more or less hitpoints.  I never negate a saving throw to spare the bad guy.  I might be a softy for giving the PCs a second chance from damage, but that's about as far as I go.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 7, 2011)

I'm asking a question/making a suggestion here -- I am not condemning anyone's play style.

Those of you who will fudge to have an opponent, (NPC), make a save against something like a first round save or die effect: Do you tell the Players this? Would it be a good table rule to have agreement between the DM and Players that any first round of combat should not include save or die effects?



> When I fugde, it is generally to save the life of a PC that would otherwise die so quickly that the player cannot make a course correction. Frex, round 1, the BBEG hitting the PC for enough damage to kill him. The PC would have no chance to realize he is in over his head and withdraw. Whacking him down to 2HP makes it pretty clear that his next action should be to change tactics, or he will die. You can bet, the next round will kill the PC if I score a hit and the PC was dumb enough to stick around.



You know, it's sad to me that every time I've seen this scenario come up, (even with no fudging on the DM's part), the Player/PC rarely takes the hint. And when they do get the hint, I've seen many times when the PC, instead of changing tactics to protect themselves, they pull out their biggest gun in the thought of offing the enemy with their next, (and probably last), shot. I have seen so many PCs get dumber after being hit with the clue bat.

Bullgrit


----------



## billd91 (Dec 7, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> You know, it's sad to me that every time I've seen this scenario come up, (even with no fudging on the DM's part), the Player/PC rarely takes the hint. And when they do get the hint, I've seen many times when the PC, instead of changing tactics to protect themselves, they pull out their biggest gun in the thought of offing the enemy with their next, (and probably last), shot. I have seen so many PCs get dumber after being hit with the clue bat.




Hey, at least you gave them the chance to do something smarter. If the players fail to make use of it, then they get what's coming to them.


----------



## prosfilaes (Dec 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> If you can build unreasonable or unfair during the design stage legally, what makes changing things during the execution stage illegal?  Functionally, the outcome is equivalent.




If the outcome were the same, you wouldn't be fudging. In that one instance, the results may be indistinguishable, but over the long run, a statistician would have no problem proving that you were fudging, and your experienced players would know it. You would take some of the variability and randomness out of the game, and I think some people want that variability and randomness.


----------



## Janx (Dec 8, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> If the outcome were the same, you wouldn't be fudging. In that one instance, the results may be indistinguishable, but over the long run, a statistician would have no problem proving that you were fudging, and your experienced players would know it. You would take some of the variability and randomness out of the game, and I think some people want that variability and randomness.




Let's say 100HP BBEG is the standard.  If I design the adventure, and crank it up to 200HP, then the fight will be longer/tougher.

Contrast that to writing down 100HP during the design stage, but deciding to crank it to 200HP during the execution of the adventure.  The result is, the fight is longer/tougher.

That's the example I'm citing because some people fudge the hit-points.

I think it's poor design to amp the hit-points out of specification, and bad practice to increase the stats during the fight.  My point though is that the activity is functionally the same.  The outcome is the same and the math is the same.

There are no controls or policies on design.  So assuming the game exists in some non-fudging pure form that your dice rolls are fair, etc is incorrect.  You don't know if your GM designed the adventure with the wrong stats.  Therefore, there is no true test of anything going on.


----------



## prosfilaes (Dec 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> Let's say 100HP BBEG is the standard.  If I design the adventure, and crank it up to 200HP, then the fight will be longer/tougher.
> 
> Contrast that to writing down 100HP during the design stage, but deciding to crank it to 200HP during the execution of the adventure.  The result is, the fight is longer/tougher.
> 
> That's the example I'm citing because some people fudge the hit-points.




This will only be indistinguishable if they always crank it up to 200 HP during the execution of the adventure. If they only crank it up to 200 when the battle is going too quick (in their opinion), then there will be a noticeable lack of short battles, and the perceptive players will start pulling their punches at the start of the battle; there's no reason to pull out Harm or Meteor Swarm or Power Strike if it will effectively add HP to the creature.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> playing with the dice rolls in public view and vowing to never fudge sort of assumes the system is so perfect and balanced (and run correctly by the GM), that all encounters are "fair".




No - life's not fair; why should encounters be fair?  If your adventure is 30 encounters in a linear path you expect the PCs to hack through in order, I guess they all need to be defeatable so the PCs can win.  I prefer to have plenty of stuff in my campaigns that the PCs are not expected to defeat and should avoid/evade if they want to live.  But I don't fudge my dice rolls.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> In the realm of not changing die results, but changing HP on a BBEG, how is that different than the work you did during adventure design, where you decided the BBEG would have 200 instead of 100 HP?
> 
> What rules guided you that said 200 HP is fair for the NPC to have when you designed the encounter?




I don't tend to design encounters in terms of "What's fair to the PCs".  I know with 4e you're supposed to set a 'fair' XP budget, but in practice I create stuff environmentally, I create what I want to create, then tot up the XPV afterwards.  I might have a general idea "this is an 7th level dungeon" but the encounters/monster groups may well end up as averaging EL 10, if that's what should logically go there.

Eg: I decide the entrance to the dungeon is guarded by zombies, considering the nature and power of the BBEG it looks like 2 groups each of 1 zombie hulk, 3 flesh-crazed zombies and 8 zombie shamblers would be appropriate, 24 zombies total, set up to ambush intruders from two directions.

Only once I have determined that do I total up the encounter XPV, and monster hit points comes out of the book (then always halved, my 4e house rule), not determined by me - so I don't really 'set' monster hp, at most I have a rough idea of appropriate monster level so for a 7th-8th level dungeon I set that it's an 8th level zombie hulk, not a 4th level hulking zombie.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> I think it's poor design to amp the hit-points out of specification, and bad practice to increase the stats during the fight.  My point though is that the activity is functionally the same.  The outcome is the same and the math is the same.




"Hey Bob, see if one of the goblins is still alive."
"Yeah, this one is."
"Get him up and ask him about his boss."
"Hey you.  Get up.  Tell me about your boss."
"Whatcha wanna know?"
"Well, does he use magic?  Fight with a sword?  Have a shield that protects him from the attacks of men?"
"No, he's just big.  Real big."
"How big?"
"As strong and as tough as an ogre.  Like I said, real big."
"Oh, okay.  Thanks."
<hack> <slash> <thump>

That's functionally different from this:

"No, there's nothing special about my boss.  He's a regular goblin."
<cut to the fight scene...>
"That goblin must have lied to us, because we've done 150 damage to him already!"

Watch me make it worse:

"I've been maxing out my Sense Falsehood skill for the past five levels now and I can't even detect the lies of a goblin worth 2 XP?  I'm dropping the skill."


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 8, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> "No, there's nothing special about my boss.  He's a regular goblin."
> <cut to the fight scene...>
> "That goblin must have lied to us, because we've done 150 damage to him already!"




That's very poor fudging form. If you describe the boss as being no tougher than a regular goblin, you should run it as such. Changing the stats _then_ is like trying to fudge a die that you rolled in the open.

However, in my experience, it's very seldom that the PCs have such detailed information about their opposition.


----------



## Janx (Dec 8, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> That's very poor fudging form. If you describe the boss as being no tougher than a regular goblin, you should run it as such. Changing the stats _then_ is like trying to fudge a die that you rolled in the open.
> 
> However, in my experience, it's very seldom that the PCs have such detailed information about their opposition.




Yeah, Lost Soul & S'Mon have change the parameters by declaring that the GM gave clues as to the strength level of the monster.  

I don't assume that opportunity came up when I cited it.  As such, the players don't know the BBEG is more different than could be expected.

Which could be pretty common when DMs customize and level monsters (Hey, the boss is just an orc, 1HD!  Wrong!!!)

As to the definition of "fair" I did put that in quotes for a reason.  If the party undertakes the "Quest of Level Appropriateness" as opposed to the Dungeon of TPK Monsters, then they have self selected the EL/CR they expect to fight.  Changing the BBEG to be TPK-level would not be fair, especially if there are no clues the the BBEG is at TPK level of strength.

My point is, changing stuff on the fly isn't much different than choosing crappy numbers during the design stage.  As such, Since it is acceptable to design badly, it must therefore be acceptable to impromptu change things.  

Hopefully in fact, the reason for a FUDGE is to CORRECT a bad design choice.

One thing I always challenge in these threads is the notion that there is a pure competition and accomplishment if your GM never fudges.  Your PC suceeds, ultimately because the DM interpretted your choices to let you and because he did not put impossible barriers in front of your PC.  Any sense of accomplishment you get is by his cooperation.  If the GM did a bad design job, you will not win.  If the GM did a bad execution job, you will not win.  There is more behind your victory at the game table than your choices as a player.

As such, some GMs seem to use Fudging as a correction in order to cooperate with the player's intent.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> Yeah, Lost Soul & S'Mon have change the parameters by declaring that the GM gave clues as to the strength level of the monster.




Eh?  Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.


----------



## Janx (Dec 8, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Eh?  Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.




yeah, looks like it.

Sounds like you have a very systemized approach to determing the monsters the PC will face.

barring the PCs going off the reservation to find "really hard" monsters, does your method generally produce "fair" challenges.  That is stuff that is easier or harder, but not ridiculously harder that  TPK is guarranteed?


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> Yeah, Lost Soul & S'Mon have change the parameters by declaring that the GM gave clues as to the strength level of the monster.




Yeah, but I think it's important to consider that the players are making informed decisions - or at least trying to - and how fudging can effect the decision making process.



Janx said:


> Hopefully in fact, the reason for a FUDGE is to CORRECT a bad design choice.




Back in 2E I was running a module that has some levers that controlled a poison gas in a certain room.  The PCs had pulled some of the levers, getting rid of the poison gas.  However, when we got to that room, I forgot or didn't read the module correctly, so I ran the encounter as if the room was full of poison gas.

Once I realized my mistake I corrected it - we went back to the beginning as if none of that had happened.

I wouldn't call that fudging.  That's how I see something like "Hey guys, I gave this guy an extra 100 HP for some reason, but I have no idea why.  It seems like a mistake.  I'll roll back his HP to normal amounts - which means he's dead now."  I don't think that's fudging either.  People make mistakes.  I don't see why you wouldn't declare them, deal with it, and move on.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> yeah, looks like it.
> 
> Sounds like you have a very systemized approach to determing the monsters the PC will face.
> 
> barring the PCs going off the reservation to find "really hard" monsters, does your method generally produce "fair" challenges.  That is stuff that is easier or harder, but not ridiculously harder that  TPK is guarranteed?




It seems to work pretty well when I'm creating my own material (or using Dungeon Delve to supplement it). There was a purple worm I placed in the '8th level' dungeon recently that would have eaten the PCs had they fought it rather than run away from it.  A brand new player did have to ask me a metagame question - did I have unbeatable opponents IMCs - once I confirmed 'yes', they were happy to run.  

I had some trouble running a 4e conversion of Necromancer's Vault of Larin Karr sandbox - lots of meatgrinder PC deaths.  I think the main issue was I should have started the PCs at 4th, not 1st, but it was my first time running 4e.

Edit: I definitely do give clues/indications as to the strength levels of monsters, dungeons, wilderness areas etc.  Basically whatever I think the PCs should know.  I liked this chart:







That was what clued the PCs in to be ready to run from the mysterious tremor-causing 15'-wide bulge under the dungeon room.


----------



## Janx (Dec 8, 2011)

Here's what might be a different way to illustrate the point I'm making about the design stage and fudging during the exectuion:

Let's say you're a pure no-fudge player who wants his victories to be challenges and wants them to be authentic (whatver that means).

Would you prefer that I build a dungeon with a Level 10 BBEG at the bottom for your Level 7 party to choose to hunt and kill?

Thus, because you knew I followed strict rules on threat levels, you also knew that by beating a higher EL, that you were indeed awesome.

Versus, your Level 7 party enters the dungeon and it turns out I put whatever the heck I wanted, because there weren't any guidelines.  As such. it turns out the BBEG had 200 more hitpoints than normal, and I did other stuff to "make it harder"

Now I'll respect that in reality, you may not want to talk numbers during the game.  The assumption is that your party sought a challenge and you picked one that would be tough, but beatable.

But if I don't have a design system in place that I follow, making up ridiculous stuff is just as bad as jacking with the stats during the game.  Mostly because it is misrepresenting was expected.  Bait-n-switch.


----------



## Janx (Dec 8, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> Yeah, but I think it's important to consider that the players are making informed decisions - or at least trying to - and how fudging can effect the decision making process.




I wholly agree.  Clues as to monster toughness should be given.  Prior to the whole leveled monster era, once you knew the monsters, you could guage for yourself.

But if there's not constraints on the GM for putting TPK stuff in the dungeon, it's just as bad as jacking with the hit points.  Either way, it's a screwjob for the players.

As such, until there's a consistent, "fair" design policy, what happens during the game is not wholly your own success, and therefore not something to get one's undies in a bundle over.  If you can't ensure the DM followed a difficulty standard, you haven't really beaten anything. (which is the argument for why fudging in-game is there, because some people want that purity of the challenge).  I don't think you have that purity, until the entire adventure follows a set of design standards for difficulty rating.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 8, 2011)

Here's a different hypothetical. Let's say that, as DM, I give the PCs some feedback on a monster (call it a "greeble"), suggesting that it is a tough threat for a party of their capabilities. (The party fought half a dozen quorgs last adventure and it was a solid fight; later they discover that a similar-sized band of quorgs ambushed a greeble and got torn to shreds.) They go after the greeble and engage it.

In the course of combat, it becomes apparent to me that the greeble's stats are in fact far less powerful than the Monster Manual claimed. It's listed as EL 12, perhaps, but whoever statted out this particular beastie did a crappy job; a more accurate estimate would be EL 8-9. It's not a matter of die rolls. The greeble is simply a paper tiger. There's no way it could take on half a dozen quorgs.

Suppose there is a way that I can, on the fly, tweak the greeble's stats and/or die rolls to bring it up to its original "tough threat" billing, and the players are unlikely to realize what I'm doing. Does this constitute fudging in your definition? And would it be acceptable to do so?


----------



## billd91 (Dec 8, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> Suppose there is a way that I can, on the fly, tweak the monster's stats and/or die rolls to bring it up to its original "tough threat" billing, and the players are unlikely to realize what I'm doing. Does this constitute fudging in your definition? And would it be acceptable to do so?




You're the DM. The answers are yes and yes (assuming you're not using some agreed upon table rule to bar fudging).


----------



## Janx (Dec 8, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> Here's a different hypothetical. Let's say that, as DM, I give the PCs some feedback on a monster, suggesting that it is a tough threat for a party of their capabilities. They go after the monster and engage it.
> 
> In the course of combat, it becomes apparent to me that the monster's stats are in fact far less powerful than the Monster Manual claimed. It's listed as EL 12, perhaps, but whoever statted out this particular beastie did a crappy job; a more accurate estimate would be EL 8-9. It's not a matter of die rolls. The party isn't scoring a lot of natural 20s and the monster isn't rolling a lot of 1s, nor is the party using superior tactics. The monster is simply a paper tiger.
> 
> Suppose there is a way that I can, on the fly, tweak the monster's stats and/or die rolls to bring it up to its original "tough threat" billing, and the players are unlikely to realize what I'm doing. Does this constitute fudging in your definition? And would it be acceptable to do so?




yes, and maybe.

Yes because changing the stats on the fly has been called fudging by others, and the goal is to achieve an outcome different from the current trajectory  (a harder fight in this case).


Maybe because it really depends on how right you really are.  Choosing to make something harder might be thwarting the players of the benefit of their better tactics.  How do you know you are right that the monster was built weak-wrong?

Contrast with fudging to protect a player.  Now the obvious wrong is that you might be coddling them.  But it usually is apparent that something is too tough and it can be corrected by in-game adjustment.  If you're wrong, there's always the next encounter to challenge them.

I think I would almost never increase the power of a monster in-game as some sort of correction.  I would be more likely to let it play out, and try to make future encounters more dangerous by comparing to this one.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 8, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> Suppose there is a way that I can, on the fly, tweak the greeble's stats and/or die rolls to bring it up to its original "tough threat" billing, and the players are unlikely to realize what I'm doing. Does this constitute fudging in your definition? And would it be acceptable to do so?




If you are simply adjusting the stats to make it a real EL 12, without regard to the players' ability to beat it, I don't think it's fudging in the normal sense.  In your mind it was always EL 12, not EL 8. The book was wrong, you are simply correcting it, as if it were a misprint.

Running 4e I often have to on-the-fly adjust pre-MM3 monster stats to bring them up to standard.  I don't regard that as fudging, I'm just making the 5th level monster into a real 5th level monster, and I'm following set formulae to do so.  It's much harder in 3e, and my normal 3e approach would be to change the CR, not the stats, (maybe those quorgs were green quorgs) but it could be done.


----------



## Janx (Dec 8, 2011)

Along the lines of Daasul's question, I see a bunch more.  Many along the line of correcting a mistake.

WotC got the stats wrong, do you mind if I fix the stats mid-game to reflect what I think they should be?

You're killing my monster too fast, do you mind if I adjust the stats to make him last longer?

This attack roll will kill you way too quick.  Do you mind if I lower the damage?

I can't bloody hit you, do you mind if I fake a few hits?

I got the monster stats wrong, do you mind if I fix them mid-encounter?


----------



## Rogue Agent (Dec 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> If you can't ensure the DM followed a difficulty standard, you haven't really beaten anything.




No. You've still beaten the scenario as it was designed. Whether or not that design was any good is a separate question.



Janx said:


> playing with the dice rolls in public view and  vowing to never fudge sort of assumes the system is so perfect and  balanced (and run correctly by the GM), that all encounters are "fair".




I suspect this matters strongly if the scenario is (a) railroaded and/or (b) dependent on tactically-focused My Perfect Encounters(TM). That design methodology is incredibly fragile and very precarious in its balance.

Like a stealth fighter needing its onboard computer to make constant adjustments because its actual flight profile is untenable, it doesn't surprise me that scenarios designed to be fragile and precariously balanced are probably more likely to require on-the-fly fudging to correct emergent issues.

When you instead design around a totality of strategic expedition, OTOH, both the balance and outcome of any given encounter becomes a lot less finicky/important (because making an encounter too powerful doesn't mean "automatic, unavoidably TPK" and making an encounter too weak doesn't mean "completely pointless").



Bullgrit said:


> You know, it's sad to me that every time I've  seen this scenario come up, (even with no fudging on the DM's part), the  Player/PC rarely takes the hint. And when they do get the hint, I've  seen many times when the PC, instead of changing tactics to protect  themselves, they pull out their biggest gun in the thought of offing the  enemy with their next, (and probably last), shot. I have seen so many  PCs get dumber after being hit with the clue bat.




In many cases, it's because the player has been conditioned to expect the GM to save them with fudging. Why run away when you can always count on the GM to fudge things so that you'll win?

This frequently isn't a conscious choice on their part, BTW. It's just become their standard operating procedure after years of exposure to fudging at the game table.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 9, 2011)

Repeating myself in hopes of getting an answer:







			
				Bullgrit said:
			
		

> Those of you who will fudge to have an opponent, (NPC), make a save against something like a first round save or die effect: Do you tell the Players this? Would it be a good table rule to have agreement between the DM and Players that any first round of combat should not include save or die effects?



Bullgrit


----------



## enrious (Dec 9, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> Those of you who will fudge to have an opponent, (NPC), make a save against something like a first round save or die effect: Do you tell the Players this?




I can't see myself ever telling the players when I did or did not fudge, barring some sort of unusual situation.



> Would it be a good table rule to have agreement between the DM and Players that any first round of combat should not include save or die effects?




It's a neutral rule.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 9, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I liked this chart:





  Must spread XP around before . . .


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 9, 2011)

Rogue Agent said:


> In many cases, it's because the player has been conditioned to expect the GM to save them with fudging. Why run away when you can always count on the GM to fudge things so that you'll win?




I don't think fudging is the main issue here. It's more that they know most adventures throw encounters of their EL at them. The world "levels up" the same speed, so they should be able to beat anything if they just put enough effort into it.

This is something I personally try to avoid - I make it clear that the PCs will most likely meet opponents they won't win (in a fair fight at least). This will especially happen if they do something stupid, like insulting someone under parley or whatever, but also sometimes in the due course of things.


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 9, 2011)

By the way, one question I haven't seen in the thread (though I might have missed it) is whether DMs add/subtract XP when fudging. I.e. you let the BBEG survive a round 1 lethal save, do you award more XP?


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 9, 2011)

Hassassin said:


> By the way, one question I haven't seen in the thread (though I might have missed it) is whether DMs add/subtract XP when fudging. I.e. you let the BBEG survive a round 1 lethal save, do you award more XP?



Or if you reduce a monster's hit points or change its tactics so the adventurers don't get killed, do you give them less - or zero - experience for the encounter?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 9, 2011)

Janx said:


> WotC got the stats wrong, do you mind if I fix the stats mid-game to reflect what I think they should be?




This I wouldn't consider fudging. If there is an obvious error and you are bringing it into line for consistency that wouldn't bother me.


> you're killing my monster too fast, do you mind if I adjust the stats to make him last longer?



This one really bothers me as a player. I hate when GMs adjust monster hp achieve the "correct" length of time for an encounter.


> the attack roll will kill you way too quick.  Do you mind if I lower the damage?



I mind very much. Not a huge fan of combat heavy games but when it happens make it a real threat, don't save my guy because that feels like playing a video game with the cheats on to me.


----------



## molepunch (Dec 9, 2011)

Interesting discussion. I've read through most of the post over the course a few days and I've come away feeling torn (still).

As a DM I'm protagonist-centric, and I tend to dislike seeing my players' heroes fumble and mess-up so badly on a simple-ish task. I fudge rolls to assist my players or help their crappy NPCs do a little better.

In this current campaign, I'm running a pure 4E-Essentials game, and I am rolling in the open with no fudging whatsoever. I also do not adjust DCs or defenses on the enemies to assist the players.

My players hate how lucky I roll (I do roll high and I am famous in our group for getting great poker hands). Only one of them is excited by how "dangerous" combat has become. I crit very often and I come close to killing the party's defender.  I rarely miss.


Some people don't mind DM fudging, and may even expect it. Some people take it very seriously and feel cheated. Perhaps we all need to realize that it's something we must first set ground rules on when starting a new campaign.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 11, 2011)

Hassassin said:


> By the way, one question I haven't seen in the thread (though I might have missed it) is whether DMs add/subtract XP when fudging. I.e. you let the BBEG survive a round 1 lethal save, do you award more XP?





The Shaman said:


> Or if you reduce a monster's hit points or change its tactics so the adventurers don't get killed, do you give them less - or zero - experience for the encounter?



Interesting that neither of these questions generated a response.

I'm guessing the answer is, "Of course not, because then the players would know I was fudging."


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 11, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Interesting that neither of these questions generated a response.
> 
> I'm guessing the answer is, "Of course not, because then the players would know I was fudging."




In my case, it's "I don't award XP any more, I just tell the players when their characters level up. And even when I did award XP, I didn't award it on the basis of creatures defeated, so the question wouldn't apply."


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 11, 2011)

Janx said:


> this touches on another aspect of the fudging issue.
> 
> playing with the dice rolls in public view and vowing to never fudge sort of assumes the system is so perfect and balanced (and run correctly by the GM), that all encounters are "fair".  I quoted that word and use it loosely for a reason.
> 
> ...




I usually fudge in the players favor also for the reasons you listed. I design my encounters based on factors like players average damage output, average spell DCs, average ACs, and the like. So I generally have a pretty good idea of how tough my NPC should be. It can get a little hard on the PCs if they have a series of bad rolls, so I might fudge a little in their favor to keep the campaign going.

Fudging on behalf of the monsters generally doesn't work anyhow. There are five players in my group. I can't fudge the monster for all of them or they'll figure it out.


----------



## korjik (Dec 11, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Interesting that neither of these questions generated a response.
> 
> I'm guessing the answer is, "Of course not, because then the players would know I was fudging."




Yes, I would award more XP if I let the BBEG live, but I would not let him live. If the players outthought me, I dont penalize them for it.

If I deliberately throw the fight for no reason, they dont get the xp. If I change the monster tactics so that I dont accidently kill off the party, I will still give them the xp (usually it is far less than the encounter deserved anyway).  If I fudge a crit or two so that someone dosent have to sit around watching everyone else play, then I will still give them the XP. I have done all these cases several times.

By the way, I do not care if my players know I am fudging. I know that they are fully capable of figuring out the stats of monsters and when I lay off. Heck, I have blatantly ignored monster crits on openly rolled dice. My players dont have any problem with my encounters, and dont have any problem with me not TPKing them. Before anyone says anything, I also dont have that much problem with killing them, if it wont wreck the game, and they also know that I have no problem using their own tactics against them. I have more than once ended up with the Wizard and Ranger in hand to hand cause the Paladin and Cleric went running off after the first monster they saw.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Dec 12, 2011)

> Interesting that neither of these questions generated a response.
> 
> I'm guessing the answer is, "Of course not, because then the players would know I was fudging."




I imagine most people who fudge don't look at the game as a series of monsters defeated collecting gold and experience.  I haven't used the printed experience rules since the Expert Set came out for D&D.

And perhaps we're hitting the key stumbling block for this discussion.  I don't see the game as a computer program with a set of criteria that are introduced and then run through with a series of probability nexuses.  I don't see the game as a schematic that will run the same every time as written so that idiosyncrasies will become obvious and intrusive over time.  

My games tend to be more dynamic in the sense that mystery is a major part of it, change is a definite possibility, and a sense of trust is shared by all at the table.  It is about the adventure and turmoil of fiction and the joy and wonder of the unknown.  And even, if a dare, a tendency toward verisimilitude:  a daring step away from the codification of action.  I have a hard time believing my game can be accurately measured through a series of various logarithms.  

But that's just me.  I also doubt most people who fudge are ashamed of it--especially considering its listed in the rules--they don't tell others to keep the game fun and seamless:  like a well told novel or an old yarn peppered with fact and fiction.  

I firmly believe the best fiction should be rife with truth and the best nonfiction should be peppered with fiction.

So please don't feel the lack of response was due to some ridiculous shame (just in case that was what you were thinking...I hope not)...it was probably just a difference of play-style that didn't make the question terrible relevant.


----------



## enrious (Dec 12, 2011)

Wild Gazebo said:


> ...it was probably just a difference of play-style that didn't make the question terrible relevant.




This, for me.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 12, 2011)

Wild Gazebo said:


> So please don't feel the lack of response was due to some ridiculous shame (just in case that was what you were thinking...I hope not)...



Oh, please. 

Recently I read a post on another board that said in effect, "Of course I fudge. What do you think the referee screen is for?" I'm not going to take the time to go back through this thread, but I think it's a safe bet that similar sentiments are expressed here as well.

In other words, some referees who fudge the dice don't want their players to know that the game is rigged. If they lowballed experience points for the encounters in which they ignore the dice, then it might tip off the players that their 'victory' was just a gamemaster-gimme.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 12, 2011)

I generally do not fudge. In my bi-weekly dungeon crawl game, all rolls are open and even the most excruciating run of player bad luck (see: last session) sticks. The stuff they can't see -- hit points and abilities -- I maintain 99% of the time.  I must slip up now and again.

In my Jade Regent campaign, which has a totally different feel than the dungeon crawl game, I still try not to fudge, but I let the players have access to Hero Points. Let them fudge. In addition, I am much "nicer" -- i.e. I tend to give them more hints and warnings so they can make informed decisions. Once they decide, though, we play it straight most of the time.

Now a question for the fudgers: say the BBEG fails his save in round 1 and you let it slide. Now the players have burned a major ability (presumably). Do you give it back to them? What about if the BBEG ends up killing a couple PCs -- they wouldn't have died if you didn't save him in round 1, so do you fudge for them in turn (thus creating a self perpetuating fudge cycle)? Do you remain consistent in fudging? if not, how are your players able to make informed decisions about which challenges to tackle versus which ones to avoid? What happens when the PCs make a real choice -- say they want to get 1 more room in, even though they kn ow they are low on resources etc...? Do you fudge for them then, modifying the encounter behind the door to reflect their weakened state?

See, these are all complex questions with cascading consequences depending on the answers. IMO, it is better to stop the problems in the first place by NOT fudging, either on die rolls or encounters. If the PCs press on, and there's  a difficult encounter awaiting them, so be it? I might fudge or ignore random encounter rolls as feels appropriate, and I will certainly alter "set" encounters based on the *actions* of the PCs, but "easing up" (or "bearing down"; luck and good play shouldn't be punished) seems less fun than the alternative.


----------



## korjik (Dec 13, 2011)

Reynard said:


> I generally do not fudge. In my bi-weekly dungeon crawl game, all rolls are open and even the most excruciating run of player bad luck (see: last session) sticks. The stuff they can't see -- hit points and abilities -- I maintain 99% of the time.  I must slip up now and again.
> 
> In my Jade Regent campaign, which has a totally different feel than the dungeon crawl game, I still try not to fudge, but I let the players have access to Hero Points. Let them fudge. In addition, I am much "nicer" -- i.e. I tend to give them more hints and warnings so they can make informed decisions. Once they decide, though, we play it straight most of the time.
> 
> ...




Pretty much everyone has said they would let him die. 

Also, they would make the informed decisions the same way they do in real life, namely without any information. 

I also doubt that any DM who would let the BBEG live would care if he killed off all the players.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Dec 13, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Oh, please.
> 
> Recently I read a post on another board that said in effect, "Of course I fudge. What do you think the referee screen is for?" I'm not going to take the time to go back through this thread, but I think it's a safe bet that similar sentiments are expressed here as well.
> 
> In other words, some referees who fudge the dice don't want their players to know that the game is rigged. If they lowballed experience points for the encounters in which they ignore the dice, then it might tip off the players that their 'victory' was just a gamemaster-gimme.





Rigged?  Rigged?  Wow.  I really thought this was simply a play-style difference.  You really believe that people are conducting themselves fraudulently for some sort of personal advantage?  Wow.  I don't even know what to say.

I'm not sure what a person would have to gain by rigging a game.  I'm not really sure how one rigs a game of 'make believe.'  This is a game that advocates the manipulation of die results in the _ rule book_ and sells a DM screen to help as a tool to keep a game flowing:  not some blind for a parlor ruse.

I'm beginning to see less and less differences of play-style and preference and more and more a series of trust issues.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 13, 2011)

Wild Gazebo said:


> I'm beginning to see less and less differences of play-style and preference and more and more a series of trust issues.



You know, trust keeps getting brought up, but it still leads back to a play style issue. _My players trust me *not* to fudge rolls_. Trust is factored in, but it's really separating opinions in this conversation by the social contract of individual groups.

For Elf Witch, her group _trusts_ her not to let the characters die a pointless or frustrating death. That's a trust issue, but it's based on the group's wants. My group prefers something different, and _trust_ me to not fudge rolls, HP, or the like to help or hurt them.

It's pure social contract and play style from my end. Sure, trust might come in some of the time to some players or some groups, but to imply that those who disagree with you have trust issues (or that their players do) is wrong (or worse), in my opinion. As always, play what you like


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 13, 2011)

Wild Gazebo said:


> Rigged?  Rigged?



When a random outcome is manipulated by one person to produce a particular result, yes, rigged.

What do you call it?







Wild Gazebo said:


> I really thought this was simply a play-style difference.



It is a simple play-style difference.

The difference is I like what the interaction of the dice, the rules, and player choices bring to the game, and I don't like it when one person takes it upon him- or herself to frak with that. I like unexpected results, and I don't like it when someone puts a finger on the scales, to substitute their judgement for the fickle frakking middle-finger of Fate.







Wild Gazebo said:


> I'm not really sure how one rigs a game of 'make believe.'



The same way one rigs any other game.

It's not really all that complicated, is it?


----------



## korjik (Dec 13, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> When a random outcome is manipulated by one person to produce a particular result, yes, rigged.
> 
> What do you call it?It is a simple play-style difference.
> 
> ...




I think it is alot more complicated that you think. As a DM I can 'frak with that' completely inside 'the interaction of the dice, the rules, and the player choices'.

You seem to miss that you cannot win D&D, so you cannot rig the game to be won. If you think that letting a friend sit around for hours is somehow more important than fudging a roll, so be it. 

I wont do that to my friends and they dont do it to me. 

It is a playstyle difference. It is also a difference in using a word with a distinct negative connotation to describe the choice you do not ascribe to. Maybe you should think about that.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 13, 2011)

korjik said:


> If you think that letting a friend sit around for hours is somehow more important than fudging a roll, so be it.



Any referee who lets a friend sit around for hours because the friend's character died shouldn't be running games, but there are more solutions to that problem than fudging a kill-shot.







korjik said:


> It is also a difference in using a word with a distinct negative connotation to describe the choice you do not ascribe to. Maybe you should think about that.



Maybe I wanted a word with a distinct negative connotation, because that best expresses how I feel about it.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 13, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Maybe I wanted a word with a distinct negative connotation, because that best expresses how I feel about it.




Maybe some of the rest of us are getting a wee bit tired of the badwrongfun passive-aggressiveness directed at fudging too.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 13, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Maybe some of the rest of us are getting a wee bit tired of the badwrongfun passive-aggressiveness directed at fudging too.



And I'm no less tired of being told that I don't care about my players or my campaign if I don't fudge the dice.

I'm don't think I'm being passive-aggressive about anything. Straight up, I think fudging, directly or indirectly, stinks. I've played with referees who fudge and it kills the fun for me.

And I don't feel bad about holding that opinion. I'm neither asking nor expecting anyone to agree with me, but I'm not going to pretend that I think, "Oh, y'know, it's all good," when I believe it's an incredibly lazy practice that creates really bad habits for both referees and players.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Dec 13, 2011)

> You know, trust keeps getting brought up, but it still leads back to a play style issue. My players trust me not to fudge rolls. Trust is factored in, but it's really separating opinions in this conversation by the social contract of individual groups.
> 
> For Elf Witch, her group trusts her not to let the characters die a pointless or frustrating death. That's a trust issue, but it's based on the group's wants. My group prefers something different, and trust me to not fudge rolls, HP, or the like to help or hurt them.
> 
> It's pure social contract and play style from my end. Sure, trust might come in some of the time to some players or some groups, but to imply that those who disagree with you have trust issues (or that their players do) is wrong (or worse), in my opinion. As always, play what you like




Yes.  It does lead back to play-style.  Unfortunately, this is generally a play-style that is not in the open.  A GM creates, NPC, monsters, environments, stats, spells, events, situations, and outcomes.  A GM pits the PCs against and though his creation.  The idea that all of these creations are set in stone and not to be changed, or that if a miscalculation has been made and a correction should be applied, or even that a direction of play that would make the game more fun presents itself through the change of a roll would make the GM a cheater is completely foreign to me.  All of this would be done under the cover of the screen:  I don't tell the players what the hp, AC, immunities, and special powers of the monsters I create--there is no frame of reference for rigging.  The reduction of a roll equals the same as a reduction in HD or feats, or item strength...all behind the screen.  I guess I just don't separate the creation of the game with the playing of the game...sometimes it even happens at the same time.

As for trust issues.  It wasn't meant to be derisive.  But, had I read the rest of the thread the last time I posted, I probably wouldn't have said anything because there is nothing but, admitted, trust issues.  From the original post right through to the last couple.  And probably the most telling is:



The Shaman said:


> For me, no gaming is better than bad gaming, and if I don't trust the referee, then that's bad gaming.




I can't think of a play-style that is worse than no gaming.  But that's just me.


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Dec 13, 2011)

I play few solo/two-player games where permanent death is not really an option. They are story games, but no fudging otherwise occurs. It's kinda just decicion to keep the characters up, and some really sucky things happen. To things/people you care about. You can get cursed/corrupted/mad. If there is something that is not an option we don't rol for it. 

In regular adventuring games fudging sucks. It really really does. Especially since one dm I knows just uses it to save his pet npc:s from early death and barring death of any pc.s. 

I think rolls should matter, and if there are stats you should use it. You can correct hp:s of mob before the encounter but not during it. Since I have dm who fudges and changes thing exessivly I abhor it. Some minor fudging that rarely occurs doesn't really harm game. But I don't want to know about it. So safe ways to fudge is not let boss' add arrive as soon as you rolled/planned originally if things aren't looking good. 
Maybe silently delete your stupidly dangerous trap. Maybe add few mobs to dungeon encounters (the future ones) if players are rolling it easy.

It's all well and good as long as I don't know about it.  You see some dm's who make games on a fly do encounter adjustments the same way. It's dm:ing style too. Or maybe you forget to adjust adventure path encounters for only 3 playrs and are like, oh, this won't work. Sometimes we don't have time for all this.
This is really what I think is fudging it.

I just don't think it belongs to dice rolls, since I can do the math. When we choose to invoke so called random factor I wish it to be one.  Sometimes unexpected bad/good happens and that's the point.

And sometimes these random things teach valuable lessons. Like me missing some high hp mobs for 20 round. And that dm had argued that enemy ac:s  are too low before.  And since his "turtles" (armored undead meat) had low hit as well they coudn't hit us either. After wasted 40 minutes we won that argument for good. He also fundged annoyingly here suddenly cutting mobs hp to 20 %. Which sucks, why not involve some explosive barrels or berserk construct or anything, the whole adventure was in his head anyway. Mrrrr.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 13, 2011)

Wild Gazebo said:


> As for trust issues.  It wasn't meant to be derisive.  But, had I read the rest of the thread the last time I posted, I probably wouldn't have said anything because there is nothing but, admitted, trust issues.  From the original post right through to the last couple.  And probably the most telling is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Strip context much?

Here's what the whole paragraph says.







The Shaman said:


> If that doesn't work, then you need to decided how important the game is to you if you can't trust the referee. For me, no gaming is better than bad gaming, and if I don't trust the referee, then that's bad gaming.



That was a reply directed to the original poster's concerns, _not_ a comment on my view of fudging.







Wild Gazebo said:


> I can't think of a play-style that is worse than no gaming.  But that's just me.



So you have no deal-breakers whatsoever? There's nothing a referee can do that will make you reconsider whether or not you want to play in her campaign?


----------



## Janx (Dec 13, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Strip context much?
> 
> Here's what the whole paragraph says.That was a reply directed to the original poster's concerns, _not_ a comment on my view of fudging.So you have no deal-breakers whatsoever? There's nothing a referee can do that will make you reconsider whether or not you want to play in her campaign?




I think I get the gist of Shaman's reasoning.  At first glance, I recall it striking me as unreasonable or extreme.  But then all rules of thumb sound that way if you take them too literally.

I think Shaman accepts that there are certain signs that a group will not be compatible with his preferences.  Horribly incompatible.  So if he detects it, he is prepared to exit, rather than put up with it for the sake of "gaming for gamings sake."

Just because [MENTION=29434]Shaman[/MENTION] has said "I won't play in a game with fudging" doesn't mean he might not have an exception.  I suspect it's more of a warning sign that the group has a style he likes to avoid.

If I said I ran game X that sounds like it has all the elements Shaman likes, but I leave a clause that I reserve the right to Fudge only when I determine that I have made a mistake.  Would he accept that, if that was the only deviation from his preference list and avoidance list?

Hopefully, his answer is Maybe.  Rather than a flat No.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 13, 2011)

Wild Gazebo said:


> The idea that all of these creations are set in stone and not to be changed, or that if a miscalculation has been made and a correction should be applied, or even that a direction of play that would make the game more fun presents itself through the change of a roll would make the GM a cheater is completely foreign to me.



Maybe it's not foreign to us?



> All of this would be done under the cover of the screen:  I don't tell the players what the hp, AC, immunities, and special powers of the monsters I create--there is no frame of reference for rigging.



My players have a very good grasp on enemy capabilities. They don't know if a warrior they run across is exceptionally good or merely average without engaging him (or rolling a successful Assess skill check), but they can start to flesh out his capabilities pretty quickly in combat. Why? Because they've had unaltered interactions with the game world so long that they can make these judgments reliably. The same goes for the myriad of skill checks out there, attribute checks, etc.

They have a huge frame of reference for fudging once they've Assessed or interacted with the creature or situation. It may not be so in your game, and I'm not saying you should change. I'm saying that you saying it's a trust issue? That's incorrect, at least as a blanket statement. It is purely wrong.



> The reduction of a roll equals the same as a reduction in HD or feats, or item strength...all behind the screen.  I guess I just don't separate the creation of the game with the playing of the game...sometimes it even happens at the same time.



I very rarely stat out a creature at all. I run an extremely open sandbox game, and I have no ideas where the PCs will go next, or who will come to them next (I often think I have an idea, but...). Creation of NPC stats is nearly entirely on the fly. And yet, once I choose it, and the players interact with it, it's frozen in place. That fact of the game world has been decided, the players have explored it, and it's set. The players _rely_ on me to do this.



> As for trust issues.  It wasn't meant to be derisive.  But, had I read the rest of the thread the last time I posted, I probably wouldn't have said anything because there is nothing but, admitted, trust issues.  From the original post right through to the last couple.  And probably the most telling is:
> 
> I can't think of a play-style that is worse than no gaming.  But that's just me.



There are many people I'd skip playing under entirely rather than game with. People who fudge often and consistently (especially openly) would be among them. It's not because I don't trust them. I've said why in this thread, so you've probably read why. _It's not a trust issue, it's a play style issue_. Trust might pop up for some people, yes. Your blanket statement, however, is not true, and that's what I'm pointing out. As always, play what you like


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 13, 2011)

For some people, letting the dice roll without fudging is the most fun; fudging is unfun. So the idea that a DM will fudge for or against them to make things more fun is contradictory. It's basically saying, "I'm going to add just enough unfun to make the game fun."

Bullgrit


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 13, 2011)

Wild Gazebo said:


> I can't think of a play-style that is worse than no gaming.  But that's just me.




Then you have been exceptionally lucky in your DMs and fellow players.


----------



## enrious (Dec 13, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> And I don't feel bad about holding that opinion. I'm neither asking nor expecting anyone to agree with me, but I'm not going to pretend that I think, "Oh, y'know, it's all good," when I believe it's an incredibly lazy practice that creates really bad habits for both referees and players.




And what if I professed that I believe that worshiping at the altar of Dice is imagination-stifling and it creates nothing but DMs and players who can't think on their feet, slavishly adhere to some false paragon of gaming virtue (that doesn't exist), and offers no remediation for human error.

In other words, when would the madness of an extreme position be recognized as the madness of an extreme position?

Please, point out where people have been saying you don't care about your players or game because you don't fudge.

Pretty please.


----------



## enrious (Dec 13, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> For some people, letting the dice roll without fudging is the most fun; fudging is unfun. So the idea that a DM will fudge for or against them to make things more fun is contradictory. It's basically saying, "I'm going to add just enough unfun to make the game fun."
> 
> Bullgrit




Out of curiosity, do you recognize that the opposite position is equally valid?

"For some people, letting the dice roll with a degree of fudging is the most fun; not fudging is unfun.  So the idea that a DM will not fudge for or against them to make things more fun is contradictory.  It's basically saying, "I'm going to add just enough unfun to make the game fun."


----------



## enrious (Dec 13, 2011)

If I may add a bit of advice to the non-fudgers, stop insisting on treating every single individual DM who does as part of a hive-mind collective when it comes to fudging.

Fully 75% of the passive-aggressive or not passive-aggressive posts I've seen regarding fudging don't apply to me - the situations presented are silly, immature attempts at taking 20 on Craft (Strawman).

It sorta helps your credibility if you listen to the people who fudge tell you when/why they would/wouldn't than if you just make up your own criteria because they aren't falling into your pigeon-hole.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 13, 2011)

Reynard said:


> I generally do not fudge. In my bi-weekly dungeon crawl game, all rolls are open and even the most excruciating run of player bad luck (see: last session) sticks. The stuff they can't see -- hit points and abilities -- I maintain 99% of the time.  I must slip up now and again.
> 
> In my Jade Regent campaign, which has a totally different feel than the dungeon crawl game, I still try not to fudge, but I let the players have access to Hero Points. Let them fudge. In addition, I am much "nicer" -- i.e. I tend to give them more hints and warnings so they can make informed decisions. Once they decide, though, we play it straight most of the time.
> 
> ...




I fudge but if the players used a big ability like a major spell and brought the BBEG down in one round then I would let it stand. What I might do to keep the encounter going is on the fly have a bunch of angry mooks come out of the woodwork to try and take revenge.

I often make up encounters on the fly and I just decide okay they have hit it enough down the bad guy goes.

My world is organic my players know this. I give them plenty of clues so they can make a judgement on if they have a chance of defeating something. There are dragons in my game they fought  one at second level and won but they have also run from an ancient dragon they stumbled upon. 

Like I said I fudge but if my players at third level decide to take on an ancient dragon then I figure they are choosing to commit suicide by DM and I will oblige them.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 13, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> And I'm no less tired of being told that I don't care about my players or my campaign if I don't fudge the dice.
> 
> I'm don't think I'm being passive-aggressive about anything. Straight up, I think fudging, directly or indirectly, *inappropriate language removed*. I've played with referees who fudge and it kills the fun for me.
> 
> And I don't feel bad about holding that opinion. I'm neither asking nor expecting anyone to agree with me, but I'm not going to pretend that I think, "Oh, y'know, it's all good," when I believe it's an incredibly lazy practice that creates really bad habits for both referees and players.




This is why I am beginning to get really annoyed with what you are saying. I have not read anyone saying that if you don't fudge you don't care about your players or your campaign. 

Those of us who do fudge have said why we do it and that this is the way our group likes to play. No judgement is being made on how anyone else likes to play. 

But you keep using really negative words like rigging and calling us lazy and telling us we are basically bad players who are creating more bad players. So you are being judgmental and deciding that other groups play the game wrong.


----------



## Janx (Dec 13, 2011)

In the other thread, Elf Witch gave 2 examples where she fudged to spare the life of a PC.  One the player had a long night of bad luck AND had recently gotten some depressing medical news.

The other where a player had just lost 1 PC, and had rolled up his replacement PC, only to have it killed in 2 rounds of crits.  Basically thwarting all his work and investment when he was sitting out.  The player even thanked him, obliquely for sparing him if he had fudged it, because he was feeling pretty frustrated right at that moment.

They seemed to me to be good examples of justifying a Fudge to spare ruining a person's day.  Note, I said person.  Because that's what players are, and sometimes this stuff is personal to them.

Would Shaman, Exploder Wizard not fudge in these situations and ruin a person's day?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 13, 2011)

enrious said:


> If I may add a bit of advice to the non-fudgers, stop insisting on treating every single individual DM who does as part of a hive-mind collective when it comes to fudging.



So my stance as a non-fudger of "it's not fun for some people" is pigeonholing you? My stance of "if you like it, go for it" is somehow offensively grouping you all together?

Here's some advice from this non-fudger: stop grouping us all together, and assuming our views are the same. We're not a part of a hive-mind collective or anything. As always, play what you like


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 13, 2011)

Janx said:


> In the other thread, Elf Witch gave 2 examples where she fudged to spare the life of a PC.  One the player had a long night of bad luck AND had recently gotten some depressing medical news.
> 
> The other where a player had just lost 1 PC, and had rolled up his replacement PC, only to have it killed in 2 rounds of crits.  Basically thwarting all his work and investment when he was sitting out.  The player even thanked him, obliquely for sparing him if he had fudged it, because he was feeling pretty frustrated right at that moment.
> 
> ...




I think the important part of of this is realizing you are dealing with a person like Janx said. And maybe because I am female and I have been brought up to make sure my guest are happy and comfortable when I am hosting I find myself doing this in my game. It is about being a good host. I see part of my job as DM is making sure my players have a good time.

That does not mean always saying yes to their wants or always saving their PCs from harm but it does mean reading them and making a judgement call as to what will best enhance their gaming experience. 

And sometimes things change on what was agreed upon. For example we all agreed to play in a game with no raise dead and we had some character deaths and replacements PCs. But then one session I lost my PC who I had been playing for two years and another player lost his PC with those two dead there went any connection with the beginning of the game. The new characters didn't have all the knowledge of all the clues and things that we had done. 

I was miserable so was the other player we sent a dozen emails back and forth trying to come up with new characters we could get enthusiastic about. But we both knew they would pale and not really be what we wanted to play.

 Unknown to us the other players were writing the DM telling him that they were worried about impact it would have on the game to not to find away to bring back at least one of our dead characters.

Now yes we had a social contract we all agreed upon at the start of the game and the DM would have been well in his right to say tough this is what we agreed on.  He wanted a non cheesy game and saw raise dead as cheesy. But he was also a good DM who wanted his players to enjoy the game so he worked out away to raise both characters in a non cheesy way. 

My point is as a DM you need to be flexible and realize that things can change both in game and in real life. My roommate who DMs does not usually fudge if the dice say you die you die, but she fudged in one session for a player whose fiance's cancer had taken a bad turn she made a judgement that killing his PC that day would not enhance his fun.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 13, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> So my stance as a non-fudger of "it's not fun for some people" is pigeonholing you? My stance of "if you like it, go for it" is somehow offensively grouping you all together?
> 
> Here's some advice from this non-fudger: stop grouping us all together, and assuming our views are the same. We're not a part of a hive-mind collective or anything. As always, play what you like




I don't think he is painting everyone with this broad a brush. I have not seen any of us who support fudging lumping you all in the same boat. 

But there are some of the non fudgers who are doing this.


----------



## enrious (Dec 13, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I don't think he is painting everyone with this broad a brush. I have not seen any of us who support fudging lumping you all in the same boat.
> 
> But there are some of the non fudgers who are doing this.




Oh, I was - to demonstrate a point, which he rightfully called me on.

Every single one of us as DMs are unique DMs, whether we fudge or don't, whether we roll in the open or not, whether we can pull off a non-annoying English accent (or Southern accent if the DM in question is English).

Every single one of us are unique, save that some of us fudge and some don't.  And those who do have a set of circumstances and degree unique to each.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 13, 2011)

enrious said:


> Oh, I was - to demonstrate a point, which he rightfully called me on.
> 
> Every single one of us as DMs are unique DMs, whether we fudge or don't, whether we roll in the open or not, whether we can pull off a non-annoying English accent (or Southern accent if the DM in question is English).
> 
> Every single one of us are unique, save that some of us fudge and some don't.  And those who do have a set of circumstances and degree unique to each.




Well I see what you were trying to do but I still maintain that some posters are lumping people who fudge as being all the same without any nuances. Of course I will admit this subject tends to get my back up because words like cheating, rigging  not playing the game right tend to get tossed around. 

Look how often the statement was made of if you fudge why bother to use dice at all. Talk about going to an extreme.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 13, 2011)

enrious said:


> And what if I professed that I believe that worshiping at the altar of Dice is imagination-stifling and it creates nothing but DMs and players who can't think on their feet, slavishly adhere to some false paragon of gaming virtue (that doesn't exist), and offers no remediation for human error.



Then I would say you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, since adapting to the results of the dice takes far more imagination than saying, "No, that didn't happen."







enrious said:


> Please, point out where people have been saying you don't care about your players or game because you don't fudge.
> 
> Pretty please.



Since you asked nicely.







korjik said:


> If you think that letting a friend sit around for hours is somehow more important than fudging a roll, so be it.



Pretty much the same comment can be found in threads on this topic - of which there are many - on any of the tabletop roleplaying game forums I frequent. Sometimes it's about not making a player sit out, or about protecting the 'story,' or not letting the campaign 'die,' but the thrust of all of them is the same: if you don't fudge the dice, then you're a  referee.

I'm sure there are more in this vein in this same thread, but if you want to read them, then please feel free to dig up the rest yourself.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 13, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> This is why I am beginning to get really annoyed with what you are saying. I have not read anyone saying that if you don't fudge you don't care about your players or your campaign.
> 
> Those of us who do fudge have said why we do it and that this is the way our group likes to play. No judgement is being made on how anyone else likes to play.



I addressed this in my reply to [MENTION=2126]enrious[/MENTION] already; I'm not going through it again.







Elf Witch said:


> But you keep using really negative words like rigging and calling us lazy and telling us we are basically bad players who are creating more bad players. So you are being judgmental and deciding that other groups play the game wrong.



And why exactly is that a problem?

Is this one of those geek fallacy things, where no one is every supposed to criticize anyone else's opinion? Sorry, I don't subscribe to that rag.


----------



## enrious (Dec 14, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> I addressed this in my reply to [MENTION=2126]enrious[/MENTION] already; I'm not going through it again.And why exactly is that a problem?
> 
> Is this one of those geek fallacy things, where no one is every supposed to criticize anyone else's opinion? Sorry, I don't subscribe to that rag.




No, because you want to be _right_ about something that has no right or wrong.

Your opinion of DMs and players who fudge is just as far from reality as the one I presented.

So yeah, here's where I criticize your extreme opinion for being as illogical and malformed as the opposite extreme opinion.


----------



## enrious (Dec 14, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Then I would say you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, since adapting to the results of the dice takes far more imagination than saying, "No, that didn't happen."




Cool, then I would have been thinking the same thing - it takes more imagination to fudge and deal with the results than to mindlessly be beholden to small geometric bits of plastic.

So thanks for showing me the illogic of both extreme positions.




> Since you asked nicely.Pretty much the same comment can be found in threads on this topic - of which there are many - on any of the tabletop roleplaying game forums I frequent. Sometimes it's about not making a player sit out, or about protecting the 'story,' or not letting the campaign 'die,' but the thrust of all of them is the same: if you don't fudge the dice, then you're a  referee.
> 
> I'm sure there are more in this vein in this same thread, but if you want to read them, then please feel free to dig up the rest yourself.




Here's why your position is untenable.

The pro-fudge crowd aren't advocating fudging 100% of the time.  (At least I haven't seen any poster advocate it in this thread)

Thus, you cannot draw any absolute conclusions about the manner in which a given DM would adjudicate a certain issue.

On the other hand, you've self-identified yourself as being someone who will always act a certain way in given circumstances, thus someone can reasonably discuss conclusions about how you would act in given circumstances (the correctness or incorrectness while important is immaterial).

Thus, for someone to speculate how you will act makes the start of informed debate; anyone speculating how a fudging DM will act is a non-starter because there is foundation upon which to lay your argument.

So yeah, some DMs who fudge have already said that they'd alleviate an unfun/unfair/whatever situation that would result in a variety of effects detrimental to a game/campaign/whatever.

And you know, I suspect a lot of fudge-deniers (just seeing if S'mon is still reading this  ) would do the same, but it's the manner that seems to be the issue.

But if I'm wrong and people wouldn't, you have given the foundation of a discussion about how you would or would not act, so you shouldn't be offended if people take the invite seriously.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 14, 2011)

enrious said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, do you recognize that the opposite position is equally valid?
> 
> "For some people, letting the dice roll with a degree of fudging is the most fun; not fudging is unfun. So the idea that a DM will not fudge for or against them to make things more fun is contradictory. It's basically saying, "I'm going to add just enough unfun to make the game fun."



Your question exemplifies the problem. You seem to think that clarifying one preference is saying that the opposite preference is invalid.

This:
For some people, vanilla is delicious; chocolate is yucky. So the idea that an ice cream scooper will add chocolate to a sundae to make the dessert better is contradictory. It's basically saying, "I'm going to add just enough yuck to make the dessert delicious."

...does not invalidate:
For some people, chocolate is delicious; vanilla is yucky. So the idea that an ice cream scooper will add vanilla to a sundae to make the dessert better is contradictory. It's basically saying, "I'm going to to add just enough yuck to make the dessert delicious."

Bullgrit


----------



## enrious (Dec 14, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> Your question exemplifies the problem. You seem to think that clarifying one preference is saying that the opposite preference is invalid.




Not at all.

You stated a preference based on like.   I asked if the opposite preference based upon like was also valid, for other people.

Then you tried to get me hungry for some reason.

If you think I'm automatically assuming that because you like x, you hate anti-x, no.

After all, look a few posts up and you'll understand why I would like to know what your own, unique, individual opinion is.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2011)

enrious said:


> No, because you want to be _right_ about something that has no right or wrong.



Really?







The Shaman said:


> I'm neither asking nor expecting anyone to agree with me . . .



So I was lying right there?


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> For some people, letting the dice roll without fudging is the most fun; fudging is unfun. So the idea that a DM will fudge for or against them to make things more fun is contradictory. It's basically saying, "I'm going to add just enough unfun to make the game fun."



Bingo.







Bullgrit said:


> You seem to think that clarifying one preference is saying that the opposite preference is invalid.



Bingo again.







Janx said:


> Would Shaman, Exploder Wizard not fudge in these situations and ruin a person's day?



If you're having a bad day and aren't up to playing, then say so, and we'll reschedule.

If you show up to play, you're accepting that bad things may happen to your character.


----------



## enrious (Dec 14, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Really?So I was lying right there?




I say, "No, because you want to be right about something that has no right or wrong."

You retort with a statement you made earlier, "I'm neither asking nor expecting anyone to agree with me . . ."

Which has nothing to do with what I said.  I said right, I didn't say "persuasive".  I didn't say "on the side that everyone agrees with".  I didn't say "on the least popular position".

I said right, in a right or wrong context.

Like what happens when we look at the entirety of what you said and not just a throwaway sentence:



> "And I don't feel bad about holding that opinion. I'm neither asking nor expecting anyone to agree with me, but I'm not going to pretend that I think, "Oh, y'know, it's all good," when I believe it's an incredibly lazy practice that creates really bad habits for both referees and players."




As for lying or not, I lack any method to verify the charge one way or another.  Thus, it is simply up to each individual reader to formulate their own opinion of the matter.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2011)

enrious said:


> *snipped*



As [MENTION=31216]Bullgrit[/MENTION] noted, you're missing the difference between, "I don't like how you do it," and, "You're doing it wrong."

With that in mind, I'm done discussing this with you now.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 14, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> I addressed this in my reply to [MENTION=2126]enrious[/MENTION] already; I'm not going through it again.And why exactly is that a problem?
> 
> Is this one of those geek fallacy things, where no one is every supposed to criticize anyone else's opinion? Sorry, I don't subscribe to that rag.




No it is a not being a jerk kind of thing. It is one thing to disagree and not want something in your own game it is another thing to be make statements which come down to you are a bad DM and a cheater to boot.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 14, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> .If you're having a bad day and aren't up to playing, then say so, and we'll reschedule.
> 
> If you show up to play, you're accepting that bad things may happen to your character.




In the examples I gave my players did not come to the table and ask for special treatment. I choose to give it because I made a judgement call that I thought would make that session more fun for the player. You know the same way I make a hundred other judgement calls when I am DMing.

You know some people like to be with their friends when things are going bad in their life and playing is away of escaping from the situation. 

You seem to be very rigid in your outlook on this. I have fudged exactly twice to save a PC. It may never happen again on the other hand if I feel in my judgement as the DM that it makes for a better game then I will do it. 

I will never commit to the I will always or I will never do something as a DM. I believe a sign of a great DM is one that is flexible enough to realize that always and never can really suck the fun out of the game.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Dec 14, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Strip context much?





While I think Twichboy's concern and your response is the perfect example of the various comments regarding concerns for player/GM interaction, I think I'm going to leave it here.  Bullgrit has stated succinctly and aptly how there is a distinct preference and play-style difference that makes a lot more sense to me.  I still wonder about how that play-style is reasonably observed...but like I said, I think I'm gonna leave it here.

I sincerely hope you have as much fun gaming as I do and continue to do what works for you and your friends.


----------



## enrious (Dec 14, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> As [MENTION=31216]Bullgrit[/MENTION] noted, you're missing the difference between, "I don't like how you do it," and, "You're doing it wrong."




Were you to have actually read my posts in this thread, I daresay you'll understand how laughable your assertion is.

Here's a protip:

There's a difference between asserting someone thinks x and asking for clarification if someone thinks x.



> With that in mind, I'm done discussing this with you now.




I welcome you to actually discuss the topic with me, rather than make insulting and unsupported assertions ad nauseum.

But hey, it's all about having fun at the table at the end.  There's no right or wrong in that.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> You know some people like to be with their friends when things are going bad in their life and playing is away of escaping from the situation.



Honestly, if losing at a roleplaying game is so traumatic that you need to be isolated from the consequences of rolling a one when you really needed a twelve . . . ah, nevermind, not worth it.







Elf Witch said:


> You seem to be very rigid in your outlook on this.



"I reserve the right to fudge when I deem it appropriate," is no less rigid.

Please tell me you understand that.







Elf Witch said:


> I believe a sign of a great DM is one that is flexible enough to realize that always and never can really suck the fun out of the game.



And you are welcome to that belief.

Let me add one suggestion: if you make sure to let your players know up front, then you and I are guaranteed to never trouble one another in an actual game. Win-win, any way you slice it.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 14, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Honestly, if losing at a roleplaying game is so traumatic that you need to be isolated from the consequences of rolling a one when you really needed a twelve . . . ah, nevermind, not worth it."I reserve the right to fudge when I deem it appropriate," is no less rigid.
> 
> Please tell me you understand that.And you are welcome to that belief.
> 
> Let me add one suggestion: if you make sure to let your players know up front, then you and I are guaranteed to never trouble one another in an actual game. Win-win, any way you slice it.




First of all there is no losing at a role playing game. Just like there is no winning. And for some reason you feel the need to just spout off extremes over this subject. Why is that? 

I never said it would be traumatic  give me a break. What I said was that in my opinion it would not be as much fun for them. That is a huge difference from what you are making it out to be. All my players are mature adults and they are not going to let losing a character be a traumatic experience.  

When you game sometimes you have great games and sometimes not so much. I chose to make a DM decision on what I thought was the best way to make the session fun in those two cases. It is no different then any other decisions I have made to make the game fun for my group.

My players trust me and their opinion on my choosing to fudge is simply this I am the DM they trust my judgement on when to do it and when not to do it. They know my goal is to run a fun exciting game with interesting encounters and puzzles. 

And only on the internet can someone take a position that choosing to stay flexible and not make a statement like I will never fudge that it would have depend on  all the circumstances as some how being rigid. 

I don't think there would ever be any possibility of us being at the same table.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 14, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Is this one of those geek fallacy things, where no one is every supposed to criticize anyone else's opinion? Sorry, I don't subscribe to that rag.





No, it is one of those "EN World has civility rules" things.

You're welcome to not like what others do.  But to cast aspersions upon them personally (like calling them lazy) is rude.  It is really that simple.  

Address the logic of the position, not the person of the poster.  If you need to ascribe faults to people in order to support your position, then your position is pretty weak, and probably ought to be reconsidered.  If you don't need to ascribe faults, but you do it anyway, then you're acting like a jerk.

So, from this point on, I expect everyone to be kind and respectful to each other in this thread.  If you don't feel like abiding by that, please go find another thread that doesn't bring you to such nastiness.

Thanks, all, for your time.


----------



## Janx (Dec 14, 2011)

Umbran said:


> No, it is one of those "EN World has civility rules" things.
> 
> You're welcome to not like what others do.  But to cast aspersions upon them personally (like calling them lazy) is rude.  It is really that simple.
> 
> ...




Earlier this year, the evening news ran a short segment about these new tapes from Jackie Kennedy.  In a short bit, she recalled something Bobby or somebody had advised.

I lack the actual quote, but the gist of it was, never be so uncivil such that there is no reconcilliation possible.

There are ways of stating your position that don't incense the other side.  That make it unpalatable for them to even consider part of your argument because it reminds them of the disgust they have for you.

It seems like this is the lesson that applies when mods have to step in.


----------



## Janx (Dec 14, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> reserve the right to fudge when I deem it appropriate," is no less rigid.
> 
> Please tell me you understand that.And you are welcome to that belief.




I don't think that holds true in most people's minds.

Generally, when somebody declares that X is wrong and they will NEVER do it, that person is rigid, because they have stated a position on which they will not budge.  They have eliminated a possibility or choice for themselves.  It usually strikes others as undiplomatic.

When a person says they might or may use it, they are retaining the option.  They are in fact being more flexible in their stance.

In the world of communication, any time you give an absolute NO and NEVER, you are reducing options and holding a rigid stance.

Everytime you phrase it as "I would prefer not to..." or "I would avoid it if I could, but I can see how it might be useful for you" is more diplomatic and does not make you appear to be rigid.


----------



## enrious (Dec 14, 2011)

Janx said:


> In the world of communication, any time you give an absolute NO and NEVER, you are reducing options and holding a rigid stance.
> 
> Everytime you phrase it as "I would prefer not to..." or "I would avoid it if I could, but I can see how it might be useful for you" is more diplomatic and does not make you appear to be rigid.




This brings up a question I have for the folks in the never-fudging camp.

"Hypothetically, in a circumstance described above (player dealing with personal issue, player just lost the 2nd character quickly through no or little fault of their own) and given that you'll abide by the results of the die-roll, would you do any other adjudication to alleviate the impact?"

In other words, would you step in to do anything to make it to where the player doesn't have to roll up a new character, in that circumstance?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 14, 2011)

Janx said:


> I don't think that holds true in most people's minds.
> 
> Generally, when somebody declares that X is wrong and they will NEVER do it, that person is rigid, because they have stated a position on which they will not budge.  They have eliminated a possibility or choice for themselves.  It usually strikes others as undiplomatic.
> 
> When a person says they might or may use it, they are retaining the option.  They are in fact being more flexible in their stance.



Um, isn't that what The Shaman was pointing out? The Shaman said he would never do something (fudge rolls). Rigid. Elf Witch said she would never do something (commit to fudging or not fudging). Rigid.



> In the world of communication, any time you give an absolute NO and NEVER, you are reducing options and holding a rigid stance.



And Elf Witch will never play in a game with no fudging, or run a game with no fudging. She's ruled that out, yeah? She said:


			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I will *never* commit to the I will always or I will never do something as a DM.



This is something she will never do. Which means, she reserves the right to fudge at all times. Which means, she's adapted that right in a very rigid way.

It's not a matter of "fudging happens all the time" or "I fudge to make the story better" or anything like that. The Shaman was pointing out that saying "I will never do commit to fudging or not fudging" is just as rigid as "I will never fudge" because it amounts to "I reserve the right to fudge, and I will never change that stance."

So, again, it's not a matter of frequency, it's a matter of position. She's adopted a "never" stance; she's adopted a rigid stance. It just has more options. It's good for her group, and I'm cool with her playing that way, but in no way is her stance less rigid than The Shaman's.

As always, play what you like 



enrious said:


> In other words, would you step in to do anything to make it to where the player doesn't have to roll up a new character, in that circumstance?



No, I wouldn't. I would be mindful of the presentation, and I'd do my best to quickly help the player get into the game again, brainstorm for new ideas, or the like. I wouldn't fudge, but I might put the game on pause and ask the players to assist in brainstorming.

Obvious exceptions, of course. If the friend is in danger of harming himself or someone else, or something like that, then of course I'll be more mindful of what I do. I'd probably just talk to them instead of gaming, though. If they were set on playing still, to get their mind off things, then we'd play, and I might fudge. Of course, that's because it's for safety reasons. I think that's fairly safe to say that it's an exception to the rule. I imagine most "I always reserve the right to fudge" people would stop fudging if a friend had a gun and threatened to kill himself or someone else if there was any fudging.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Um, isn't that what The Shaman was pointing out? The Shaman said he would never do something (fudge rolls). Rigid. Elf Witch said she would never do something (commit to fudging or not fudging). Rigid.
> 
> 
> And Elf Witch will never play in a game with no fudging, or run a game with no fudging. She's ruled that out, yeah? She said:
> ...



Thank you for saving me the time of writing that out.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 14, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> This is something she will never do. Which means, she reserves the right to fudge at all times. Which means, she's adapted that right in a very rigid way.




I am rigidly flexible! I am absolutely rigid in my commitment to flexibility! I will always be as flexible as possible and I have thus achieved total rigidity!

We will now meditate on whether words mean anything.


----------



## Janx (Dec 14, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Um, isn't that what The Shaman was pointing out? The Shaman said he would never do something (fudge rolls). Rigid. Elf Witch said she would never do something (commit to fudging or not fudging). Rigid.
> 
> 
> And Elf Witch will never play in a game with no fudging, or run a game with no fudging. She's ruled that out, yeah? She said:
> ...




ah, the trap of semantics.

"I will never eat cake and I condemn those who do" is a rigid stance.

"I will never not eat cake" is like a double-negative (actually, it probably is).  Sure, it has the word Never in it.  You got me.

But there is a difference in those 2 statements.  The Cake hater has narrowed the field of choices.  If he was a politician, you can bet his platform is the banning of eating cake.  The are being restrictive in what they consider acceptable behavior.

The latter position is saying that they will avoid being restrictive.  Sure, it uses the word never, but the implication is that they will not take a restrictive stance.

So, the use of the word NO and NEVER are indicators, but there's more to it.  

I will never let people of your demographic vote is a rigid and restrictive position.

I will never support barrng people of your demographic from voting is no really rigid.

Yes, from the sense that they won't budge from their stance, but no in the larger picture of what the stance represents, which is the enfranchising of a group of people.

That's the difference.  That which condemns another group's preference is rigid.  That which commits to condemning another group is not rigid.

Honestly James, I expected you to get that distinction.  It is precisely why you put "As Always, play what you like"  Because while you have a preference, you imply with that statement that you do not wish to condemn or insult others that have an oppositional preference.

While we've all probably been less diplomatic at times in any of these threads, Shaman's words in this thread were much more restrictive and in fact insulting to those who disagree with his stance.  All because of his choice of words.


----------



## enrious (Dec 14, 2011)

Janx said:


> ah, the trap of semantics.
> 
> "I will never eat cake and I condemn those who do" is a rigid stance.
> 
> ...




Thank you for saving me the time of writing that out.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 14, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> I am rigidly flexible! I am absolutely rigid in my commitment to flexibility! I will always be as flexible as possible and I have thus achieved total rigidity!



I always wind up doing this... maybe it's because I'm a writer. Rigid:


			
				thefreedictionary.com said:
			
		

> rig·id
> 1. Not flexible or pliant; stiff.
> 2. Not moving; fixed.
> 3. Marked by a lack of flexibility; rigorous and exacting



Her way of doing things? The one that will _never_ change? That's rigid. Not  flexible. Here:


			
				thefreedictionary.com said:
			
		

> flex·i·ble
> 1.
> a. Capable of being bent or flexed; pliable.
> b. Capable of being bent repeatedly without injury or damage.
> ...



Her view? Yeah, it's not this. It is incapable of being bent or changed (according to her, but I'm allowing for obvious exceptions). It is not susceptible to persuasion (she has said she will _never_ change it). Her way of thinking is not adaptable, as it will always be as it is (according to what she's said).

We can talk of options that her view gives versus The Shaman's, but when speaking of just how rigid someone's view is, I think if both people are using the word "never", it's pretty clear.

Your second sentence ("I am absolutely rigid in my commitment to flexibility!") makes much more sense than your third sentence ("I will always be as flexible as possible and I have thus achieved total rigidity!"), in my mind. That is, she is absolutely rigid in her stance so that she can have more options. However, having more options or not does in no way directly relate to the rigidity of any view itself on said options, so your third sentence seems off.

At any rate, I think The Shaman was pointing out the fact that her (rather justified) vehement opposition to his view of was a little contradictory. That is, Elf Witch said the following: 



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I will never commit to the I will always or I will never do something as a DM. I believe a sign of a great DM is one that is flexible enough to realize that always and never can really suck the fun out of the game.



Her second sentence seems to strongly contradict her first sentence. By her view of _never_ committing to not fudge, even if that's what the players prefer, she's essentially committing to a "never" view, which, by her own words: "never can really suck the fun out of the game."

It's not a matter of options, it's a matter of rigid views. I mean, if the GM says "I will never rule out using laser guns, spaceship, pop culture references, and inserting NPCs of real life celebrities into this campaign" is more flexible than one who doesn't, but the group may not want that. By committing to a view of "I will never do that," the group will have a more enjoyable play experience.

Of course, Elf Witch's statement might disagree with my statement, above, but I think that was the gist of The Shaman's point. I don't think The Shaman's view was too difficult to follow. Of course, this all leads back to a base play style issue. It can get clouded by this, or people can say "some people don't like fudging, and they're not worse GMs for not doing so" (even if Elf Witch disagrees), and that "some groups like occasional fudging, and they're not worse GMs for doing so (even if The Shaman disagrees).

Seriously. This is a pretty simple play style issue. It's not a trust issue, it's not one group or GM being better or worse based solely on this view. It's just a different approach to Fun. Which, of course, we all know is subjective. Just go have Fun. As always, play what you like 



Janx said:


> ah, the trap of semantics.



No, The Shaman was commenting on her _mindset_, not the options that her mindset fosters. Big difference there.



> While we've all probably been less diplomatic at times in any of these threads, Shaman's words in this thread were much more restrictive and in fact insulting to those who disagree with his stance.  All because of his choice of words.



I think his wording was more insulting, but Elf Witch said "I believe a sign of a great DM is one that is flexible enough to realize that always and never can really suck the fun out of the game." You know what that means? That means that me and the Shaman would be a better GM for having that mindset. We're worse GMs for not having it. That is potentially pretty offensive, and it's definitely a rigid mindset.

It's like the difference between playing "only core" and "anything goes" in 3.X or 4e. Some people will say (or imply), "if you play core only, it's because you're easily overwhelmed by options" or the like. I've played core only, and as someone who _designed his own 350-page RPG based around player options_, I can easily shrug this criticism off.

It's not about options, it's about the rigidity of the viewpoint. See the difference? It's not semantics, it's context of The Shaman's statement. As always, play what you like


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 14, 2011)

A commitment to maintaining options is not rigidity. I'm sorry. It's not. You're twisting the dictionary definition of the word beyond all recognition.

More to the point, you're allowing the argument to devolve into a silly semantic quibble, in which "rigid" is taken to imply "bad" and therefore both sides must avoid the "rigid" label at all costs. Here's the counter-argument you _should_ be making: "For some groups, a rigid commitment to not fudging is more fun than knowing the DM has the option to 'adjust' the outcome."

Rigidity is not inherently bad. If your bones suddenly became flexible, your quality of life would not be improved thereby. The question is, for you and the other people in your gaming group, which is best: A rigid commitment to not fudge, a rigid commitment to always fudge in certain situations, or giving the DM the option to fudge or not as seems best to her? There is no one answer that's right for everybody.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 14, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> A commitment to maintaining options is not rigidity. I'm sorry. It's not. You're twisting the dictionary definition of the word beyond all recognition.



The options make the game more flexible, yes. The commitment itself is rigid if it will _never_ change, as Elf Witch said, and as The Shaman pointed out.



> More to the point, you're allowing the argument to devolve into a silly semantic quibble, in which "rigid" is taken to imply "bad" and therefore both sides must avoid the "rigid" label at all costs.



No, I'm not. I said: "By committing to a view of "I will never do that," the group will have a more enjoyable play experience." That doesn't -in any way- mean or imply that "rigid" is "bad", and I'm not sure how you got that out of my post.



> Here's the counter-argument you _should_ be making: "For some groups, a rigid commitment to not fudging is more fun than knowing the DM has the option to 'adjust' the outcome."



Um, I think I'll stick to my arguments (since it essentially included this). But thanks.



> Rigidity is not inherently bad. If your bones suddenly became flexible, your quality of life would not be improved thereby. The question is, for you and the other people in your gaming group, which is best: A rigid commitment to not fudge, a rigid commitment to always fudge in certain situations, or giving the DM the option to fudge or not as seems best to her? There is no one answer that's right for everybody.



Thus, I said:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> It can get clouded by this, or people can say "some people don't like fudging, and they're not worse GMs for not doing so" (even if Elf Witch disagrees), and that "some groups like occasional fudging, and they're not worse GMs for doing so (even if The Shaman disagrees).
> 
> Seriously. This is a pretty simple play style issue. It's not a trust issue, it's not one group or GM being better or worse based solely on this view. It's just a different approach to Fun. Which, of course, we all know is subjective. Just go have Fun. As always, play what you like



Yeah. I said it's a play style issue. I don't know if you're disagreeing with me to be argumentative, or if you've just misunderstood me. But, my views are in the thread, if you want to go read them. As always, play what you like


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> No, The Shaman was commenting on her _mindset_, not the options that her mindset fosters. Big difference there.



Thanks for trying, [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] , but at this point I think the horse is gonna stand there until it dies of thirst.

An inflexible commitment to flexibility is an inflexible commitment - it really shouldn't be that hard to grasp, and yet here we are.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 14, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> An inflexible commitment to flexibility is an inflexible commitment - it really shouldn't be that hard to grasp, and yet here we are.



Indeed. Here we are.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 14, 2011)

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes."
-- Obi-Wan Kenobi

Bullgrit


----------



## Reynard (Dec 14, 2011)

I like potato chips. I eat them pretty often.

I love coffee. I have coffee every day, sometimes more than once a day. If I don't drink coffee it is because I am sick or there just isn't any.

I don't like soda. It just doesn't appeal to me. Once in a while I will have a rum and coke or a root beer float, though.

I loathe lobster. It disgusts me. I never eat it, no matter how it is prepared. If i was starving, maybe, or if not eating it would truly offend someone I care about, I guess I would choke it down.


----------



## Janx (Dec 14, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Thanks for trying, [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] , but at this point I think the horse is gonna stand there until it dies of thirst.
> 
> An inflexible commitment to flexibility is an inflexible commitment - it really shouldn't be that hard to grasp, and yet here we are.




Yet there is a world of difference in the kind of person who says "I will NEVER reconsider or change my mind"

Versus "I will NEVER be unwilling to reconsider or change ny mind"

Surely, you see a difference in mindset?

The alternative statements without using the word NEVER is as follows:

"I am unwilling to reconsider or change my mind"

versus "I am always willing to reconsider and change my mind"

It's not just the semantics of using the word NEVER.  And I'm not looking up quotes on whatever the smurf Elf Witch said.  I got the hunch some typos were made and whatever was quoted wasn't originally stated that well.

What I do know is, Shaman has a rigid stance on not fudging.  And anybody who's on the pro-fudging side, is not really in the "yay, the law says I can fudge so let's get fudgy!" and it fact simply uses it as a tool when they need it.  I would in fact suspect that pro-fudgers use it reluctantly and would prefer to not have the situation come up where they needed it.

That is to me, a flexible stance.  Being prepared to consider an option and use it is the mark of a flexible person.

Now somebody could take a moral stance, and say that somebody who might be so flexible to consider murder as a possible solution is on the slippery slope to damnation.  And conversly, somebody who strictly adheres to a non-violence ethic is being "rigid" but retains some moral high ground.

I see the world as a toolbox.  I don't like laws and rules that restrict me from using tools.  But I also accept that I should use the right tool for the job.  However, I reserve Rule 0, that exceptions do come up that the rules/laws make things worse, not better.  In which case, those situations are where one violates the rule/law/best practice for the purpose of handling the exceptional instance.


----------



## enrious (Dec 14, 2011)

From the Urban Dictionary:

Pedantic:



> 1. A state of mind which is about caring a lot about formalities, often more than necessary. One may be called pedantic when he/she points out corrections in unimportant details.
> 
> 2. The nitpickery of the english language that drives the less detail oriented insane...often mistaken as a tool to impress others when in fact it is annoying.
> 
> ...




I'm sorry but I don't care how you try to spin the English language to making someone as rigid if they swear to be flexible, it severely fails the smell test.

That said, 



			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> It's not a matter of options, it's a matter of rigid views. I mean, if the GM says "I will never rule out using laser guns, spaceship, pop culture references, and inserting NPCs of real life celebrities into this campaign" is more flexible than one who doesn't, but the group may not want that. By committing to a view of "I will never do that," the group will have a more enjoyable play experience.
> 
> Of course, Elf Witch's statement might disagree with my statement, above, but I think that was the gist of The Shaman's point. I don't think The Shaman's view was too difficult to follow. Of course, this all leads back to a base play style issue. It can get clouded by this, or people can say "some people don't like fudging, and they're not worse GMs for not doing so" (even if Elf Witch disagrees), and that "some groups like occasional fudging, and they're not worse GMs for doing so (even if The Shaman disagrees).
> 
> Seriously. This is a pretty simple play style issue. It's not a trust issue, it's not one group or GM being better or worse based solely on this view. It's just a different approach to Fun. Which, of course, we all know is subjective. Just go have Fun. As always, play what you like.




Is essentially "it" - it is stylistic and *that* has no right or wrong, only compatible or incompatible.   

The fussin' and feudin' comes in when someone says that people of one style are lazy, incompetent, or whatnot and that form of extremism is ludicrous.  

However, fundamentally, people should be worried about compatibility rather than the Holy Way of DMing/Gaming.  In this, Jameson is IMO absolutely correct.

Also, "I think his wording was more insulting, but Elf Witch said "I believe a sign of a great DM is one that is flexible enough to realize that always and never can really suck the fun out of the game." You know what that means? That means that me and the Shaman would be a better GM for having that mindset. We're worse GMs for not having it. That is potentially pretty offensive, and it's definitely a rigid mindset."

I wonder if anyone truly disagrees with it?  Because in order for someone to disagree, then they'd have to run an extreme game (nevermind the small bits of plastic generally at issue in this discussion) that I doubt on the face of it anyone truly runs.

Indeed, Jameson you said earlier that you would "brainstorm" ways to ameliorate the circumstance/situation described above (and one that may cause other DMs to fudge) - apart from degree, where is that any difference in kind of alteration to the game that is so vehemently denounced by the no-fudging crowd?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 14, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> An inflexible commitment to flexibility is an inflexible commitment - it really shouldn't be that hard to grasp, and yet here we are.




Yes it is.  Tautological, even.  You have to be careful with tautologies, though, as they often reduce to what a mathematician or physicist would call a "trivial statement", and those usually don't carry as much meaning as you might think in the context in which they're stated.

Let us take the statement (1), "I will never do X."  It is a commitment to not undertake a practice.

Let us then look at statement (2), "I will never commit to not doing X." It is a commitment to not undertake a practice of undertaking a practice.  It is also inflexible, but one level up from the previous statement.  If (1) is a rule, then (2) is a meta-rule - a rule about rules.  You're both inflexible, but inflexible on different levels.

As a physicist, I want to talk here about a "phase space" - the set of all possible states or actions that might be taken.  An adherent of (1) has eliminated more possible actions from his or her future than an adherent of (2).  So, while both statements are inflexible absolutes, an adherent of (2) has more possible actions open to them, so the result is more flexible than adhering to (1).

So, in one sense the Shaman is right, and in another Elf Witch is right.


----------



## enrious (Dec 14, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Yes it is.  Tautological, even.  You have to be careful with tautologies, though, as they often reduce to what a mathematician or physicist would call a "trivial statement", and those usually don't carry as much meaning as you might think in the context in which they're stated.
> 
> Let us take the statement (1), "I will never do X."  It is a commitment to not undertake a practice.
> 
> ...




But in context, isn't there a "right" and "more right" aspect of the two arguments?

Or this way, "flexible" and "less flexible".


----------



## S'mon (Dec 14, 2011)

enrious said:


> So yeah, some DMs who fudge have already said that they'd alleviate an unfun/unfair/whatever situation that would result in a variety of effects detrimental to a game/campaign/whatever.
> 
> And you know, I suspect a lot of fudge-deniers (just seeing if S'mon is still reading this  ) would do the same, but it's the manner that seems to be the issue.




I've occasionally had friendly NPCs raise dead PCs, but only when reasonably plausible.  A PC IMC died recently, killed by elite-ified wolves outside the tower of Treona (from The Slaying Stone), a seer who wanted to hire the party to get the Stone.  The module says Treona can raise dead PCs, but assumes the PCs will have to pay for the materials to have their comrade raised.  I decided Treona would raise the PC cost-free, and that she had enough materials on hand to do so right away.  A really adversarial GM would not have done that.


----------



## enrious (Dec 14, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I've occasionally had friendly NPCs raise dead PCs, but only when reasonably plausible.  A PC IMC died recently, killed by elite-ified wolves outside the tower of Treona (from The Slaying Stone), a seer who wanted to hire the party to get the Stone.  The module says Treona can raise dead PCs, but assumes the PCs will have to pay for the materials to have their comrade raised.  I decided Treona would raise the PC cost-free, and that she had enough materials on hand to do so right away.  A really adversarial GM would not have done that.




First, that sounds pretty cool.

But let me stop you for a minute, please define "plausible" such that it differs from a lowering of hidden hit points, stats, or rolls of the dice.

Thank you.


----------



## Janx (Dec 14, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Yes it is.  Tautological, even.  You have to be careful with tautologies, though, as they often reduce to what a mathematician or physicist would call a "trivial statement", and those usually don't carry as much meaning as you might think in the context in which they're stated.
> 
> Let us take the statement (1), "I will never do X."  It is a commitment to not undertake a practice.
> 
> ...




I think i'll side with the mathematical answer.  More options = more flexible.

Shaman seems to vote for 1 and 1 is less flexible
Elf Witch votes for 2 and 2 is more flexible

Regardless how it is worded, the math bears out the answer in this case.

It really comes down to, how hard is it to say, "I really prefer using the dice results and not altering them (fudging).  I don't expect to ever use fudging in my game." and be done with it.

That doesn't insult anybody, sticks to the truth that fudging won't happen in Shaman's game, but also acknowledges the unlikely and remotest possibility that some unforseen circumstance COULD come up where Shaman may need to consider fudging the outcome.

That is ultimately the problem with "I will NEVER" statements (type 1 statements).  Its the presumption that the speaker has considered every possibily and that they cannot has misconsidered.

It's like the old saying, "never say never."  When I see such a statement, I see arrogance and a lack of wisdom and diplomacy.  Bear in mind, this site is chock full of such statements by myself.  Now and then, when I make my Wisdom roll, I see the folly of such, and it is always easier to see it in others than oneself.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 14, 2011)

_No.  I might go easy on a player because I was over-tough previously, though.  Eg I heavily boosted the wolves in what was written as a fairly easy fight, had them all focus attacks on the squishiest PC (she did just Burning Hands them, mind you), had them action point, and had them keep attacking her after she was down, killing her before any other PC had even had their first action.  _

Oh yeah - and I had killed her previous PC 2 sessions previously, TPK'd by goblins in the first game she & the other players had ever played with me.  

I have to say I felt a bit like Elf Witch described feeling when she fudged to keep a PC alive, I really didn't want to see that player lose a PC again.  But I didn't fudge to keep her alive, and I didn't fudge to help the other PCs drive off the wolves.  They had to pull through on their own, in a desperate fight where IME a lot of players would have broken and run, abandoning their comrade's corpse to the wolves.  I think they had a little bit of good karma owed them then.


----------



## Janx (Dec 14, 2011)

enrious said:


> First, that sounds pretty cool.
> 
> But let me stop you for a minute, please define "plausible" such that it differs from a lowering of hidden hit points, stats, or rolls of the dice.
> 
> Thank you.




It sounds like [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] fudged the cost of Raise Dead with this NPC to be zero.

As for plausible, I'm guessing the case is to give the PCs a break through NPC action (being nicer or moving dumber), or creating in-game content that helps the PCs and does not contradict any other facts of the game.

For instance, the next chest the party searches has a healing potion in it.  It wasn't in the notes, but the GM put it there to be nice right then.  If it's plausible to be there (because sometimes chests do have healing potions), then he's fudged game content in favor of the player.

Assuming my definition of fudging by game content manipulation is correct, this is why I call the whole concept of not-fudging into question.  Because the GM is ultimately making all this stuff up.  Either on the fly, or on paper first.  Unless he systematically generates it (random tables?), the human bias (good and bad) is at play behind the GM screen.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 14, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> Rigidity is not inherently bad.




Indeed.  I'm an Ullsterman; for us rigidity is the highest virtue.

"_S'mon says NO! to fudging!_"


----------



## S'mon (Dec 14, 2011)

enrious said:


> First, that sounds pretty cool.
> 
> But let me stop you for a minute, please define "plausible" such that it differs from a lowering of hidden hit points, stats, or rolls of the dice.
> 
> Thank you.




Plausible within the established game world reality.  Changing hp once a creature has entered play is changing established in-game reality. So is changing dice rolls, once rolled.  I guess that's the red line for me.  I might declare "Your PCs are knocked out" without rolling any dice, eg as the start of an adventure, but I would never fudge dice rolls to ensure PCs were knocked out.  I'm big on consistency of the game world.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 14, 2011)

Janx said:


> It sounds like [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] fudged the cost of Raise Dead with this NPC to be zero.




Treona still used 500gp of components to raise the PC.  It is not established in the module whether she has raise dead components on hand, AIR.  I decided she was using the last of the once-wealthy Kiris clan's resources to effect the 'raise'.  There were good in-game reasons for her to do this.


----------



## enrious (Dec 14, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Plausible within the established game world reality.  Changing hp once a creature has entered play is changing established in-game reality. So is changing dice rolls, once rolled.  I guess that's the red line for me.  I might declare "Your PCs are knocked out" without rolling any dice, eg as the start of an adventure, but I would never fudge dice rolls to ensure PCs were knocked out.  I'm big on consistency of the game world.





Ok, but just to clarify - we are talking about an imaginary world in which the players and player-characters aren't fully knowledgeable?

I guess I'm trying to understand drawing a line in Schrodinger's Gameworld, when from my perspective, it's just as arbitrary as people who fudge dice rolls, hit points, etc. are accused of being.

I'm honestly trying to understand - as I said before I doubt we're really that different as DMs - the difference may be degree, but I doubt it is kind.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 14, 2011)

enrious said:


> Ok, but just to clarify - we are talking about an imaginary world in which the players and player-characters aren't fully knowledgeable?




Yup.  But I know.

Also, I think that fudging can be a slippery slope, it can easily become detectable, and it can ruin the game for many players.  As a player I can tolerate it as long as I still have plenty of freedom of action (ie no fudging to maintain railroad plot), but I know players who absolutely won't tolerate it.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 14, 2011)

To me, there's a difference between fiat (fine) and fudge (bad).  I think many people see them as equivalent.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 14, 2011)

enrious said:


> From the Urban Dictionary:
> 
> Pedantic:
> 
> I'm sorry but I don't care how you try to spin the English language to making someone as rigid if they swear to be flexible, it severely fails the smell test.



My reply was also called semantics. In reality, I believe it is context.



> Indeed, Jameson you said earlier that you would "brainstorm" ways to ameliorate the circumstance/situation described above (and one that may cause other DMs to fudge) - apart from degree, where is that any difference in kind of alteration to the game that is so vehemently denounced by the no-fudging crowd?



I would brainstorm up cool ideas for a new PC, help find a cool background for them, think up ways to work their character in, try to help them be very happy mechanically with the new PC, etc. I'd brainstorm for that sort of thing. So, if that wasn't clear, I apologize. As always, play what you like 



Janx said:


> I think i'll side with the mathematical answer.  More options = more flexible.



See, this is true. However, it's not what The Shaman was commenting on. That's the point I was trying to make. Do you get where I'm coming from? I have no real investment in this conversation, but I didn't like seeing him getting piled on when when statement was 100% correct (kinda... thanks Umbran....). As always, play what you like


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 15, 2011)

Janx said:


> ah, the trap of semantics.
> 
> "I will never eat cake and I condemn those who do" is a rigid stance.
> 
> ...




Thank you for saving me the time to write this out because you put it far better than I could have.

I would like to add to the poster who said that by not committing to never fudge I was being rigid as people who say they will never fudge.

In a semantics game you win here is your cookie. 

But in real life it is not the same thing as others have shown. As a DM I am reserving the right to make judgements on how to make the game enjoyable for my players. And to do that I feel that flexibility is called for. Say I one day have a bunch of players who want to always have the dice stand as they fall no matter what then I would choose not to fudge. 

Being flexible allows me to tailor my game for the players at my table right then. Which is why I don't understand DMs who make statements of I will never do something. 

As a player I don't want to play with a DM who does not roll behind a screen I have already explained why that is. So yes you could say as a player I am more rigid in my outlooks on what I want in the game I play in. 

But there is a difference between being a player and a DM . I know that I never see myself as a player ever playing a dwarf I dislike them but as a DM I allow them in my game if that is what a player wants to play.

And no I was not saying that choosing not to fudge makes you a bad DM. I will clarify what I meant I believe that great DMs are flexible and open minded that their goal is to make the game as enjoyable as possible. I am not talking about just about fudging. In my opinion a DM who fudges after players have asked them not to is not being  flexible they are being as rigid as A DM who never fudges even if his players would prefer it. 

Earlier I used an example of a game that didn't have raise dead in it and for close to two years everyone at the table was okay with it but then things changed and the players went to the DM and said this is not working for us can we change it. Now a rigid a DM would have stuck to his guns and said no I don't like raise dead you all agreed to this so suck it up or leave the game. But he was a flexible DM and listened to his players and made an exception to make the game more enjoyable for all the players at his table.


----------



## enrious (Dec 15, 2011)

S'mon said:


> To me, there's a difference between fiat (fine) and fudge (bad).  I think many people see them as equivalent.




Thanks, S'mon.

I guess I'm still trying to figure out if it's a difference of degree or kind.


To me, it sounds like degree, but judging from your response, I take it you think it is a difference of kind?


----------



## enrious (Dec 15, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I would brainstorm up cool ideas for a new PC, help find a cool background for them, think up ways to work their character in, try to help them be very happy mechanically with the new PC, etc. I'd brainstorm for that sort of thing. So, if that wasn't clear, I apologize. As always, play what you like




Thanks for the clarification.



> See, this is true. However, it's not what The Shaman was commenting on. That's the point I was trying to make. Do you get where I'm coming from? I have no real investment in this conversation, but I didn't like seeing him getting piled on when when statement was 100% correct (kinda... thanks Umbran....). As always, play what you like




I see where you're coming from, but IMO, by arguing "Hey, you're both being rigid - one in rigidly no and the other in rigidly open to anything," then it's like you stopped one logical conclusion too short.

In other words, an artificial stoppage to artificially bolster an argument.


----------



## Janx (Dec 15, 2011)

Ultimately, the OT was about the OP hearing from his DM that he has a fudging policy.

a) awful nice of the GM to think of explaining his practice. not everybody even thinks of this.

b) freaking out about a little fudging is a bit extreme in my opinion.  I think there are worse problems the GM could have, like railroading.

c) understanding the areas he fudges should be part of the decision.  I don't mind a fudge to fix a glitch, but I wouldn't want a fudge to thwart my PC's success.  I'd also prefer you designed the encounter right and fair, rather than jacked with making it easier/harder.  In fact, if something's supposed to be harder, foreshadow that and don't pull a surprise, it's +10 levels over you.

The OP made it sound like the DM's fudge policy might be broader that glitch fixing.  That's certainly a red flag and if there were any others that'd be a criteria to avoid the game.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 15, 2011)

enrious said:


> To me, it sounds like degree, but judging from your response, I take it you think it is a difference of kind?




Yes, I think the mindset and implications are different.  I don't count making raise dead available as fudging.  Fudging is used to mean changing the results of dice rolls, post roll.  I don't like doing that.  I don't use a DM screen; everything in the open.  Yet I suspect I could still run a game that Elf Witch would enjoy; where eg non-dramatic PC death was very unlikely.


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Dec 15, 2011)

Not accepting random rolls of dice to be fudged mid-combat or chaning of hp/ac/gear is what sucks. I don't care if dm rolls from his random table some encounter and doesn't want to run it and rolls again. Those tables aren't meant as strait-jackets for dm but inspirational tool. Anyone most dm:s arent giving their monster random tables and other things like to for players to consult.

Dm's making some random rolls for nothing just to make players wonder, is also no-issue. I don't like games where everyone is requesting to know what dm is rolling for. 

Fudging random results is kinda bad habit that tends to grow. Because, for story, luck sometimes just sucks. I know few dm:s who change stuff all the time, way to blatantly. End result was that couple of players started to cheat as well.

So why do you roll when you don't really want to? There are other ways around pc deaths, mishaps, action points are good. Maybe give them to few npc:s too. But this is matter of discussion with your group. 
Then altering random rolls woudn't feel as cheap. (And woudn't be.)


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 15, 2011)

*Codifying fudges*

I've been thinking about codifying fudging explicitly (instead of implicitly like rule 0) into the rules. Presumably at least some who don't like fudging would be fine with it if it was done within a set of rules, since then it wouldn't seem like "cheating".

The two main uses/consequences of fudging in combat are to 1) helping PCs stay alive and 2) helping NPCs stay alive. The reasons for the two are often different, but that's the mechanical part. ("Alive" can also mean "up and fighting".)

For the first there is a widely used mechanic for it: action/hero points. However, they often become just another resource that players take into account when making decisions. This is especially true if you can use them for something else than surviving an otherwise lethal situation.

A "fix" for that could be to have, lets call them fate points, that would not be known to the player. The initial number of them could be rolled (e.g. 1d4-1 so you wouldn't know if you have any) and kept by either the DM or another player. They would only affect the game in a limited way.

For the latter you could have fate points for NPCs, but that doesn't quite work. Instead, I'd give major NPCs an ability that prevented them from dying in the first round or two in exchange for some cost. The cost should be something that benefits the PCs about as much as the NPC dying. In D&D I could have the ability either return the NPC to full hp and give the PCs double XP or return the NPC to 1/4th hp and give them 1.5x the XP.


----------



## Janx (Dec 15, 2011)

Zelda Themelin said:


> So why do you roll when you don't really want to? There are other ways around pc deaths, mishaps, action points are good. Maybe give them to few npc:s too. But this is matter of discussion with your group.
> Then altering random rolls woudn't feel as cheap. (And woudn't be.)




That would have seemed like the most obvious answer.  Shaman asked the question a few miles upstream.  Somebody answered it.

the GM rolls because he thinks he wants to.  He hasn't fully considered all the possibilities or dismisses the unlikely possibility.

Then he rolls a 20 on the first attack of the round.  Then he confirms the crit.  Then he rolls a whopping max damage.  And a PC would be dead if he announced the total.

there are times where this happens and the GM will go with it and announce the total and the PC is dead.  There are other times, where the GM now considers other factors and decides to give the PC a chance and makes the damage be less.

the GM probably always rolls dice because that's how you keep the presentation layer to the players the same.  It would definitely break immersion in you present 2 situations that are identical but presented differently (why isn't he rolling any dice now?)

the GM rolls dice because that's what the normal rules say to do.  Roll to-hit.  Roll a save.  It's only when an extreme outcome comes up that he's surprised and considers ignoring the result.

It's not rocket science.  Not all GMs have perfect adventure designs, perfect foresight and perfect execution.  So they get surprised and adjust as they think they need to.

I also wouldn't call it cheap.  Every one I play with (under all the GMs) knows the GM may fudge.  We may even know when the GM has spared us (one of them asks "how many hitpoint did you have?").  it doesn't bother any of us.

Maybe its because we don't see it as some great victory over a monster as a result of dice rolls that reduced his HP to zero.  In fact, killing monsters to me is just a side activity.  My real victory is not the dice rolls, but seeing good plans succeed and NPCs outsmarted.  Yes, some dice rolls may happen in there, but you can tell when your success is because you had a really good idea and not just because you rolled really well (or the GM fudged a result).


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 15, 2011)

enrious said:


> I see where you're coming from, but IMO, by arguing "Hey, you're both being rigid - one in rigidly no and the other in rigidly open to anything," then it's like you stopped one logical conclusion too short.
> 
> In other words, an artificial stoppage to artificially bolster an argument.



I disagree to an extent, as The Shaman's point seemed to be that by taking a "never" stance, it made it more fun for his group. This is something that Elf Witch indicated makes someone miss a sign of being a "good" GM.

See, she said:


			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I will *never* commit to the I will always or I will never do something as a DM. I believe a sign of a great DM is one that is *flexible enough to realize that always and never can really suck the fun out* of the game.



In her own post, she goes on to say that saying "never" can really suck the fun out of a game, and that it's the sign of a great GM to be flexible enough to realize that. The thing is, saying "never" to fudging _enhances_ the game for The Shaman, or for myself. Implying that being more flexible in options leads to a more fun game is simply not objectively true, in any sense.

That's the point. So, again, that's why I said:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> It's not a matter of options, it's a matter of rigid views. I mean, if the GM says "I will never rule out using laser guns, spaceship, pop culture references, and inserting NPCs of real life celebrities into this campaign" is more flexible than one who doesn't, but the group may not want that. By committing to a view of "I will never do that," the group will have a more enjoyable play experience.
> 
> It's like the difference between playing "only core" and "anything goes" in 3.X or 4e. Some people will say (or imply), "if you play core only, it's because you're easily overwhelmed by options" or the like. I've played core only, and as someone who designed his own 350-page RPG based around player options, I can easily shrug this criticism off.
> 
> It's not about options, it's about the rigidity of the viewpoint. See the difference? It's not semantics, it's context of The Shaman's statement.



It's not a matter of options. It's just not. If that's not clear by now, I doubt I can make it more clear. Thanks for the civil discussion, but if this doesn't clear it up, perhaps we'd better just call it a day, and agree to disagree. As always, play what you like


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 15, 2011)

Zelda Themelin said:


> Not accepting random rolls of dice to be fudged mid-combat or chaning of hp/ac/gear is what sucks. I don't care if dm rolls from his random table some encounter and doesn't want to run it and rolls again. Those tables aren't meant as strait-jackets for dm but inspirational tool. Anyone most dm:s arent giving their monster random tables and other things like to for players to consult.
> 
> Dm's making some random rolls for nothing just to make players wonder, is also no-issue. I don't like games where everyone is requesting to know what dm is rolling for.
> 
> ...




Why is it that some people who don't ever fudge think that those of have done do it because we don't like to roll dice?

It seems a little extreme to me to have this view. Most of the DMs I know who sometimes have fudged have done it very rarely. Myself I have done it twice out of thousands of rolls. 

What you are talking about where DMs change things all the time and this leads to players cheating is not what most of us are talking about. DMs who do that do it to protect their NPCs or the story and  it is so obvious that the players resent it and I don't blame them. 

I would never do that to my players I would never fudge to protect my NPCs if the players kill them in one round so be it. I have knocked down how many HP my BBEG have when I think the combat is dragging on to long and I can see boredom starting to creep in. I have also said when a player has done a great deal of damage in one blow and the NPC is at -6 you killed him because it is more dramatic then just letting him bleed out or having to slit his throat. 

I would never fudge or change something against the players when I do it, it is always in favor of the PCs. I also don't do it to protect a story or as a railroading tool.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 15, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Yes, I think the mindset and implications are different.  I don't count making raise dead available as fudging.  Fudging is used to mean changing the results of dice rolls, post roll.  I don't like doing that.  I don't use a DM screen; everything in the open.  Yet I suspect I could still run a game that Elf Witch would enjoy; where eg non-dramatic PC death was very unlikely.




I am sure you could run a game I could enjoy. Fudging a dice roll is not the only way to accomplish things. 

We were playing in the Sunless Citadel and my PC got ripped to pieces by a troll because of the mistakes two other players made. We to low level to be able to afford a raise dead and there were no priests around who were high enough level to do it. 

The DM threw into the treasure a raise dead scroll and the party cleric had to roll to be able to cast it since it was a higher level spell for him. He made the roll and I was raised.

Later I was running the module for another group and realized that he had thrown the raise dead scroll in because there was no treasure in the module that had one. He put the scroll in to give me a chance to be raised. 

I also played in a game where the party got TPKed and the DM had a god agree to raise us if we agreed to do a quest for him. 

There are many tools in the DM tool box to accomplish changing a negative outcome if they feel it is in the best interest of the game.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 15, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I disagree to an extent, as The Shaman's point seemed to be that by taking a "never" stance, it made it more fun for his group. This is something that Elf Witch indicated makes someone miss a sign of being a "good" GM.
> 
> See, she said:
> 
> ...




Look I have clarified what I meant on this that I was not just talking about fudging when I said being flexible is a sign of a great DM. I pointed out that being flexible could also mean not fudging because your players don't like it. Being flexible could be hating elves and usually not allowing them as a race in your game but having a player really jonesing to play one so you make an exception this one time.  I can not possibly envision everything that may come up in future games which is why I won't lock myself into saying I will never do something. 

I would also like to point out that I have never criticized DMs who don't fudge or who choose to roll in the open because that is how their players like the game. I have not used words to describe their DMing styles as lazy or making bad players or cheap. Yet several people here can't seem to accept that not all people play the game the same way.


----------



## enrious (Dec 15, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> It's not a matter of options. It's just not. If that's not clear by now, I doubt I can make it more clear. Thanks for the civil discussion, but if this doesn't clear it up, perhaps we'd better just call it a day, and agree to disagree. As always, play what you like




Possibly not, especially as was discussed that being open to all options doesn't preclude a social contract for a given group to eliminate one of them, given that the contract doesn't automatically apply to a different group or the same group under different circumstances, e.g. a new campaign.

In a nutshell, I don't see how someone saying they're open to all options is as limited as someone who says they unquestionably eliminate one option, but then, math was never my strong suit.

As it is, I too appreciate the civil discussion with you and have a feeling that were we ever at the same table would be able to play and have fun.

And that's what's it all about (aside from the hokey pokey).


----------



## enrious (Dec 15, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Why is it that people who don't ever fudge think that those of have done do it because we don't like to roll dice?




Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 15, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Yet several people here can't seem to accept that not all people play the game the same way.





Not liking how you play != demanding that you play my way.

If there's any message I hope you take home from this thread, it's that not everyone shares your preferences, that what is fun for you can be seriously off-putting to someone else. That's why managing expectations at the start of a campaign is so important, so everyone at the table has a reasonable opportunity to play the game they personally enjoy while participating in the shared experience around the table.


----------



## enrious (Dec 15, 2011)

Another sort of thought flitting in my head is this:

Let's say I were gaming with someone like S'mon or Jameson and they were DMing things.

Let's say that for whatever reason, I didn't enjoy myself.

On the list I'd make of "why", I can't think of any circumstance where "didn't fudge the dice" would rank above "the player to my left used mismatched dice" and "I had to use a mechanical pencil".

To me, there'd be far more numerous things to consider and none of them involve small polyhedral bits of plastic.

I think there are a lot more valid things to consider, from general compatibility, to maybe I just didn't fit in with the game/group, or maybe I do or don't like a sandbox and that's what they were or were not running.

I can only speak for me, but when someone comes on and draws a line in the sand over something that is to me so trivial, it's somewhat astonishing, because if a DM said at the start, "no fudging", I'd say right on and roll up a character.   

But then, to quote Penn and Teller, "Everybody got a gris-gris."  I'm no different.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 15, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Not liking how you play != demanding that you play my way.
> 
> If there's any message I hope you take home from this thread, it's that not everyone shares your preferences, that what is fun for you can be seriously off-putting to someone else. That's why managing expectations at the start of a campaign is so important, so everyone at the table has a reasonable opportunity to play the game they personally enjoy while participating in the shared experience around the table.




For your information I  don't need to learn this or take that away from this thread. I have always known that there are many different ways to play the game and that what matters is that the DM and the players are on the same page. And if the groups is enjoying themselves then they are playing the game right no matter what I think of how they play.

You are the one who has used words like lazy, rigging, making bad players to describe a way of playing the game different then you do.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 15, 2011)

enrious said:
			
		

> On the list I'd make of "why", I can't think of any circumstance where "didn't fudge the dice" would rank above "the player to my left used mismatched dice" and "I had to use a mechanical pencil".



This is an interesting thought. I wonder how many of those who dislike fudging dice would leave a game if they learned that the DM fudged to save their character. And how many of those who approve of fudging dice would leave a game if they learned that the DM did not fudge to save their character.

Also, in a different direction:

Those who dislike fudging dice, if an attack (or something) roll would kill your character, would you accept a DM's offer to survive but suffer some kind of notable injury? For instance, if the adventure was in a setting where bringing in a new PC would be difficult or impossible, (like on an island, or deep in the dungeon). Your character takes a killing blow, but the DM says that instead of death, you loose a limb, or an eye, or some permanent ability score damage, or something similar.

In my experience, setting an adventure in some remote location where replacement PCs aren't feasible is the perfect situation for fate to kill a PC.

Bullgrit


----------



## Janx (Dec 15, 2011)

enrious said:


> Another sort of thought flitting in my head is this:
> 
> Let's say I were gaming with someone like S'mon or Jameson and they were DMing things.
> 
> ...




Exactly!

There are so many other factors that make a bad game.  Fudging by itself isn't on my radar.

I'm sure there's some kind of fudging that I would object to.  But I'd need more data to sense that.

Other factors like GMPCing, railroading, plain old boringness, disruptive players, antagonistic GMing, personality incompatibility spring to mind.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 15, 2011)

enrious said:


> Another sort of thought flitting in my head is this:
> 
> Let's say I were gaming with someone like S'mon or Jameson and they were DMing things.
> 
> ...




I like to know how the DM does things up front so I can decide if I want to play. 

For example a DM who say I won't fudge but also says I will put things in the game so that you have a chance to not die in random encounters or due to unlucky rolls then I would want to play.

Most of the games I play in the DMs have said they don't fudge but they have things like action points or fate points or house rules that unnamed mooks don't crit. 

Also a DM who says upfront that if he screws up and makes an unbalanced encounter where we have no chance of surviving will be willing to do something to fix his mistake other than it sucks to be you now roll up a new character. 

If a DM says to me I don't want any back story on your character and I am not interested in your character other then the stats on the sheet then I know that we have very different play styles and that I would not enjoy his game. 

I really think it is important that things be discussed ahead of time it save a lot of grief later on. I have found that to big of a difference in play styles can not be fixed and just leads to a lot of frustration at the table. 

When I start a game as a DM I tell the players the kind of game I am looking to run I also discuss house rules I want to use. I am upfront with my players that I reserve the option to fudge rolls if I feel it is in the best interest of the game.  So far no one has ever said it was a deal breaker for them. I have never had a player say no don't fudge on me ever. 

If I did have a player like that and he was on board for everything else then I would tell him that I would not ever fudge on his character and I would stick to that.  

I have been playing since 1 Ed came out and I have played in wonderful games and I have played in horrible games that I was miserable in. I have learned that a bad day of gaming is not better than not playing at all.  

One way of avoiding bad games is to have some idea of what you are getting into before any dice is rolled.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 15, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I am sure you could run a game I could enjoy. Fudging a dice roll is not the only way to accomplish things.
> 
> We were playing in the Sunless Citadel...
> There are many tools in the DM tool box to accomplish changing a negative outcome if they feel it is in the best interest of the game.




BTW my experience is that a lot of people like 3e for its world-sim feel, all those detailed skills, & flexible PC creation, but IME it is by far the most brutal and unforgiving edition of D&D.  It can be really hard *not* to kill PCs in 3e.  I went over to death at - "CON + 10" and as an alternative to fudging that worked quite well.  But it's not the edition I would choose for a low-lethality game.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 15, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> This is an interesting thought. I wonder how many of those who dislike fudging dice would leave a game if they learned that the DM fudged to save their character. And how many of those who approve of fudging dice would leave a game if they learned that the DM did not fudge to save their character.
> 
> Also, in a different direction:
> 
> ...




There was a climactic encounter where a PC should have died and the party should probably have TPK'd.  The GM had mashed in several end bosses into one encounter and it was ridiculously OTT.  He fudged very obviously to keep us alive by nerfing monster attacks & abilities.  I tolerated it but it was poor DMing and it lessened the fun for most of us.


If the GM offered disability rather than death to my PC, I would happily take the offer.  I would like either a random disability table or consistency among PCs though - not much fun I lose an arm while James gets a cool scar.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 15, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> You are the one who has used words like lazy, rigging, making bad players to describe a way of playing the game different then you do.



Yes, I have, and I stand by my words.

Why do you care if I don't like the way you play? Have I asked you to do anything differently?


----------



## SSquirrel (Dec 15, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Your Ranger just Criticalled on the big monster and did some ungodly amount of damage that brought him down from not even bloodied to 2 hit points.  The DM decides to wipe off those last 2 HP as well in order to make this huge attack be a massive killing blow... rather than have the monster take the shot but then wimper on the ground for a bit with 2 HP just to wait for another PC to walk over and finally clonk him over the head.  Bit anticlimactic.




See I don't consider just calling them dead fudging, I view that as giving in to inevitability.  If the monster has a good last trick to pull and he's going next I'd say keep him up, but I'm a big fan of calling the fight when it's reached an inevitable conclusion.  

Personally, I don't want the DM fudging rolls for me.  I want to take what the dice give.  Lord knows I roll badly enough on my own, so I already have to live w/my rolls.  I should live w/what the DM rolls too.  I always have plenty of character ideas, so if I do die, I can easily come up w/something just as fun to play

Basically, if we go on a mountain climb and just keep rolling THAT badly, the gods don't want us playing those characters.  I'm fine with that.  Usually if it's something like that my DM offers a couple of extra save chances, one for the player and one for one of us to try and rescue them.  If it doesn't happen tho, whatever happens, happens.  I appreciate that.  One of my more memorable gaming experiences was playing CP2020 for the first time and us getting into a firefight in the first 5 minutes.  I got shot up and killed like that.  So he crossed out my name, gave me a new name and said I was the other skate punk who dealt for our Fixer character   If the DM had fudged I would have been missed or had a crippling wound, which wouldn't have stuck out in my mind for 15 years.

Live by the die.  Die by the die. 



Janx said:


> For instance, the next chest the party searches has a  healing potion in it.  It wasn't in the notes, but the GM put it there  to be nice right then.  If it's plausible to be there (because sometimes  chests do have healing potions), then he's fudged game content in favor  of the player.




Nah that's just Schroedinger's Healing Potion at work


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 15, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Yes, I have, and I stand by my words.
> 
> Why do you care if I don't like the way you play? Have I asked you to do anything differently?




Maybe because I find it rude to be called a lazy DM who ruins players ability to play. 

This is not CM where anything goes and you can post statements like that. We agree to keep discussions civil here on Enworld which means sometimes not posting exactly what you think and using a little diplomacy to keep the discussions civil.

At this point I don't think we have anything more to say to each other. You have made it quite clear what you think of me as a DM and what you think of my players.


----------



## enrious (Dec 16, 2011)

S'mon said:


> There was a climactic encounter where a PC should have died and the party should probably have TPK'd.  The GM had mashed in several end bosses into one encounter and it was ridiculously OTT.  He fudged very obviously to keep us alive by nerfing monster attacks & abilities.  I tolerated it but it was poor DMing and it lessened the fun for most of us.




I agree, sounds like bad DMing to make up for bad DMing.




> If the GM offered disability rather than death to my PC, I would happily take the offer.  I would like either a random disability table or consistency among PCs though - not much fun I lose an arm while James gets a cool scar.




Man, I'm going to regret asking this.

But how is it any different from fudging you to -9hp?  Does the disability serve as some sort of payment or the like for the mitigation?  In other words, fudging is more a matter of "getting off scott-free"?

Because I'd do the same - take the disability but want consistency or a random chart.


----------



## enrious (Dec 16, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Yes, I have, and I stand by my words.
> 
> Why do you care if I don't like the way you play? Have I asked you to do anything differently?




I think the lesson for all of us is that if you would be respected, you must respect others in turn.


----------



## enrious (Dec 16, 2011)

SSquirrel said:


> See I don't consider just calling them dead fudging, I view that as giving in to inevitability.  If the monster has a good last trick to pull and he's going next I'd say keep him up, but I'm a big fan of calling the fight when it's reached an inevitable conclusion.
> 
> Personally, I don't want the DM fudging rolls for me.  I want to take what the dice give.  Lord knows I roll badly enough on my own, so I already have to live w/my rolls.  I should live w/what the DM rolls too.  I always have plenty of character ideas, so if I do die, I can easily come up w/something just as fun to play
> 
> ...






I don't know if one can interject CP2020 into a discussion about death in D&D - CP2020 practically came with a character sheet with an erasable name for a reason!  

That and guns.  Lots of deadly, beautiful guns.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 16, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Yes, I have, and I stand by my words.




If you want to stand by insulting words, you probably want to stand outside.  While we can often make allowances for folks who go a bit over the line for a moment in the heat of discussion, coldly and willfully standing by insults doesn't leave us much room.



> Why do you care if I don't like the way you play? Have I asked you to do anything differently?




That you don't like how others play is not material.

That you publicly cast personal judgements and aspersions upon them for how they play, however, is.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Maybe because I find it rude to be called a lazy DM who ruins players ability to play.



You wanna know what I find rude? Passive-aggressive behavior.







Elf Witch said:


> But there are *some of the non fudgers* who are doing this.





Elf Witch said:


> Well I see what you were trying to do but I still maintain that *some posters* are lumping people who fudge as being all the same without any nuances.





Elf Witch said:


> Why is it that *some people* who don't ever fudge think that those of have done do it because we don't like to roll dice?





Elf Witch said:


> Yet *several people* here can't seem to accept that not all people play the game the same way.



If you have something to say to me or about me, please, don't resort to "some people," particularly when you're ascribing things that were never said. Say it, use "The Shaman" in the post, and throw some Mention tags around it, and we'll actually have an exchange of ideas.

That said, in the spirit of comity, here's something on which we can both agree, without reservation or qualification.







Elf Witch said:


> One way of avoiding bad games is to have some idea of what you are getting into before any dice is rolled.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Look I have clarified what I meant on this that I was not just talking about fudging when I said being flexible is a sign of a great DM. I pointed out that being flexible could also mean not fudging because your players don't like it. Being flexible could be hating elves and usually not allowing them as a race in your game but having a player really jonesing to play one so you make an exception this one time.  I can not possibly envision everything that may come up in future games which is why I won't lock myself into saying I will never do something.



You've clarified, but The Shaman was still correct. We can agree to disagree on that if you want to.



> I would also like to point out that I have never criticized DMs who don't fudge or who choose to roll in the open because that is how their players like the game. I have not used words to describe their DMing styles as lazy or making bad players or cheap. Yet several people here can't seem to accept that not all people play the game the same way.



Sure, and some people early in the thread can't accept that some people may not want to fudge. It goes both ways. The Shaman was a little more insulting than others are, sure, but when I hear you say that me not fitting your ideal description of flexibility means I'm missing a sign of a "good" GM, can't you see how that could be insulting? I'm not insulted by it, but I don't define my personal value by what others think of me. I do think that your statement, while more diplomatic, is still potentially insulting, however, and obviously objectively false.

I have no hard feelings towards you, or towards your style. You know my mantra. However, I don't like seeing The Shaman getting piled on for people taking his quote out of context. I also don't see the discussion going anywhere productive, so it's probably wise to move on. As always, play what you like 



enrious said:


> As it is, I too appreciate the civil discussion with you and have a feeling that were we ever at the same table would be able to play and have fun.



Indeed, we probably would. And, if you're in the area and a spot opens up at my table (I have six players, and a seventh showing up in a couple months when my brother gets back from Fort Hood), feel free to join us. Good times will be had by all. As always, play what you like 



Bullgrit said:


> This is an interesting thought. I wonder how many of those who dislike fudging dice would leave a game if they learned that the DM fudged to save their character.



Assuming my normal group (so, full of long term friends): Once, and I'd let it go without mentioning it. Twice, I'd bring it up, explain my objection, and continue with the understanding that I won't continue playing if it happens to me again. A third time and I'd bow out.



Bullgrit said:


> Also, in a different direction:
> 
> Those who dislike fudging dice, if an attack (or something) roll would kill your character, would you accept a DM's offer to survive but suffer some kind of notable injury? For instance, if the adventure was in a setting where bringing in a new PC would be difficult or impossible, (like on an island, or deep in the dungeon). Your character takes a killing blow, but the DM says that instead of death, you loose a limb, or an eye, or some permanent ability score damage, or something similar.



Well, as my system has mechanics on how normal hits can make me lose an eye, or a limb, etc., I'd probably say no. In a traditional game... maybe. We're friends, so I might let it slide. As a GM, I'd never do it. As a player, I might do it for a friend, once. I wouldn't do it a second time. I'd rather force a new character in than twist my character to being alive. In fact, I'd rather watch the rest of the session with no PC to play than to have my character survive.

Just me, though. As always, play what you like


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 16, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> I wonder how many of those who dislike fudging dice would leave a game if they learned that the DM fudged to save their character.



Leaving would definitely be my first inclination.

At a minimum I would begin by reminding*** the referee how vehemently I dislike fudging for any reason. Where the conversation goes from there would determine whether I bow out or not.


*** Because I don't join a campaign without having a playstyle conversation with the referee first.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> If I did have a player like that and he was on board for everything else then I would tell him that I would not ever fudge on his character and I would stick to that.



As a player that's all I would ask for.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 16, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> You wanna know what I find rude? Passive-aggressive behavior.If you have something to say to me or about me, please, don't resort to "some people," particularly when you're ascribing things that were never said. Say it, use "The Shaman" in the post, and throw some Mention tags around it, and we'll actually have an exchange of ideas.
> 
> That said, in the spirit of comity, here's something on which we can both agree, without reservation or qualification.




First of all I was not just talking about you when I posted the non fudgers comments which is why I didn't name you specifically. And I was also talking about my experiences with all posters on this topic at other times on this and other boards which is why I used the word some people.

One of those comments I posted right under the comment I was quoting. And it wasn't you. 

It was never my purpose to single you out except for the comments about lazy DMs and such because in that case no one else had gone that far.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 16, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> You've clarified, but The Shaman was still correct. We can agree to disagree on that if you want to.
> 
> 
> Sure, and some people early in the thread can't accept that some people may not want to fudge. It goes both ways. The Shaman was a little more insulting than others are, sure, but when I hear you say that me not fitting your ideal description of flexibility means I'm missing a sign of a "good" GM, can't you see how that could be insulting? I'm not insulted by it, but I don't define my personal value by what others think of me. I do think that your statement, while more diplomatic, is still potentially insulting, however, and obviously objectively false.
> ...





Yep we will have to disagree with that because I know what I meant and how I feel about this and if you don't want to take my word for how I honestly look at something well there is no point in continuing  to discuss this because we are not close to being on the same page. 

And yes there may be people who can't accept not fudging but I am not one of them. I have always said that it is up to each DM and the group he plays in as a matter of fact that is my base answer for any discussion like this.

And since you like semantics so much I want to point out that I did not say good DM I said great DM. You are the one who is choosing to change it to good. I don't consider myself a great DM I am far from that I am good DM. But I stand my my comment that truly great DMs are flexible. A great DM can be flexible and never once a fudge a dice. The opposite of great is not bad  so I am not sure why you are leaping to that conclusion. 

As I have pointed out I only fudged twice and gave my reasons for doing it. My games have things in place to keep the lethal aspect down like action and fate points. I expect that there will be some deaths as a matter of fact we have had one where the they had to be reincarnated. But because I have seen where fudging made a session better the two times I used it  I won't say I will never use it again. Like I keep saying I like to keep my options open and I tell that to my players. 

Honestly do I think someone who says I will never ever fudge no matter what the reason  is a great DM no I don't. But I don't think they are a bad DM because of it. 

I think there are only a few great DMs the rest being either good, mediocre or just plan bad. I think truly bad DMs are as rare as great DMs. A lot of so called bad DMs are just bad for that group and would be good for another another. 

I have don't think either you or The Shaman are bad DMs because you don't fudge now you can choose to accept my statement on that or not. 

Maybe The Shaman would not be being piled on if he didn't feel the need to label other DMs as lazy. Just saying.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> It was never my purpose to single you out except for the comments about lazy DMs . . . .



I called fudging a "lazy practice," but I never called anyone a "lazy DM."

If you want to keep tossing that at me, at least report my words correctly.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 16, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> I called fudging a "lazy practice," but I never called anyone a "lazy DM."
> 
> If you want to keep tossing that at me, at least report my words correctly.




You are right you did phrase it that way. But do you realize that saying something is a lazy practice implies that the person doing it is lazy.

Now if that is not what you meant then I accept that you didn't mean to sound so insulting and put it down to internet communication not being the best.


----------



## enrious (Dec 16, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> I called fudging a "lazy practice,"...




"...that creates really bad habits for both referees and players."

How can a DM who is not lazy employ a lazy practice, out of idle curiosity?  Under what circumstances can a energetic and/or hard-working DM utilize a lazy practice?

Can you give some examples?


----------



## ggroy (Dec 16, 2011)

There was one game where I was asked to be the DM.  I brought up the issue of fudging and DM discretion.

It turned out the players wanted me to fudge the dice rolls in their favor all the time, and where all DM discretion was done in their favor.  (This particular group was not very experienced with D&D).  At that point I just told them they wouldn't need any dice, if they wanted constant fudging and DM discretion to always be in their favor.  But they were still insistent on it.

In the end, I turned down the DM job.


----------



## enrious (Dec 16, 2011)

ggroy said:


> There was one game where I was asked to be the DM.  I brought up the issue of fudging and DM discretion.
> 
> It turned out the players wanted me to fudge the dice rolls in their favor all the time, and where all DM discretion was done in their favor.  (This particular group was not very experienced with D&D).  At that point I just told them they wouldn't need any dice, if they wanted constant fudging and DM discretion to always be in their favor.  But they were still insistent on it.
> 
> In the end, I turned down the DM job.




That's less fudging and more narrative storytelling, as you point out.

Me, it sounds like a first-round TPK in the making, but that's just me.

Then as I was walking out the door, I'd say, "Oh by the way?  Shane died at the end."


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Yep we will have to disagree with that because I know what I meant and how I feel about this and if you don't want to take my word for how I honestly look at something well there is no point in continuing  to discuss this because we are not close to being on the same page.



I'm not attacking you, nor calling you dishonest. I'm saying that it seems like you're looking at this in one light, and when The Shaman addressed a point tangential to yours, you've steadfastly refused to acknowledge it.



> And yes there may be people who can't accept not fudging but I am not one of them. I have always said that it is up to each DM and the group he plays in as a matter of fact that is my base answer for any discussion like this.



And I always say to play what you like.



> And since you like semantics so much...



Context and semantics are two different things.



> ...I want to point out that I did not say good DM I said great DM. You are the one who is choosing to change it to good. I don't consider myself a great DM I am far from that I am good DM. But I stand my my comment that truly great DMs are flexible. A great DM can be flexible and never once a fudge a dice. The opposite of great is not bad  so I am not sure why you are leaping to that conclusion.



Well, sorry for downplaying it, but that means your statement (taken within its original context) implies that _you cannot be a great GM without being open to more options_. That's incredibly close-minded, in my opinion.



> As I have pointed out I only fudged twice and gave my reasons for doing it. My games have things in place to keep the lethal aspect down like action and fate points. I expect that there will be some deaths as a matter of fact we have had one where the they had to be reincarnated. But because I have seen where fudging made a session better the two times I used it  I won't say I will never use it again. Like I keep saying I like to keep my options open and I tell that to my players.



I'm not attacking your play style. I've said that it's fine to play that way. I'm not sure why you're so defensive. You've made a slightly inflammatory statement, and I've said I think it is, just like I said I thought The Shaman's was worse.

The fact that I don't adhere to your thoughts on GM flexibility precludes me from ever becoming a "great" GM is definitely inflammatory. If I don't meet your requirements, I'm not doing it as well as someone who does it that way. That is faintly badwrongfun, in my mind, though I don't think you meant it offensively. I hope you can see why it might come off that way, though.



> Honestly do I think someone who says I will never ever fudge no matter what the reason  is a great DM no I don't. But I don't think they are a bad DM because of it.



That's what I'm talking about.



> I think there are only a few great DMs the rest being either good, mediocre or just plan bad. I think truly bad DMs are as rare as great DMs. A lot of so called bad DMs are just bad for that group and would be good for another another.
> 
> I have don't think either you or The Shaman are bad DMs because you don't fudge now you can choose to accept my statement on that or not.



I really don't think you can judge my style at all. And, no offense to your opinion, but any judgment won't mean much. My players definitely regard me as a "great" GM, if that's about as high as the praise can reach. I'm happy taking their view on it over yours, but regardless, I'll always end up GMing in a way that I can greatly enjoy anyways. That just apparently jives well with them.



> Maybe The Shaman would not be being piled on if he didn't feel the need to label other DMs as lazy. Just saying.



Maybe I wouldn't feel the need to defend him if people took his comments in context, and didn't force a hard label on him (or me, for that matter) that precludes him from being a "great" GM. Just saying. As always, play what you like


----------



## enrious (Dec 16, 2011)

FWIW, I think there can be great non-fudging DMs just as I think there can be great fudging DMs, but that's because I think fudging or not fudging is such an insignificant part of being a DM that all of the other aspects drown it out.


And there's been a lot of arguments based on items not in evidence (this thread) - perhaps moving forward they be kept strictly to things said in here and not on other boards, by other people?


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> But do you realize that saying something is a lazy practice implies that the person doing it is lazy.



I've noticed that my wife often fails to turn on her blinker when she's changing lanes. She checks her mirrors and checks her blindspot, and she's courteous toward other drivers, changing lanes without cutting people off, but more often than not, she changes lanes without turning on her signal.

As someone who's driven emergency vehicles of one sort or another for much of my adult life, I think it's a really bad habit to not signal your intentions. I don't consider my wife a bad driver, however, just a driver with a bad habit.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 16, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I'm not attacking you, nor calling you dishonest. I'm saying that it seems like you're looking at this in one light, and when The Shaman addressed a point tangential to yours, you've steadfastly refused to acknowledge it.
> 
> 
> And I always say to play what you like.
> ...




I think you keep focusing on the fudging aspect of when I am talking about flexibility. I would say the same thing if a DM said I will never allow elves in my game, or I will never allow prestige classes, or I will never allow point buy. To me the problem of saying never is that there is no way you can possibly anticipate every situation that is going to crop up in the future.  So I am sorry if you are going to be rigid and not willing to even entertain the fact that there might be a situation one day that could make you change your mind then yes in my opinion that stops you from being a great DM. 

Say you can't see yourself ever fudging that you like the dice to stand no matter what. Well what if you are playing with a good friend. And this is going to be their last game ever. This happened in one of my former DMs group before I joined. A long time player had pancreatic cancer. The friend knew at this point he was terminal and he was leaving the area to go into hospice care near his parents.  


The player wished to undertake one last adventure and have his PC retire to become a  famous NPC in the game. Are you telling me in that situation you would just let the dice stand even if you could make a dying friend's last game be what he wants? Now the DM did not have to fudge but he told me he would have if he needed to. It was important to him to make this last game for a friend be a fun success.

Now luckily most of us will never face something like this but it would be nice to think that if you have a friend who is going through something bad that you might be willing to bend the rules to make the game more fun. It was what I choose to do for my friend who was going blind. I knew about it I was with her when she got the news. I know she was really looking forward to gaming to let of some steam and take her mind off her situation. But the game was not being that much fun for her because of her unlucky rolls and killing her character off would have been the cherry on top of her crappy sundae.   

Now are you going to tell me that those circumstances would not make you bend your no fudging rule even once?

How about if you have no elf rule for your games and you get a brand new person to the game and they are excited about playing an elf do you bend your rule this once because it is a newbie and you want them to really enjoy the game or do you stick to your no elf rule?

To me a great DM knows when to bend and also knows when to say no. That is all I am saying. 

That is great that your players think you are a great DM because in the end that is all that matters. My players tell me I am a great DM I am glad they think that even if I don't agree with them . 

You are choosing to take what I am saying as inflammatory. Let me ask you a question what if this thread had not happened  and we were listing what we think a great DM is and I listed being flexible as a sign would you still take it so badly?

I have said several times that fudging is not what make or breaks a great DM . It is taking a rigid stance that you will never consider something regardless of the circumstances that I find gets in the ay of being a great DM.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 16, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> I've noticed that my wife often fails to turn on her blinker when she's changing lanes. She checks her mirrors and checks her blindspot, and she's courteous toward other drivers, changing lanes without cutting people off, but more often than not, she changes lanes without turning on her signal.
> 
> As someone who's driven emergency vehicles of one sort or another for much of my adult life, I think it's a really bad habit to not signal your intentions. I don't consider my wife a bad driver, however, just a driver with a bad habit.




Okay fair enough. I apologize if I took what you said the wrong way. One of the biggest drawbacks of internet conversation is not hearing tone of voice and seeing non verbal clues.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Okay fair enough. I apologize if I took what you said the wrong way.



No harm, no foul.







Elf Witch said:


> One of the biggest drawbacks of internet conversation is not hearing tone of voice and seeing non verbal clues.



It can be a tough medium sometimes.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I think you keep focusing on the fudging aspect of when I am talking about flexibility. I would say the same thing if a DM said I will never allow elves in my game, or I will never allow prestige classes, or I will never allow point buy. To me the problem of saying never is that there is no way you can possibly anticipate every situation that is going to crop up in the future.  So I am sorry if you are going to be rigid and not willing to even entertain the fact that there might be a situation one day that could make you change your mind then yes in my opinion that stops you from being a great DM.



Yeah, this is badwrongfun. I'm not buying into it. If I say "I will never allow spaceships into my game" is that okay? What about "I will never allow a player to literally play Darth Vader, traveled back through time into my homebrew fantasy campaign setting"? At what point is it okay to say "never" in your mind? If your answer is "never", then I think you're definition of a "great" GM is pretty outrageous.



> Now are you going to tell me that those circumstances would not make you bend your no fudging rule even once?



No, I wouldn't fudge. I might work with him to help achieve his goal, but I _will not_ fudge the dice. I'll give advice, be informative, and the like, but I can tell you that I won't fudge the dice. I roll in the open for a reason: trust. They trust me not to. And I wouldn't betray that trust. Also, the way the dice fall make for an emotional impactful game, from my experience.



> How about if you have no elf rule for your games and you get a brand new person to the game and they are excited about playing an elf do you bend your rule this once because it is a newbie and you want them to really enjoy the game or do you stick to your no elf rule?



Yes, I stick to it. My game, my rules. I'll work with you within my rules. If you don't like it, we can try to work something out within my rules. If that's not possible and the person is unwilling to budge, then we'll have to part ways.

When I run a game, I'll run it in a way that is enjoyable to me. I have complete control over my game. I make that explicitly clear when I run a game to new players. However, they have the right to walk. And, I think that if I was unreasonable, my players would. I've yet to have a player walk, though I've had kicked players out. I've had my two newest players stop their other gaming groups to play in mine, even though the days didn't conflict (they just found the other games unsatisfactory after about a month of me running the game).

I'm not unreasonable. I do rigidly stick to rules I establish. Sorry if you can't be time travelling Darth Vader. If that makes me shy of a "great" GM to you, so be it. I'm okay thinking that's utterly baseless and false.



> To me a great DM knows when to bend and also knows when to say no. That is all I am saying.



That's true.



> You are choosing to take what I am saying as inflammatory. Let me ask you a question what if this thread had not happened  and we were listing what we think a great DM is and I listed being flexible as a sign would you still take it so badly?



In the context given in this thread, I'd take it the same. Not that I took your statement badly, I just find it false on its face.



> I have said several times that fudging is not what make or breaks a great DM . It is taking a rigid stance that you will never consider something regardless of the circumstances that I find gets in the ay of being a great DM.



Whereas I think that nearly everyone draws lines somewhere. It's just a matter of where those lines are. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Dec 16, 2011)

I've only skimmed the thread, but it looks like a good old "to fudge or not to fudge" thread, and I thought I might stick my bib in.

My view is that a game is best when its mechanics deliver the desired play experience. So (for example) if you don't want a game in which random die rolls can result in the PCs (and therefore the players) missing crucial information, _don't use a mechanical system that requires random die rolls to learn information_. If you don't want a game in which random die rolls can kill PCs, _don't use a mechanical ssytem that permits random die rolls to result in PC death_.

My own view is that fudging is the result of people playing with systems that don't suit the sort of game they want. AD&D 2nd ed is a bit of a poster child for this, in my view - it promises heroic fantasy with a strong plot but uses largely unmodified AD&D mechanics which, especially at low levels (and to some extent again at high levels, given the prevalence of death magic), are prone to produce unpredictable PC casualties, and at any level have all sorts of features that militated against the promise of plot.

I guess one retort to my characterisation is that the mechanics for these games are really "random die rolls mediated by GM force". That may be true, but I regard it as a pretty dysfunctional approach to RPGing - if the GM and players disagree on when force should be used then bad blood can be the result, and if the GM keeps the use of force secret then we have elements of deception creeping into the action resolution.

Better than GM fudging, for those wanting plot-heavy gaming out of AD&D-ish mechanics, would be giving the players a stock of "fate points" or "complication points" to use when bad dice rolls strike.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 16, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Yeah, this is badwrongfun. I'm not buying into it. If I say "I will never allow spaceships into my game" is that okay? What about "I will never allow a player to literally play Darth Vader, traveled back through time into my homebrew fantasy campaign setting"? At what point is it okay to say "never" in your mind? If your answer is "never", then I think you're definition of a "great" GM is pretty outrageous.
> 
> 
> No, I wouldn't fudge. I might work with him to help achieve his goal, but I _will not_ fudge the dice. I'll give advice, be informative, and the like, but I can tell you that I won't fudge the dice. I roll in the open for a reason: trust. They trust me not to. And I wouldn't betray that trust. Also, the way the dice fall make for an emotional impactful game, from my experience.
> ...




Now you are being just silly. That is not what I am saying and I think you are smart enough to know that. Since Darth Vader and spaceships don't have a part in most fantasy games then it is reasonable to say I don't want spaceships ever in my fantasy game. 

I am talking about inside the game as it stands. Like saying I will never allow elves in a game where they are usually allowed. When someone says things like that I think okay so if you play for the next fifty years you can't ever see that changing. So in my very subjective opinion because lets face it this is all subjective that makes you to rigid to be what I consider a great DM. 

I have been playing for over 30 years and I don't play or even feel the same way I did about somethings as I did thirty years ago. For example I hated psionicis and kind of still do. I used to say I would never allow it in a game I ran. Well my roommate and best friend wanted to play a psionic character in my game it was something she had been wanting to play for a long time so here I am allowing it in my game.


In my 54 years of life I have found  many things I said I would never do becoming things I end up doing. I swore I would never tell my children because I said so well that went out the window when I had a child of my own. 

So now I never say I will never do something because life as shown me otherwise.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> . . . it is reasonable to say I don't want spaceships ever in my fantasy game.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 16, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I've only skimmed the thread, but it looks like a good old "to fudge or not to fudge" thread, and I thought I might stick my bib in.
> 
> My view is that a game is best when its mechanics deliver the desired play experience. So (for example) if you don't want a game in which random die rolls can result in the PCs (and therefore the players) missing crucial information, _don't use a mechanical system that requires random die rolls to learn information_. If you don't want a game in which random die rolls can kill PCs, _don't use a mechanical ssytem that permits random die rolls to result in PC death_.
> 
> ...




After the two issues that came up in my game that I fudged I wanted something that would help prevent random death like that because while I will fudge I don't think it is the best solution to the issue.

So I added action points and fate points. And I also changed how crits work in my game. One of the other DMs has a rule I like where non named mooks can't crit. A 20 is a hit but that is all. 

This has really given myself and my players what we want from a game. Death is still there but the odds of dying in a random encounter have gone down. 

You get 3 fate points for the entire campaign these belong to the player not character. Those fate points allow you to turn a failed save into a success, allow a death to be come a -9 and stabilized with  no XP penalty or level loss, turn a miss hit into a hit, and to  confirm a crit that does max damage. 

They get six action points that refresh at each level.  Action points can be used to stabilize, reroll a failed save or skill check but does not guarantee success. They can be given to another player. So if a player is out of them another player can give one of theirs  up.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 16, 2011)

The Shaman said:


>




I know that module and have played it. And man did some of the players hate the spaceship aspect of it.  There were cries of don't get your Sci Fi in my fantasy. 

I think it is reasonable to not want spaceships in your DnD but then again who knows maybe someone will write a module that just makes the whole thing appeal to you and there goes your never going to allow spaceships out the window.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Now you are being just silly. That is not what I am saying and I think you are smart enough to know that. Since Darth Vader and spaceships don't have a part in most fantasy games then it is reasonable to say I don't want spaceships ever in my fantasy game.



If elves don't fit the type of fantasy you're going for, adding them is only a little less invasive than adding Darth Vader (to me).



> So in my very subjective opinion because lets face it this is all subjective that makes you to rigid to be what I consider a great DM.



Now this makes perfect sense to me. This seems like it's purely your opinion, and not an objective value judgment. I can accept you, personally, not thinking I'm a great GM, without any problems.



> So now I never say I will never do something because life as shown me otherwise.



Unless it's time travelling Darth Vader 

My point is that people draw lines in different areas. You're saying that if someone draws the line somewhere you find reasonable, they won't be a great GM to you. Well, that's fine. I can say that, for me personally, a GM that will fudge rolls will never be a great GM. He might be good, but he'll drag me -kicking and screaming- out of immersion.

Like I've said since the beginning of this thread (page one? two?), this is a play style issue. That's all it is. And, with that in mind, play what you like


----------



## S'mon (Dec 16, 2011)

enrious said:


> Man, I'm going to regret asking this.
> 
> But how is it any different from fudging you to -9hp?  Does the disability serve as some sort of payment or the like for the mitigation?  In other words, fudging is more a matter of "getting off scott-free"?
> 
> Because I'd do the same - take the disability but want consistency or a random chart.




Hm... thinking about it: I would be ok with the DM declaring "instead of killing you, you are taken to -9 hp and KO'd/captured" - as long as the DM was completely open and honest that he was not applying the written ruleset, I don't have a problem.  I would like the opportunity to die if I preferred, I guess - I wouldn't like fudging just so a vindictive GM could run an extended torture scene!  But in general I think a GM can ignore the rules if he wants, as long as it is clear to the players what is going on.  What I do not like is illusionist fudging where the GM pretends to apply the rules, but secretly does not.  

I recall a very story/drama-based Midnight game where my PC was killed off.  The GM didn't want to kill my PC, but she felt compelled to apply the damage roll, per RAW.  Several other PCs had died previously for similar reasons.  After the death of my PC, last of the original PCs, she brought in a Fate Point mechanic, but too late to save the campaign.  It would have been better if we had established ground rules from the start, as it wasn't really a challenge/Gamist-play sort of game, probably a "-10 hp can be just Mostly Dead" GM fiat approach would have been best.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> And since you like semantics so much I want to point out that I did not say good DM I said great DM. You are the one who is choosing to change it to good. I don't consider myself a great DM I am far from that I am good DM. But I stand my my comment that truly great DMs are flexible.




I think a truly great GM has a deep understanding of the various RPG rulesets they might wish to use, and excellent insight into how using a particular rule set will give rise to a particular mood & feel at the table, in conjunction with other players.  Then can then grasp whether there will be a disconnect between ruleset & desired play style, and can then either adapt the desired ruleset, telling the players - eg "This is the house rule" or "fiat will be used in these circumstances" - or else use a different rule set.

Example: I wanted my Southlands game to be butt-kicking Conanesque swords & sorcery, low lethality, little raise-dead.  I used 4e D&D and, failing my great-DM check, said PCs would have Fate Points, a house rule derived from OGL Conan.  I did some other things like starting PCs at 3rd level, use DMG2 Inherent bonuses, etc. OGL Conan uses the very lethal d20/3e ruleset and it needs FPs to keep PCs alive.  But it turns out that 4e is much less inherently lethal than 3e/d20, and after several sessions when no PCs needed to spend an FP, I realised it was an unnecessary house rule.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Say you can't see yourself ever fudging that you like the dice to stand no matter what. Well what if you are playing with a good friend. And this is going to be their last game ever. This happened in one of my former DMs group before I joined. A long time player had pancreatic cancer. The friend knew at this point he was terminal and he was leaving the area to go into hospice care near his parents.
> 
> 
> The player wished to undertake one last adventure and have his PC retire to become a  famous NPC in the game. Are you telling me in that situation you would just let the dice stand even if you could make a dying friend's last game be what he wants?
> ...




Me:In the latter case - if there were no elves in the game, I would not let the new player play an elf.  If they're going to play they need to understand there are limitations.  If they can't put up with that then they're not the sort of player I would want to have.

In the former case, if the player made her wishes clear to me, I would hopefully make clear in advance the stakes of the session were not whether the PC lived or died, but how she reached the desired end state.  Eg a death result would become "retired due to crippling injury".  That's how I think a great DM should handle it, anyway.  IRL though being British I doubt a player, even a friend, would tell me about her terminal cancer, I'd be happily oblivious, and she would get the same treatment as everybody else.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 16, 2011)

S'mon said:


> it turns out that 4e is much less inherently lethal than 3e/d20, and after several sessions when no PCs needed to spend an FP, I realised it was an unnecessary house rule.



I agree with this diagnosis of 4e. While its action resolution mechanics bear a superficial similarity to 3E (roll d20s and add bonuses to hit target numbers), they are actually pretty different in the sort of play they produce. In the course of play I've had only two incidents of PC death. One involved a single PC, and after discussing with the player whether or not he wanted to keep going with the character in question (he did) I had the gods send him back into the world on a divinely-ordained mission to restore lost Nerath by re-constructing the Rod of 7 Parts.

The other involved a "TPK" (some Pale Reaves used their illusory forms to trick the PCs into joining them at a campfire, making the PCs easy targets for the spectre's action-denial aura - they never had a chance!). One PC literally died (dropped to negative bloodied when lying unconscious and caught in friendly fire) but again was brought back at the players' request via GM contrivance (it turns out the gods really like these guys!), and the others were captured (which didn't require any fudging, given the flexibility of 4e's "dropped to zero hp" rules).

So I think 4e is a good system for story/character-focused but otherwise traditional fantasy RPGing. Conversely, if I wanted to play something with a gritty flavour, or with the slightly comic high turnover of low level classic D&D, 4e would not be the game to choose!



S'mon said:


> I think a truly great GM has a deep understanding of the various RPG rulesets they might wish to use, and excellent insight into how using a particular rule set will give rise to a particular mood & feel at the table



Yes.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 16, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I've only skimmed the thread, but it looks like a good old "to fudge or not to fudge" thread, and I thought I might stick my bib in.
> 
> My view is that a game is best when its mechanics deliver the desired play experience. So (for example) if you don't want a game in which random die rolls can result in the PCs (and therefore the players) missing crucial information, _don't use a mechanical system that requires random die rolls to learn information_. If you don't want a game in which random die rolls can kill PCs, _don't use a mechanical ssytem that permits random die rolls to result in PC death_.
> 
> ...




I agree - except I think 3e is far worse than 2e in this regard.  In 2e the high level PC likely only fails saves on a '1', and really does have a high level of mechanical protection against death.  I found that in my 1e/2e campaign, when very high level PCs died it tended to be in highly dramatic ways, where hubris had overcome the player, almost like a Greek tragedy.  It tended to be stuff like "let's teleport into the throne room of the Thyatian Emperor and kill him" or not teleporting away when the Goddess of Death appears to defend her sacred fane, even after the first round when it's clear she's far more powerful than you.  With 3e I saw far more meaningless deaths.


----------



## Rogue Agent (Dec 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> So I am sorry if you are going to be rigid and not willing to even entertain the fact that there might be a situation one day that could make you change your mind then yes in my opinion that stops you from being a great DM.




Here's the thing: Fudging is antithetical to everything I enjoy about roleplaying games.

Is it hypothetically possible that some day I'll change my opinion about what I enjoy about roleplaying games? Sure. But until that day comes, fudging sucks and it's never going to happen when I'm running a game.

And here's something else: No GM is ever going to be a great GM for me if they're fudging. Great GM for somebody else? Maybe. But anybody who insists that they include peanuts in every dish they cook will be a lousy chef for somebody with a peanut allergy.



Elf Witch said:


> Since Darth Vader and spaceships don't have a  part in most fantasy games then it is reasonable to say I don't want  spaceships ever in my fantasy game.




Well, we've now established that (a) by your standards you're not a great DM and (b) you're a hypocrite.

Pretty sure the conversation is going to go downhill from here. But maybe not. Maybe you'll realize your error and correct it.


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Dec 16, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> This is an interesting thought. I wonder how many of those who dislike fudging dice would leave a game if they learned that the DM fudged to save their character. And how many of those who approve of fudging dice would leave a game if they learned that the DM did not fudge to save their character.
> 
> Also, in a different direction:
> 
> ...




Sure I would accept some other penality. Imprisoment theme is pretty common alternative for tpk. However I think these kinda solutions must be agreeid beforehand. I don't want suprise loss of leg or something not crear to me. I don't want be on different map with world's physics. Those rules offer, even the most wachy and fantasastic. I have played bad games, really bad games, where people had to wait not because of character death but because favourite chars wanted their solo play time. Which was not so bad at the time, since we were younger and used those long missed hours other people's books they had dragged in. So it was kinda fun then. 

I haven't seen mild case of fudging in my life. The one's I know doing it do it way too much. Also one of them cheats when playing. Other 2 do not.

I think many people here might have pretty cool games. My opinions concern my gaming circles. 

It's not evil to fudge, but to me it feels cheap. I like my character's biting dust now and then. I think death is often more preferable opinion than ruining the character in other ways.

I think all who don't like eat the result when they roll random, should be awere of it, and introduce some fate/action points/clones like in paranoia to that system to avoid random kills. Just make sure you offer them plenty enough to cover all situations you don't want to leave up to death. But remember it cuts off some, though not all dramatic failures. 

Or play some different game entirely. 

I know some here just like D&D and similar things for other stuff.


Lol, and despite pulling (rarely) aggro on forums, I don't mind how other people play. I just like to discuss opinons. And I am pretty flexible. I still play with these dm's who arent' very good for other things too, but we are friends. And since they want to play rpg, well.. We argue all the time. Mainly about Star Wars, which I still refuse to play again.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 16, 2011)

Rogue Agent said:


> Well, we've now established that (a) by your standards you're not a great DM and (b) you're a hypocrite.
> 
> Pretty sure the conversation is going to go downhill from here. But maybe not. Maybe you'll realize your error and correct it.





You know, upthread, I misread The Shaman.  I still don't agree with him, but I can understand how he wasn't trying to actively insult folks.

This, however, I am not misreading. If this conversation is about to go downhill, it is in notable part your own fault.  Really, dude, did you miss the whole point about how casting aspersions on people wasn't acceptable?

I think it is about time this topic be given a rest for a while.


----------

