PDA

View Full Version : Immunity to fudged dice



valadil
2012-06-06, 11:54 AM
This is inspired by Immunity to Rule Zero (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13352957).

One of the bigger disagreements I've seen in forums is whether or not the GM should alter the results of dice to fix the story (for values of "fix" equal to repair/make better as well as to determine or decide the story in advance). I don't want another argument thread about the merits or horrors of fudging, but...

If you were presented with a game where you could choose the GM's fudging policy for your character, would you a) play in this game, potentially with people whose characters had a different fudging policy, and b) what would you pick?

By fudging policy for your character, I mean that it goes both ways. If the GM crits on you 4 times in a row, the fudger would change some of those in non-lethal hits while the purist would die. But if you tried an instant kill spell on the BBEG in the first round, the fudger would have his spell resisted, but the purist would have a chance at cutting short the climax of the game.

Killer Angel
2012-06-06, 01:09 PM
Interesting, but..
To have a chance of not be detrimental to the game, fudging must be veiled in a cloak of mistery.
Once you are certain that the DM will fudge for someone, the fun is spoiled.

kyoryu
2012-06-06, 01:11 PM
Fudged dice are generally used if the DM has a pre-determined result in mind.

In which case, why roll the dice? While I'm pretty old school, and dice-fudging by the DM is about as old school as it gets, I've revised my opinion.

If you're fudging dice to protect players from the consequences of their actions, then, in my opinion, you're cheating players of some of the fun of the game.

If you're fudging dice because you've put the players in a no-win scenario, then you should rethink your scenarios - players should have enough agency that if they're in a "no-win" scenario, it's either due to their actions, or is escapable in some way.

If you're fudging to force a particular dramatic arc, then you're too attached to that arc and are, again, forcing the game a certain way and robbing your players of agency.

At any rate, I've reached the point where I do my rolls in the open. I like it better that way.

valadil
2012-06-06, 01:44 PM
Interesting, but..
To have a chance of not be detrimental to the game, fudging must be veiled in a cloak of mistery.
Once you are certain that the DM will fudge for someone, the fun is spoiled.

I agree, but I'm anti-fudging. I've had players complain to me that I should fudge more often, even when I was fudging every other roll. It's not how I like to play, but some people want to win and the concept of having to earn their win stresses them out. But who am I to say they shouldn't play that way if it's what they want?

kyoryu
2012-06-06, 01:49 PM
I agree, but I'm anti-fudging. I've had players complain to me that I should fudge more often, even when I was fudging every other roll. It's not how I like to play, but some people want to win and the concept of having to earn their win stresses them out. But who am I to say they shouldn't play that way if it's what they want?

My solution is simple: They can play that way with another DM :D

Rallicus
2012-06-06, 02:15 PM
I've had players complain to me that I should fudge more often, even when I was fudging every other roll.

Wait, what? Every other roll? Why the heck were your players using dice anyway, they may as well have just done some sort of freeform roleplaying.

I don't fudge my rolls. Ever. I may throw the players a bone if they've got bad luck on their side (ie: a non-intelligent creature being easily taunted by another player, or an enemy taking a full round to boast about how bad they're beating the party), but I never fudge rolls. Oh, you got hit by a max damage 3x crit? Big freakin' deal, if your character is dead then hope for a raise dead or roll up a new character.

So I guess what I'm saying is: my players would never have to worry about a feat like this, because fudged rolls never happen in my games.

valadil
2012-06-06, 02:25 PM
So I guess what I'm saying is: my players would never have to worry about a feat like this, because fudged rolls never happen in my games.

Every other roll may have been an exaggeration, but it was still the height of my fudginess as a GM. I've since reformed.

In that case then, would you fudge for a player who wanted you to? I'm mostly interested in what would happen with a group of mixed fudgers rather than the GM setting the policy.

demigodus
2012-06-06, 02:28 PM
I prefer not to have the rolls fudged, or the monsters' stats/abilities changed mid-combat to accommodate the PC's. I have had a character I worked nearly a dozen hours making die in round one of the first combat of the session, about half an hour into game because of this before. Yes it sucked, but I prefer to have a chance of failure, even horrible failure, then to go into an encounter knowing victory is guaranteed.

Naturally, I hate having stuff fudged against me, as I hate it being fudged in my favor. If we are pulling out the dice, the results should be random, not predetermined by plot/DM fiat.

Killer Angel
2012-06-06, 02:46 PM
I agree, but I'm anti-fudging.

I recognize some of the reasons behind the pro-fudging.
IMO, the need to fudge can be eliminated by luck points, used both by players (avoiding death due to critical, and so on) and the DM (avoiding a failed save by the BBEG in the first round). Of course, you must be careful to not run out of luck points, otherwise...

Venusaur
2012-06-06, 02:50 PM
I have, but only because I was playing with newbies. Way easier if they don't get killed on their first session.

Rhaegar14
2012-06-06, 03:41 PM
I will admit, as a DM, I do fudge the dice from time to time, but only when I feel I have to do it to keep the game fun. For instance, I threw a CR 11-12 Green Dragon at a 6-man party of level 8 PCs on a boat, thinking they could take it. Oh how wrong I was; I actually ended up having to pull a deus ex machina to save the campaign from a total wipe, because they just couldn't fight the thing.

I never fudge rolls to protect my NPCs though; only to help the players.

kyoryu
2012-06-06, 03:58 PM
I will admit, as a DM, I do fudge the dice from time to time, but only when I feel I have to do it to keep the game fun. For instance, I threw a CR 11-12 Green Dragon at a 6-man party of level 8 PCs on a boat, thinking they could take it. Oh how wrong I was; I actually ended up having to pull a deus ex machina to save the campaign from a total wipe, because they just couldn't fight the thing.

I never fudge rolls to protect my NPCs though; only to help the players.

And that's the kind of scenario where it might make sense to fudge dice - you've removed all agency from the characters. They have no way to choose whether or not to engage the dragon, and no way to escape the combat. Since they didn't make the "fatal" decision, it's somewhat unfair to ask them to live with the consequences.

(If, of course, "take boat through dragon-infested waters" was but one of many options, then the point doesn't quite stand).

Othesemo
2012-06-06, 03:59 PM
Fudging is a useful tool that should be used only sparingly. The dice don't lie, but sometimes, they're just flat out wrong.

Vitruviansquid
2012-06-06, 04:17 PM
My players know that I never fudge rolls.

Even when I'm fudging them.

That's the point of fudging, isn't it? >_>

137beth
2012-06-06, 04:22 PM
And that's the kind of scenario where it might make sense to fudge dice - you've removed all agency from the characters. They have no way to choose whether or not to engage the dragon, and no way to escape the combat. Since they didn't make the "fatal" decision, it's somewhat unfair to ask them to live with the consequences.

(If, of course, "take boat through dragon-infested waters" was but one of many options, then the point doesn't quite stand).

I agree. Fudging is a sort of deus ex machina that you can pull off without alerting your players. But it is only appropriate to use if you made a mistake. Any other time, and fudging is cheap.

DrBurr
2012-06-06, 04:36 PM
I fudge dice at least once a session if I'm DMing mostly because I have traitor dice which like to crit when I'm behind the screen and miss when I'm a player, I've actually rolled 4 crits at once so to keep my player's from accusing me of fudging in my favor I usually just reroll the dice or declare them misses

Other than that I will be nice occasionally and fudge a roll to not take out a player whose has been incredibly unlucky, and I do tend to fudge them if the Fighter is ripping through the line to quickly

Really I just try and keep the game fun and getting slaughtered, feeling cheated or being bored are all things I try and prevent from occurring at my Table

Doug Lampert
2012-06-06, 04:46 PM
Every other roll may have been an exaggeration, but it was still the height of my fudginess as a GM. I've since reformed.

In that case then, would you fudge for a player who wanted you to? I'm mostly interested in what would happen with a group of mixed fudgers rather than the GM setting the policy.

I would not. The PRO fudgers in this thread are unanimous that fudging only works when its secret. How can it be secret if it's at player request?

Never mind the fact that most GMs are probably a LOT worse at keeping fudging a secret than they think they are. Everyone knows obvious fudging is bad because we've all seen obvious fudging in action, this despite the fact that appearantly every single GM that fudges is an expert at hiding it from his players!

IMAO the best way to not let anyone know you fudge dice is to roll in the open and to not fudge. Given unanimus agreement that the game works better when the players think there's no dice fudging going on, and given that I can run a game fudge free, I simply don't see the temptation to fudge. Roll in the open and take the dice as they lay.

If I need the cavalry to come over the hill badly enough I can often arrange that without cheating at dice, I control the entire frigging world except the PCs, if I can't manage a small random element in actions directly involving the PCs then it seems to me I'm doing a pretty poor job of it. Similarly if my BBEG goes down at the first shot then maybe he wasn't so big and bad in the first place, I'll do better next time, I'm not the side limited to finite resources.

DougL

Lord_Gareth
2012-06-06, 04:47 PM
I am anti-fudging, but I'd have to disagree with rolling the dice in the open, Doug, for one reason - secret rolls. I use a soft, cushy dice roller that muffles the sound of the dice hitting it so I can make secret checks for spotting clues, surprise, enemy attacks from ambush, etc.

Doug Lampert
2012-06-06, 04:52 PM
I fudge dice at least once a session if I'm DMing mostly because I have traitor dice which like to crit when I'm behind the screen and miss when I'm a player, I've actually rolled 4 crits at once so to keep my player's from accusing me of fudging in my favor I usually just reroll the dice or declare them misses

Other than that I will be nice occasionally and fudge a roll to not take out a player whose has been incredibly unlucky, and I do tend to fudge them if the Fighter is ripping through the line to quickly

Really I just try and keep the game fun and getting slaughtered, feeling cheated or being bored are all things I try and prevent from occurring at my Table

You know, two of my players still regularly discuss a game decades ago with another GM where a "routine" patrol encounter resulted in a TPK of a long running group due to a series of GM crits and PC fumbles (old Runequest was the system). They think it was an aweinspiring session and remember it over a decade after that GM left town.

I'll bet they're glad he didn't know that rolling in the open and letting that happen was a bad thing. Even at the time, it's not a catastrophy, roll up new characters and start a new campaign.

kyoryu
2012-06-06, 04:55 PM
I am anti-fudging, but I'd have to disagree with rolling the dice in the open, Doug, for one reason - secret rolls. I use a soft, cushy dice roller that muffles the sound of the dice hitting it so I can make secret checks for spotting clues, surprise, enemy attacks from ambush, etc.

Yeah, the only dice I roll in the open are ones where the players know exactly why I'm rolling - combat checks, things like that. "The orc's swinging at you" is hardly a secret.

I also roll dice on occasion for no reason, and mutter over the results.

Lord_Gareth
2012-06-06, 04:55 PM
You know, two of my players still regularly discuss a game decades ago with another GM where a "routine" patrol encounter resulted in a TPK of a long running group due to a series of GM crits and PC fumbles (old Runequest was the system). They think it was an aweinspiring session and remember it over a decade after that GM left town.

I'll bet they're glad he didn't know that rolling in the open and letting that happen was a bad thing. Even at the time, it's not a catastrophy, roll up new characters and start a new campaign.

My first character, WAAAAAY back in 2e, was a bard that managed to die 18 times in the span of one IC month. Still one of my favorite characters ever.

Doug Lampert
2012-06-06, 04:57 PM
I am anti-fudging, but I'd have to disagree with rolling the dice in the open, Doug, for one reason - secret rolls. I use a soft, cushy dice roller that muffles the sound of the dice hitting it so I can make secret checks for spotting clues, surprise, enemy attacks from ambush, etc.

Bah humbug. The ambush or suprise they'll know about in seconds, it's the characters not the players who are surprised.

As for clues, if your players can't keep out of character knowledge separate then just have them roll every ten minutes or so and say "you don't see anything" till they learn better. About the third time the villian gets away or has a perfect ambush set because they were taking 20 searching the wrong hallway they'll figure out that this isn't good. Keeping out of character knowledge separate is a useful skill for a roleplayer.

If something MUST be secret then simply sit there rolling dice every few minutes and don't tell them what its for or even if it is for anything. Or ask everyone for a set of three perception checks at the start of the session and use them as appropriate.

Katana_Geldar
2012-06-06, 06:16 PM
I sometimes fudge to save my players, but the one time where I fudged to avoid a character death the player insisted on a reroll.

He lived, as I rolled my damage badly. As all I had to do was roll a 2 to hit him.

Asheram
2012-06-06, 06:23 PM
This is a point where... it all depends on the DM.
If I trust the DM, then he can do all the fudging of dice and Rule Zero as he wants, as long as he has the players entertainment in mind.

NichG
2012-06-06, 06:27 PM
Here's a type of fudging that hasn't been mentioned: fudging to avoid boring results. For example, monster treasure. The trick here is that the DM could just say exactly what the treasure of an encounter is, but wants to add some randomness to spice things up with the chance of a weird item they wouldn't think of otherwise. If the dice keep saying 'no magic items', or 'another +1 sword', the DM may well fudge the result and reroll till they get something they consider interesting. This is sort of a different situation since its not like there are rules that say that all treasure must be generated randomly. Because its a variable outcome roll, it also lives between 'if you had a result in mind why did you roll' and 'take what the dice say', since you're basically using the dice to select from the filtered list of 'interesting, randomly generated item'.

Another example would be effects that teleport the target to 'a random plane' (accompanied with a chart).

But since we've brought up the point of 'if you had a result in mind don't roll', would people be satisfied with that policy taken literally? Namely, if the DM just said 'I'm not going to roll for this because it I don't want you to die', or alternately 'I'm not going to roll for this because I want you guys to go to Acheron and this is a convenient way to get you there'. For me at least, I'd rather not know when the DM is fudging since that way I can suspend disbelief and come away with a story of 'wow, that was a ridiculous sequence of events!'.

cfalcon
2012-06-06, 06:33 PM
DM can't fudge dice. The DM can say anything happens and it does. Mostly you use the dice to determine this, but you are by no means bound to it.

TheThan
2012-06-06, 06:42 PM
I’ve always felt that it’s alright to fudge the dice when the DM makes a big mistake, such as miscalculating the difficulty of an encounter, or just plain hot dice. Especially at low levels, players characters tend to be very squishy, so that is more than likely when you’ll end up doing most of the dice fudging. Really though, a lot of fudging comes down to the scenario. That’s a pretty hard thing to figure out, when dice fudging is “good” and “bad”.

My opinion is that “good” dice fudging only happens to keep the campaign rolling. For instance, to avoid a TPK, or to get the re-occurring BBEG away from the players so he can show up later (and even then, sometimes when the pcs get the BBEG, then they’ve got him and you’ll need to work something else out later), that sort of thing. Bad dice fudging is when the DM does it to “protect” his players, keep his players on edge (fudging missed attacks into hits) or to keep them on the DM’s plot tracks.

I understand that a lot of people are anti-fudging, they have their reasons. I personally view it as just another tool in the DM’s arsenal, a tool that just like any other, needs to be wielded with precision and care.

Rallicus
2012-06-06, 06:46 PM
In that case then, would you fudge for a player who wanted you to? I'm mostly interested in what would happen with a group of mixed fudgers rather than the GM setting the policy.

No, I wouldn't. Mainly because I don't want certain rules to apply to only certain players. I guess I can see where you're coming from, though. Some people undoubtedly want to develop their characters and good/bad dice rolls get in the way of that.

That's just not how I run games, unfortunately for those players. Several people have expressed interest in being part of my games and have laid out extensive descriptions and intended decisions for their characters, even before being accepted (one of which was the catfolk equivalent of Drizzt, in terms of mary-sue-ness). I told them how I run my games and they dropped out, which is fine by me.

Fudging just once ruins the entire point of even having dice. Why have them as a neutral factor in your storytelling if you can adjust it to suit your needs whenever you want?

I've been fortunate enough to gather up players who aren't afraid to have their characters die. During a near-TPK a few weeks back, I remember them discussing casually how they were all going to die. Like it was no big deal. One player even had a new character in mind.

Luckily the proceeding damage rolls were low and the enemy even rolled a fumble (1 and then a miss on a character's AC), so that gave the group just enough opportunity to drop him. It was lucky.

Had I fudged the dice, the outcome would have already been predetermined and, as far as I'm concerned, the whole thing would be pointless and stupid.

It's actually a little bit discouraging to see how many people fudge rolls in their games. I wouldn't want to be a part of these games personally, but that's just me, and I seem to be in the minority here.

cfalcon
2012-06-06, 07:09 PM
You are probably assuming a "no-failure" environment, or one where the DM forces the plot to go according to a certain path and the PCs ultimately can't change it. I doubt very much that is all that common. I would also not want to play in an environment where I couldn't die to hot DM dice, and as a DM I don't pull punches.

That being said, on principle, you simply can't fudge dice as DM. It's your world.

Rallicus
2012-06-06, 07:50 PM
That being said, on principle, you simply can't fudge dice as DM. It's your world.

I think that's a horrible way to look at it. I don't think rule 0 should apply in any way, shape or form to dice rolls. I feel that dice rolls should be a separate and untouchable by both the players and the DM.

Again, that's just me.

some guy
2012-06-06, 07:52 PM
Here's a type of fudging that hasn't been mentioned: fudging to avoid boring results. For example, monster treasure.

Yeah, I've done this, I've fudged random treasure rolls and random encounters. But for me, these kinds of fudges feel a lot different than fudging an attack or damage roll. Rolling for attacks and damage I see as a tool for being an impartial referee and rolling dice for items/monsters I see more as tools as storyteller; tools for inspiration.

But for the OP:
I don't know if mixed fudging works for a group.
But then again, my last time as a player was under a fudging DM. And I think I rather had played in that campaign if he didn't fudge for me.

As a DM, I will not have different fudging policies, I will warn players beforehand. I'm a DM who rolls in the open and I don't think I would remember for which player to roll in the open and for who to roll secretly.

DrBurr
2012-06-06, 08:06 PM
You know, two of my players still regularly discuss a game decades ago with another GM where a "routine" patrol encounter resulted in a TPK of a long running group due to a series of GM crits and PC fumbles (old Runequest was the system). They think it was an aweinspiring session and remember it over a decade after that GM left town.

I'll bet they're glad he didn't know that rolling in the open and letting that happen was a bad thing. Even at the time, it's not a catastrophy, roll up new characters and start a new campaign.

Maybe if its still took an hour to make new characters, my players can spend a week just picking their level 1 feats and equipment and I'm not to give up my night to character creation just because my dice can't behave

I'm not at all opposed to killing my players though I frequently down the Front lines to the negatives then its up to the team to keep them alive.

Doug Lampert
2012-06-06, 08:27 PM
Maybe if its still took an hour to make new characters, my players can spend a week just picking their level 1 feats and equipment and I'm not to give up my night to character creation just because my dice can't behave

I'm not at all opposed to killing my players though I frequently down the Front lines to the negatives then its up to the team to keep them alive.

Killing players always strikes me as excessive. The police probably wouldn't approve. :)

But not killing PCs because it takes too long to make a new one? Heck with that, the day that happens I'm picking a new system. If your players take a week to make a new character then they are either (a) insane or (b) they enjoy making new characters and WANT to spend 30 hours dumpster diving splat books to come up with a build.

If (a) then find new players, if (b) then why avoid killing PCs?

3.5 you can make a new level 1 character in 20 minutes, maybe less. If it takes longer and you aren't enjoying making a character then you're doing it wrong. And 3.5 is pretty bad as far as being a time sink for character creation.

Roll 4d6 drop low six times, say "Human Druid", say "Wolf animal companion", say highest ability in Wis, second highest in Con (if 22 or more point buy then Wis 18, Con 14), place the rest as desired, feats are augment summoning and spell focus conjuration, pick skills, pick some cantrips, entangle, and another level 1 spell, buy gear. Done.

DrBurr
2012-06-06, 09:05 PM
Killing players always strikes me as excessive. The police probably wouldn't approve. :)

But not killing PCs because it takes too long to make a new one? Heck with that, the day that happens I'm picking a new system. If your players take a week to make a new character then they are either (a) insane or (b) they enjoy making new characters and WANT to spend 30 hours dumpster diving splat books to come up with a build.

If (a) then find new players, if (b) then why avoid killing PCs?

3.5 you can make a new level 1 character in 20 minutes, maybe less. If it takes longer and you aren't enjoying making a character then you're doing it wrong. And 3.5 is pretty bad as far as being a time sink for character creation.

Roll 4d6 drop low six times, say "Human Druid", say "Wolf animal companion", say highest ability in Wis, second highest in Con (if 22 or more point buy then Wis 18, Con 14), place the rest as desired, feats are augment summoning and spell focus conjuration, pick skills, pick some cantrips, entangle, and another level 1 spell, buy gear. Done.

Not everyone plays 3.5 you know, also I was exaggerating it just takes them a long time to pick typically the whole night, a night I spend doing nothing because I'm not running a campaign, which is time wasted if I wanted to sit their watching them build characters I wouldn't bother writing a campaign.

I really don't avoid Killing PCs, I avoid dropping 4 crits on them which will take them from full HP to 0 in one turn. Like I said I just fudge dice to give my players a chance not to let them skate through the campaign

Doug Lampert
2012-06-06, 09:13 PM
Not everyone plays 3.5 you know, also I was exaggerating it just takes them a long time to pick typically the whole night, a night I spend doing nothing because I'm not running a campaign, which is time wasted if I wanted to sit their watching them build characters I wouldn't bother writing a campaign.

I really don't avoid Killing PCs, I avoid dropping 4 crits on them which will take them from full HP to 0 in one turn. Like I said I just fudge dice to give my players a chance not to let them skate through the campaign

So? You mentioned feats, that's a D&D 3+ rule, so it's 3.0 (simpler than 3.5), PF (same as 3.5), 4th edition (faster, you call up the character builder and go), or some homebrew or 3rd edition variant (your own fault).

Either building a character is faster than it is in 3.5, or the extra time is your fault. And 3.5 is 20 minutes or so for level 1.

And who says you WAIT while someone is building a character? You keep right on running a game, does the world stop? Heck no. The rest of the characters keep going till you get to a good spot to introduce a new character. The guy making the replacement character has to wait while the party gets to a good spot to introduce a new guy, he does any and all waiting.

I'm really not seeing why you have a problem here. If you don't want to wait while someone builds a character then don't! Just keep playing.

DrBurr
2012-06-06, 10:23 PM
So? You mentioned feats, that's a D&D 3+ rule, so it's 3.0 (simpler than 3.5), PF (same as 3.5), 4th edition (faster, you call up the character builder and go), or some homebrew or 3rd edition variant (your own fault).

Either building a character is faster than it is in 3.5, or the extra time is your fault. And 3.5 is 20 minutes or so for level 1.

And who says you WAIT while someone is building a character? You keep right on running a game, does the world stop? Heck no. The rest of the characters keep going till you get to a good spot to introduce a new character. The guy making the replacement character has to wait while the party gets to a good spot to introduce a new guy, he does any and all waiting.

I'm really not seeing why you have a problem here. If you don't want to wait while someone builds a character then don't! Just keep playing.

So according to you I should not fudge my dice let a near TPK happen shun my friends away from the table to build characters while I take an imbalanced party through Encounters designed for four to six players and then allow them to be slaughtered just because I should be loyal to whatever the dice say? Or perhaps instead I let the third crit in a row miss and give them a fighting chance and not have to deal with improving an entire party of characters into a quest which they'd no longer care about
:smallconfused:

Also I play 4th not that that matters and CB only allows one person to build at a time so that just makes things take longer if you have multiple people who need to use it especially because the party is only ever level one for a couple of weeks chances are they'd be between level 8 and 11 by the time I'd need to fudge multiple crits

Menteith
2012-06-06, 10:54 PM
I don't fudge dice, but I also do my best to eliminate frustrating party kills. I'll try and communicate the potential consequences of player actions before they take them ("are you sure you want to do that?"). Additionally, I rarely start the game at level 1, instead starting around level 3 at minimum unless I'm attempting something specific that calls for Lv1 (a module I don't have time to adapt, for instance). Once players get to higher levels, they generally are able to deal with death pretty easily, and I'm able to take off kid gloves, but when one's maximum life is less than the damage die of a random orc, I avoid situations that could lead to a TPK.

Totally Guy
2012-06-07, 12:54 AM
There are games out there where the player running them doesn't roll any dice and other games where the rules say that all the dice are rolled in the open.

Unfortunately because D&D is so ubiquitous players assume the rules of D&D apply to all role playing games and that those truths that the system teaches are a "one true way".

Saph
2012-06-07, 05:50 AM
My first character, WAAAAAY back in 2e, was a bard that managed to die 18 times in the span of one IC month. Still one of my favorite characters ever.

Wait, you weren't the inspiration for that character in Gamers 2, were you?

Kol Korran
2012-06-07, 06:40 AM
i used to fudge rolls, but then we decided to try something new (to us at least): all dice are rolled in the open, and all by the players- monster attack rolls become player defense rolls, monsters save become player's spell power rolls and the like. i also tell the DC to all rolls openly.

it improved our game TREMENDOUSLY. it made everything more "real", more tactic, it shifted the onus of responsibility from DM to players (or so it seemed at least).a few thoughts about this:
- the "secret rolls" (stealth, sense motive and so on) can be easily worked on to require no roll from the DM, as long as the players are mature enough to not metagame. not a problem most times.

- i think that D&D at least is quite deadly if the players don't optimize to the same level of DM, and the Dm don't fudge. i have come to think the game assumes you do. in this method the DM need to adjust his encounters VERY carefully (a few times came close to a TPK which would have ended the campaign disappointingly i think), and if you do wish to "fudge" due it in the logic of the game- monster tactics and so on. though i've found only 2 instances to do so, and only in a minor fashion.

- it makes players much more involved in the game- they feel they can affect it more, have a greater control over the fate of their characters.

that is what we do at least...

DigoDragon
2012-06-07, 07:10 AM
If any of my players had immunity to fudged dice then they would have died from their poor rolls months ago. :smallbiggrin:

Doug Lampert
2012-06-07, 11:10 AM
So according to you I should not fudge my dice let a near TPK happen shun my friends away from the table to build characters while I take an imbalanced party through Encounters designed for four to six players and then allow them to be slaughtered just because I should be loyal to whatever the dice say?

No, according to me you shouldn't BUILD encounters where one missing player is a TPK!


Or perhaps instead I let the third crit in a row miss and give them a fighting chance and not have to deal with improving an entire party of characters into a quest which they'd no longer care about
:smallconfused:

Also I play 4th not that that matters and CB only allows one person to build at a time so that just makes things take longer if you have multiple people who need to use it especially because the party is only ever level one for a couple of weeks chances are they'd be between level 8 and 11 by the time I'd need to fudge multiple crits

You brought up and specified level 1, I'm entirely sticking with YOUR example here.

If you use 4th edition and NEED the character builder to build a character AND all your players spend a week to build characters then it follows that you are either (illegally) sharing your password, or they all have their own accounts. No problem if they all have their own accounts. In any case since YOU insist it takes forever the player who's out can do it on his own time and watch or play an NPC for the rest of the current encounter.

Except that YOU, by your own admission, seem to be unable to manage to adjust an adventure on the fly for more or fewer characters. You think you can fudge dice so no one will notice, but you can't manage the VASTLY easier task of removing one monster from the next encounter of finding an NPC for someone to run.

In any case, continuing with your example, monster crits in 4th edition average about 30% more damage than normal hits, and monsters hit most of the time, if the TRIVIAL extra damage from three crits in a row causes a TPK then I suggest that you or your players are doing it wrong! That's roughly one healing item or power over what you should EXPECT on average, and there are LOTS of ways to get healing powers in 4th edition.

Acording to YOU, not me, YOU need to fudge if the fighter is being too successful, YOU also need to fudge regularly to preserve characters. Maybe you aren't leaving enough slack in your encounter designs because I have no trouble in fourth edition generating tight battles where the PCs win without fudging, it's far and away the most predictable version of D&D ever.

Morithias
2012-06-07, 03:01 PM
One of my rules as a DM is only to fudge dice in order to HELP the players then to harm them.

So this "feat" would basically boil down to "I don't want the DM to cheat for rule of drama/funny/cool/etc when it's for my benefit."

So yeah, NEVER take this feat if you're in one of my campaigns.

Mordar
2012-06-07, 03:13 PM
Though off the OP topic, I think that "fudging" is good for the story. Characters (either Player or key Non-Player) should be able to die, but that it should be with intent, not by twist of accident. People invested in their characters and the story should be rewarded for the investment and no suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. However, there is risk. Do something sufficiently foolish, dice rule. Make a heroic last stand, dice rule. A series of multiple instances of poor luck (and only poor for the Player...say Nameless Gnoll #32 suddenly proves unhittable by the Paladin and subsequently crit/maxes the halbred hit three times in a row), dice don't rule...or circumstances change to accomodate an outcome that is good for the story. Remember, only Lurtz could kill Boromir and have it matter. A series of multiple instances of good luck (for the Player) and the BBEG actually had a boss...or a mysterious outcome that still provides the reward (in game and in story) of winning through against evil. Don't like this style? Go play the enhanced boardgame/wargame style. I hear it is fun.

Though off the OP topic, I think that "fudging" is bad for the game. Players have built their characters to compete with the DM, the monsters in the dungeon, and/or one another. Changing the rules mid-stream cheapens the experience for everyone involved and never provides a realistic test of the player *or* the character's skill. Things go badly for you in a fight with Nameless Gnoll #32? You should have been better prepared...or recognize that sometimes the sun shines on even an ugly hyena-man butt once in a while. Just throw together that alternate build you had in mind and restart! The BBEG gets ganked in round 1 before he even has a chance to solilquoy? DM needs to do a better job of building the encounter - after all, (s)he knows what the PCs can do. Don't like this style? Go play the story style. I hear it is fun.

See, it's either collaborative storytelling, enhanced by the use of some randomization along the way, or its cut-and-dry sporting competition with some situational trappings for color. Of course, that was kind of spurious, as we seldom get to pick off the menu of game styles, and many times aren't fortunate enough to live in a sufficiently game-rich are to sort through the players and games and form perfectly-aligned groups.

I lean more towards story mode than wargame mode, but can accept either. I will have character investment in one, and a portfolio of nameless builds for the other. If they live long enough, maybe they'll get some character traits to go along with the statsheet. I just want the whole group on the same page as far as the playstyle is concerned so I go in eyes open.

- M

Tyndmyr
2012-06-07, 03:53 PM
I agree. Fudging is a sort of deus ex machina that you can pull off without alerting your players. But it is only appropriate to use if you made a mistake. Any other time, and fudging is cheap.

Honestly, at that point, I'd just admit the mistake. The players probably already have caught on to it anyway. I might as well cop to it.

And lots of players can pick up on GM fudging, even if they don't make a big deal about it. If they end up in a situation where it's obvious the GM screwed up, and suddenly all the hidden rolls start going their way? That's kind of a clue.

I'd probably try to argue that not fudging dice should be a default method of play, not worthy of wasting a feat on. However, if the options were either burn a feat or deal with fudging? I'd burn the feat in a heartbeat. Victories are a lot less meaningful if you suspect that failure wasn't actually an option.

If there was a demand for fudging, I'd introduce luck/action dice. Those accomplish the same things in a much fairer fashion.

some guy
2012-06-07, 04:16 PM
Honestly, at that point, I'd just admit the mistake. The players probably already have caught on to it anyway. I might as well cop to it.

And lots of players can pick up on GM fudging, even if they don't make a big deal about it. If they end up in a situation where it's obvious the GM screwed up, and suddenly all the hidden rolls start going their way? That's kind of a clue.

I'd probably try to argue that not fudging dice should be a default method of play, not worthy of wasting a feat on. However, if the options were either burn a feat or deal with fudging? I'd burn the feat in a heartbeat. Victories are a lot less meaningful if you suspect that failure wasn't actually an option.

If there was a demand for fudging, I'd introduce luck/action dice. Those accomplish the same things in a much fairer fashion.

Where's the 'like'/'+1'button, I'd like to press it.

kyoryu
2012-06-07, 04:25 PM
There's lots more effective ways to fudge in the players' favor anyway, that are usually less detectable - "forget" abilities, play suboptimally, skip over turns, let the biggest enemy leave with a condescending sneer for the minions to finish wiping up...

Rallicus
2012-06-07, 04:27 PM
One of my rules as a DM is only to fudge dice in order to HELP the players then to harm them.

... And? Isn't messing with the dice to prevent character death usually the case for fudging? I've never heard of a DM rolling a 1 and then switching it to a hit and damaging the player or something.

I will somewhat agree with the "it is only appropriate to use if you made a mistake," (137ben) though. I say somewhat because I don't think underestimating an encounter difficulty is really a mistake. Misjudgment? Yes. But hardly a mistake, and players can usually almost always think their way out of a situation if they're crafty enough. If they continue the fight even though they're clearly getting their ass kicked: guess what, time to die.

As for rule mistakes and the like: yeah, it's okay to fudge there, I think, in order to balance what you did wrong.

That's just me though. Maybe it's because my campaign stories are just decent in terms of quality; maybe it's because I've literally never been in a campaign with a talented writer (and before you say something - I'm very picky, and yes, I'd probably think your favorite, most original campaign was dull and stupid). The neutral third party that is the dice adds unexpected twists to these dull stories, and thus makes them a lot more interesting, at least in my opinion.

I should also note that in one of my campaigns, the DM fudged rolls in the latest session. The PC in question did something very stupid and should have paid the price (most likely death, or at least dying status, given the enemy's attacks). It felt like babby's first tabletop, so I think my character will be suicidal from now on, just to see how much the DM will save me. I think I'll throw in some OOC whining about the game being too difficult and "just trying to have fun" for good measure.

I know it's a bit of a "'lol hurrdurr im retarded,' 'go away retard', 'lol i was just pretending'" sort of troll move, but I'm genuinely curious as to how a DM will react to something like this.

kyoryu
2012-06-07, 04:54 PM
There's lots more effective ways to fudge in the players' favor anyway, that are usually less detectable - "forget" abilities, play suboptimally, skip over turns, let the biggest enemy leave with a condescending sneer for the minions to finish wiping up...

Lord_Gareth
2012-06-07, 05:14 PM
Wait, you weren't the inspiration for that character in Gamers 2, were you?

Hilariously, no. Aside from the bit where that group is horrible (and in 3.X), all eighteen deaths were non-combat deaths, the majority of which revolved around traps.

SgtCarnage92
2012-06-07, 06:47 PM
One of my players had a freshly-rolled PC the other night that would have taken over 50 points of damage and would have been instantly killed (even without massive damage rules) because i crit-rolled with a x3 modifier weapon and made a solid hit on my second attack. I told him to take it down to zero hp and not take the kill just because it was a fresh character.

However i did kill a character off a crit with the first attack of the game a few games ago...but that was more or less my way of telling him that his build was horrible. (multiclass ninja-wizard-fighter) He brought in an identical character that was later abandoned...

I only fudge rolls in the player's favor and only when it wasn't because of their own stupidity.

Lord.Sorasen
2012-06-07, 07:08 PM
I feel like fudging has to be secret, if only because if someone fudges for my sake, I always feel pretty dirty about it. I'd rather a DM doesn't fudge dice, but I haven't been on the receiving end of a TPK or anything of that sort... I might change my mind if placed in the situation.

On a related note, fun story: I ran a campaign with an entirely new group just last week. People who had never played D&D or any tabletop before. One of our group, she's very into Westerns and that sort of thing, so she jumped on the idea of playing a Pathfinder Gunslinger.

Our first battle begins: it's supposed to be a fairly simple battle to make the PCs feel cool while also showing that there are dangers on the island. Naturally, her very first two rolls in a tabletop game are both 1s. As per the gunslinger rules, her gun explodes. Fun times were had by all, I think.

Yet there's an issue here, because this is a person entirely new to the game, who made a character with a style 100% focused on the unique weapon, who, under the rules of the dice, would have had to play the entire first arc of the campaign without the class she set out to play (there were no stores on the island, and guns are expensive.)

It's a difficult dilemma, especially with a new player. Fudging that roll would have felt cheap, yet not doing it would make the game less fun for quite a long time. Ultimately I just decided the gun misfired terribly to hurt the user, but was not beyond repair. I think it worked out a lot better for the group as a whole.

Dumbledore lives
2012-06-07, 07:53 PM
I don't think I've fudged d20 rolls very often or at all. Occasionally I may mis-add or forget a bonus or penalty but everyone makes mistakes. I do however occasionally adjust damage rolls, bringing players into negatives but not killing them. I figure deaths should not be random, especially in circumstances where the players didn't actually anything much wrong, but were just unlucky.

However if the players do something stupid, like say a wizard charging a mimic with a dagger while at low health, or a warlock charging in ahead of the group yeah I'll let it lie. If crits are funny though, I'll let them happen. Funny or dramatically appropriate, that's our D&D, though maybe not yours.

DrBurr
2012-06-07, 08:21 PM
No, according to me you shouldn't BUILD encounters where one missing player is a TPK!
Except if the party is ranged based then the lost of your shield can easily lead to a TPK, take a bow ranger, a sorcerer and a seeker and put them up against the brutes above their level, which some can make multiple attacks, the fighter can typically go toe to toe with and you'll find they won't do quite hot especially if that's only the first encounter of the night


You brought up and specified level 1, I'm entirely sticking with YOUR example here.
Except when i brought it up originally I was making a joke on how long it felt and this was before you were picking apart every word in my posts


If you use 4th edition and NEED the character builder to build a character AND all your players spend a week to build characters then it follows that you are either (illegally) sharing your password, or they all have their own accounts. No problem if they all have their own accounts. In any case since YOU insist it takes forever the player who's out can do it on his own time and watch or play an NPC for the rest of the current encounter.
Yes cause people take time out of their weeks so they can watch everyone else have fun because like I said my dice are bad


Except that YOU, by your own admission, seem to be unable to manage to adjust an adventure on the fly for more or fewer characters. You think you can fudge dice so no one will notice, but you can't manage the VASTLY easier task of removing one monster from the next encounter of finding an NPC for someone to run.

If your still just building encounters by a 1v1 basis I can see how you can think that, factor in the use of elites, solos, minions or leaders some from the first MM and require XP adjustments and redoing XP budgets is a hassle

Not to mention changing the layouts of an encounters in the middle of a session is just like fudging dice if you think about it, you are changing how the game would play out by making things harder or easier


In any case, continuing with your example, monster crits in 4th edition average about 30% more damage than normal hits, and monsters hit most of the time, if the TRIVIAL extra damage from three crits in a row causes a TPK then I suggest that you or your players are doing it wrong! That's roughly one healing item or power over what you should EXPECT on average, and there are LOTS of ways to get healing powers in 4th edition.
Take two Demonic Savage Minotaurs Level 11, versus a Level 9 Fighter, The Minotaur Claw Attack does 2d6+5 and he gets to attack twice. Insert 4 crits, thats 17 damage per hit, that's 68 damage total. At level 9 my group's fighter had 80 hit points, he would of just dropped from max down to 12 assuming he had not yet been hit yet and he won't be able to be healed until either his or the cleric's turn. Until then another monster could very well drop him to negative leaving the party vulnerable and within the next few turns while hes rolling death saves they could join him.

I would tell you to check your math thats over 3 healing surges of damage right there, the Fighter would only have a second wind and a healing word from the Cleric if he lasts that long


Acording to YOU, not me, YOU need to fudge if the fighter is being too successful, YOU also need to fudge regularly to preserve characters. Maybe you aren't leaving enough slack in your encounter designs because I have no trouble in fourth edition generating tight battles where the PCs win without fudging, it's far and away the most predictable version of D&D ever.

I never said I fudge regularly I only fudge on the fighter being to successful when hes making sauce out of the enemy in a plot relevant battle, I rarely need to preserve characters I was simply stating situations when I've had to fudge those situations can come up maybe once a month seeing as we meet twice a week is between 8-10 6 hour sessions

Killer Angel
2012-06-08, 02:05 AM
I've never heard of a DM rolling a 1 and then switching it to a hit and damaging the player or something.


Are you certain?
I'm pretty sure you can find DMs that fudge against players' characters, for example if they believe the final fight must be memorable.
("My BBEG failed this critical saving throw... better not" or "the fighter dared to enter in close combat, and my deadly warmachine rolled a 1, twice? inconceivable").

It's awful, but i don't believe it never happened.

Boci
2012-06-08, 05:08 AM
Are you certain?
I'm pretty sure you can find DMs that fudge against players' characters, for example if they believe the final fight must be memorable.
("My BBEG failed this critical saving throw... better not" or "the fighter dared to enter in close combat, and my deadly warmachine rolled a 1, twice? inconceivable").

It's awful, but i don't believe it never happened.

One DM I played with gave us points which could be used to reroll dice. (I think it was 2 whenever we posted something on the forum between sessions.) However, he could also use this mechanic on a monster, in which case we also got two points, so it worked out.

Its a good solution, because whilst the hypothetical GM in your post is doing it wrong, I can empathize.

Killer Angel
2012-06-08, 05:31 AM
One DM I played with gave us points which could be used to reroll dice. (I think it was 2 whenever we posted something on the forum between sessions.) However, he could also use this mechanic on a monster, in which case we also got two points, so it worked out.

Its a good solution, because whilst the hypothetical GM in your post is doing it wrong, I can empathize.

Indeed, the point method is (IMO) the solution to the issue.
Both the DM and the players can save their "luck" to avoid unpleasant results. At that point, you can even roll in the open.

Jay R
2012-06-08, 10:44 AM
Should the DM have the ability to make decisions about the world or its inhabitants or about what might happen? Obviously, the answer is "yes". he decides what will happen virtually all the time.

So the next question is, Should the DM have the right to make decisions about the world or its inhabitants or about what might happen during the game? Again, the answer is obviously "yes". Everything an NPC does is, at least in part, based on a DM decision.

And should the players know everything about the DM's current decisions? No, or the NPCs have no secrets.

I conclude that if fudging is ever needed, the players shouldn't know about it.

Sometimes, as a DM, I'll realize during a game that I made a bad decision when planning it. This is when it's time to fudge, and I think a lot of people are working on the assumption that the only reason to do that is to make the encounter either safer or less safe. It's not true.

I once had a group of giant spiders attack the party. I put the minis on the table, and that's when I learned that one of the players had a spider phobia.

So I reduced the spiders' hit points to the minimum possible, had them fail their first important throw, and got the minis off the table. And the players never knew that it was supposed to be a major encounter.

That's the DM fudging dice rolls, and I do not apologize.

Getting back to the original question, which was "If you were presented with a game where you could choose the GM's fudging policy for your character, would you a) play in this game, potentially with people whose characters had a different fudging policy, and b) what would you pick?". (Yes, it really was; go back and look.)

The straightforward answer is that if I didn't trust the DM to make the best decisions for the game he's planned, I wouldn't play with him at all. So, no, I wouldn't change how he makes his decisions; if I needed to do so, it's not the game for me.

I do not know, and I do not need to know, the policy of our current DM. I know that he makes the game fun for all the players.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-08, 10:54 AM
One of my players had a freshly-rolled PC the other night that would have taken over 50 points of damage and would have been instantly killed (even without massive damage rules) because i crit-rolled with a x3 modifier weapon and made a solid hit on my second attack. I told him to take it down to zero hp and not take the kill just because it was a fresh character.

However i did kill a character off a crit with the first attack of the game a few games ago...but that was more or less my way of telling him that his build was horrible. (multiclass ninja-wizard-fighter) He brought in an identical character that was later abandoned...

I only fudge rolls in the player's favor and only when it wasn't because of their own stupidity.

The problem with this logic is, stupidity has been defined as "what the GM thinks is stupid" rather than "this is something that gets you killed.

If someone wants to build a ninja-wizard-fighter or other wild build...they can. I will give them advice if they want, but they will neither suddenly face much weaker enemies to coddle them, nor will they face things that will kill them to teach them a lesson. The same is true of their well built buddies.

"I only fudge for good builds" is not something I can justify as being fair.

Mr.Moron
2012-06-08, 11:33 AM
I'll fudge if the situation has gotten totally out of control due just plain bizarre rolling. Generally just something like slightly reducing enemy damage if the PCs haven't managed to roll above a 5 on any of their d20s in 5 rounds.

Fiery Diamond
2012-06-08, 12:19 PM
Should the DM have the ability to make decisions about the world or its inhabitants or about what might happen? Obviously, the answer is "yes". he decides what will happen virtually all the time.

So the next question is, Should the DM have the right to make decisions about the world or its inhabitants or about what might happen during the game? Again, the answer is obviously "yes". Everything an NPC does is, at least in part, based on a DM decision.

And should the players know everything about the DM's current decisions? No, or the NPCs have no secrets.

I conclude that if fudging is ever needed, the players shouldn't know about it.

Sometimes, as a DM, I'll realize during a game that I made a bad decision when planning it. This is when it's time to fudge, and I think a lot of people are working on the assumption that the only reason to do that is to make the encounter either safer or less safe. It's not true.

I once had a group of giant spiders attack the party. I put the minis on the table, and that's when I learned that one of the players had a spider phobia.

So I reduced the spiders' hit points to the minimum possible, had them fail their first important throw, and got the minis off the table. And the players never knew that it was supposed to be a major encounter.

That's the DM fudging dice rolls, and I do not apologize.

Getting back to the original question, which was "If you were presented with a game where you could choose the GM's fudging policy for your character, would you a) play in this game, potentially with people whose characters had a different fudging policy, and b) what would you pick?". (Yes, it really was; go back and look.)

The straightforward answer is that if I didn't trust the DM to make the best decisions for the game he's planned, I wouldn't play with him at all. So, no, I wouldn't change how he makes his decisions; if I needed to do so, it's not the game for me.

I do not know, and I do not need to know, the policy of our current DM. I know that he makes the game fun for all the players.

This is the post I agree most with on this thread. I really wouldn't want to play with many of the anti-fudgers on this thread, not because they don't fudge, but because of their attitude toward the game. I would not want to game with anyone who treats character death as trivial (unless revival is easy enough to make it so in fact), nor would I want to game with anyone who thinks that the dice are gods that must be obeyed. The dice are merely tools. I don't see tabletop gaming as being primarily a game, but primarily a way of doing interactive storymaking with heavy game elements.

For me, the dice are not gods. There is nothing that makes dice any more must-be-obeyed than any of the other rules listed in the books. A DM deciding to ignore the rules for high elevations because he wants an above-cloud mountaintop adventure with his level one PCs who have no magic to speak of is no different than a DM fudging rolls. I agree that fudging rolls shouldn't be something done all the time, primarily because that gets people into the habit of ignoring them and expecting things to play out the same regardless of what happens.

The dice are a tool for adjudicating situations where a)chance comes into play, b)the people involved (Player and/or DM) don't have a specific outcome that is "preferred" and want aid in making the decision, or c)there needs to be some quantification of a variable (such as damage). If the dice create a result that is, rather than helpful, harmful to the enjoyment of those playing the game (unfortunate critical death of a PC in circumstances where reviving the character is not possible and the player is known to be attached to the PC and not want a new character, TPK (again, where players aren't going to be happy campers about starting with new characters and it wouldn't be reasonable for a third party to find/revive them, etc.), then the tool has failed its job and a more adequate decision should be made.

I do agree that fudging should not be public, though, as that decreases tension far too much.

A Luck Points system, as suggested, would work wonders as a solution to the problem of it feeling like a cop-out and like all the power is being placed in the DM's hands. It also would make use of fudging for dramatic purposes seem less abusive.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-08, 12:55 PM
I've never had an accidental TPK. I don't think they're that hard to avoid.

I would submit that if accidental TPKs are a notable risk that you need to care about, you might want to revisit your encounter design. Consider party level and composition. Consider how you're foreshadowing things. If "everyone dies for no good reason" is a likely outcome of a fight, scrap it and rebuild it.


If the dice create a result that is, rather than helpful, harmful to the enjoyment of those playing the game (unfortunate critical death of a PC in circumstances where reviving the character is not possible and the player is known to be attached to the PC and not want a new character

So...a char can't die if his player is attached to him? Why are players entitled to success?

kyoryu
2012-06-08, 01:06 PM
This is the post I agree most with on this thread. I really wouldn't want to play with many of the anti-fudgers on this thread, not because they don't fudge, but because of their attitude toward the game. I would not want to game with anyone who treats character death as trivial (unless revival is easy enough to make it so in fact), nor would I want to game with anyone who thinks that the dice are gods that must be obeyed. The dice are merely tools. I don't see tabletop gaming as being primarily a game, but primarily a way of doing interactive storymaking with heavy game elements.

These are valid, interesting points, and if anything show the disconnect between the core assumptions that the D&D ruleset makes (and has maintained from its 1e and prior roots), and how RPGs are typically played today.

Character death is trivial in D&D because the rules make it so. Other games do not have trivial character death - for instance, in most fantasy scenarios GURPS characters are easily knocked out - but it's relatively hard to kill them. Same with BW. And both of these are known as being grittier systems than D&D!

While hoping to avoid Edition Warz(tm), one of the things I liked about 4e (and I understand there are many things to dislike about it) was the fact that chracters were relatively hard to kill.

Thinking about your points make me think that fudging is the result of a disconnect between the game that the DM wants to run, and the system that he's using to run it.


I've never had an accidental TPK. I don't think they're that hard to avoid.

I would submit that if accidental TPKs are a notable risk that you need to care about, you might want to revisit your encounter design. Consider party level and composition. Consider how you're foreshadowing things. If "everyone dies for no good reason" is a likely outcome of a fight, scrap it and rebuild it.

Not only that, but players should have options to retreat, etc. Encounters are, ideally, more than "two groups try to kill each other". Having a goal that the fight is trying to accomplish makes encounters more interesting, *and* gives a way to avoid TPKs - if the bad guys achieve their goal, they hardly need to waste time killing the PCs.


So...a char can't die if his player is attached to him? Why are players entitled to success?

Depends on the type of game being run - which goes back to my point that if you're playing that type of game, maybe D&D is the wrong system to be playing it in.

Amphetryon
2012-06-08, 03:50 PM
My reasons for fudging as a DM have less to do with predetermining an outcome and more to do with preserving the dignity of a given Player when the Spinning Wheel of Death keeps thwacking the same Player, session after session, Character after Character. There comes a point where (s)he just doesn't need any more practice at dealing with PC death or rolling up a new Character, and it is a drag on the party to have to introduce yet another new face because Ol' Lucky crapped out again.

Forum Explorer
2012-06-08, 04:35 PM
I've fudged dice before. Mostly because my players are not good at this game. Generally I fudge the dice when if I don't the result will be; well that's that, seeya in a month when we either rebuild my entire game or you guys rebuild your entire team.

And while you may be fast at building new character most of my players are not. One of them is infamous for taking an entire arc to choose his spell and items.

SgtCarnage92
2012-06-08, 04:58 PM
The problem with this logic is, stupidity has been defined as "what the GM thinks is stupid" rather than "this is something that gets you killed.

If someone wants to build a ninja-wizard-fighter or other wild build...they can. I will give them advice if they want, but they will neither suddenly face much weaker enemies to coddle them, nor will they face things that will kill them to teach them a lesson. The same is true of their well built buddies.

"I only fudge for good builds" is not something I can justify as being fair.

I see your logic on both counts. On the first count he wasn't exactly in a position to do anything else and he wasn't expecting me to hit him so hard right out of the gate (neither was I). In the future it's going to be pretty much straight rolls, especially after reading arguments in this thread. That second example was a long time ago when i wasn't exactly the best DM (i let personal biases get in the way a lot of the times). I've learned a lot in the meantime.

Skaven
2012-06-08, 06:08 PM
The best way to do this is compromise in my opinion. You can play a character for years, get very invested in the character.. you don't want them to die in a silly stupid way due to some dumb dice rolls. You don't want him to die by some dumb fumble in a noncritical situation like.. I dunno, teleporting somewhere. The DM doesn't either.. we're trying to collaboratively craft a story here but then.. the dice just get stupid. You roll a 1.. then you roll another 1.. you consult a chart and it says 'you splinch yourself and die instantly' and suddenly you're just screwed. (I know this doesn't apply so much to 'safe' game systems like D&D 3rd onward but in some systems you can get stuff like fumble tables and spell errors)

The best way I have seen is a houseruled 'fate point' system where you get 1-3 fate points per level and can use them to get out of a critical situation. If you use it you can get out of a poor situation like a terrible dice based failure where you fall off a cliff or to negate a death blow, but the DM gets a fate point to use for his villains so he can get reoccurring villains out of death situations. But when the DM uses a fate point to save a villain the players get one back so they don't feel cheated. Etc.

Vizzerdrix
2012-06-09, 02:05 AM
a) play in this game, potentially with people whose characters had a different fudging policy.

1-Yes.


b) what would you pick?

2-No fudging.

Totally Guy
2012-06-09, 02:23 AM
If I was to TPK a party I'd be happy about it. I would consider it to be objective proof that I had created a situation that was compelling enough that the table of players were willing to risk their character's lives to do something they really cared about.

But of course that means I've got play in a way that doesn't work in D&D because in that game players are expected to put their lives on the line for all kinds of situations even when it's not one they truly care about.

Think about the way this interacts with the "GM writes the plot" model. If a player chose not to go do the dungeon then they would be a bad player, right? I prefer the players to provide their priorities for the game and then, as a GM, create a situation that highlights those priorities and then play to find out what happens.

Fudging dice is not something that happens in isolation, the kind of game the players are playing matters more than a blanket yes or no. I do not believe that fudging is conducive to the games I'd want to run.

Jay R
2012-06-09, 07:00 PM
These are valid, interesting points, and if anything show the disconnect between the core assumptions that the D&D ruleset makes (and has maintained from its 1e and prior roots), and how RPGs are typically played today.

This is a crucial observation. The first game I played was from the white box version - three 5.5" x 8.5" pamphlets of 36, 36 and 40 pages, which were ordinary sheets of letter-sized paper folded over. So the entire rule set fit on just 28 normal sheets of paper plus covers. The final paragraph urged you to make your own rulings, rather than to wrote for clarifications.

Yes, of course the DM had to make a lot of rulings. The assumption going into it was that he was, in fact, the creator and final authority on that world.

People like me, who started that way, assume that the DM is the final authority before even opening a rulebook. We also assumed that we weren't restricted to the actions listed in the book; that our job was to decide what we think this character would do in this situation, independent of the rulebook.

Rule Zero wasn't a "rule" it's just a description of how the game in fact was played.

(We ran an experiment in which there were no rules at all. You described your character to the DM, and every single action involved him making a creative decision. It was highly successful; there were no problems except that nobody but Todd was brave enough to run it.)

Anybody who ever played in that environment requires a DM that we all trust, and expects the DM to make rulings constantly.

Knaight
2012-06-09, 09:35 PM
As for fudging - I'm against it. As far as I'm concerned, fudging only happens when dice are rolled, but some of the things that can be rolled are unacceptable. If I'm rolling dice when the possible results are unacceptable, then it is high time to find a system where I'm only rolling dice (or pulling blocks from a Jenga tower, or drawing cards, etc.) when I should be rolling dice.


So? You mentioned feats, that's a D&D 3+ rule, so it's 3.0 (simpler than 3.5), PF (same as 3.5), 4th edition (faster, you call up the character builder and go), or some homebrew or 3rd edition variant (your own fault).

Either building a character is faster than it is in 3.5, or the extra time is your fault. And 3.5 is 20 minutes or so for level 1.
Feats were clearly a placeholder for all sorts of similar mechanics - feats, talents, advantages, gifts, edges, whatever. Moreover, feats under that name appear all over the d20 system, from d20 Modern to True 20 to Mutants and Masterminds. As for building a character being faster than in 3.5 - hardly. GURPS is slower, and HERO is an hour long slog even when you've got a whole host of automated spreadsheets making things harder. Both of these games have rough equivalents to feats.

Jay R
2012-06-10, 09:32 AM
As for fudging - I'm against it. As far as I'm concerned, fudging only happens when dice are rolled, but some of the things that can be rolled are unacceptable. If I'm rolling dice when the possible results are unacceptable, then it is high time to find a system where I'm only rolling dice (or pulling blocks from a Jenga tower, or drawing cards, etc.) when I should be rolling dice.

You seem to believe either there is only one acceptable result, or every possible result on a general table is acceptable now. Fudging doesn't happen in either of those situations.

Far mo0re often, a random result is needed, but some of the options on the table don't make sense right now.

Once a fumble roll came up "dropped weapon" when the character was using a fist. I fudged it into something reasonable.

A friend of mine told me that he had a system for randomizing NPC actions. But he changed a result which called for the guy to cast a Lightning Bolt at somebody, when they were in a 50 foot corridor. So he rolled for a different result.

In my current game, goblins have been exterminated from the continent. If the DM uses a random monster table, then every entry on the table is acceptable except one. So if he rolls and gets goblins, I assume he will fudge it to another result. (Yes, he could re-write the table for that continent, but what's the point? It won't come up often, and when it does, it's easily fixed.)

In short, there are many times when I'm rolling dice when I should be, but the table is a general one in which some, but not all, of the results could happen in the specific situation. Either I make up a completely new table for every possible encounter, or I decide which of the results on the general table don't apply in the current situation.

Knaight
2012-06-10, 12:48 PM
You seem to believe either there is only one acceptable result, or every possible result on a general table is acceptable now. Fudging doesn't happen in either of those situations.
Unless every result is acceptable, the system is failing me. Systems that do that get dropped. There's tens or hundreds of thousands of systems out there, so there's no reason to stick by bad ones. Moreover, in the case of many systems, there are effectively two results to most rolls - passing, and failing. In others, there are about four - passing, passing spectacularly, failing, and failing spectacularly. It's bad enough when a few results among a large collection are unacceptable, when 1/4 to 1/2 of them are it's well past time to reevaluate what is being played.


Far mo0re often, a random result is needed, but some of the options on the table don't make sense right now.
Either there is a reroll procedure or similar that adjudicates this, or the table is terrible. Moreover, fudging usually applies to actual game rules where there are generally far fewer results, and not to suggestion tables such as random encounters and such. Tables included in actual game rules really have no business including unacceptable results, even if it is only a few of them.


Once a fumble roll came up "dropped weapon" when the character was using a fist. I fudged it into something reasonable.
Either there is a reroll procedure or similar that adjudicates this, or the table is terrible. Given that it is a fumble table, I suspect the second.

Amphetryon
2012-06-10, 01:32 PM
Unless every result is acceptable, the system is failing me. Systems that do that get dropped.If you've found a system where there are no possible unacceptable results, whatsoever, then I commend you, and wish to hear more. I'm including any result of "GM (or group, for games without a moderator) must come up with something on the fly to cover corner circumstance not covered" as unacceptable, given that this thread is about fudging, and what is "coming up with something on the fly" but "fudging" by another name?

Dervag
2012-06-10, 01:37 PM
Unless every result is acceptable, the system is failing me. Systems that do that get dropped. There's tens or hundreds of thousands of systems out there, so there's no reason to stick by bad ones.This strikes me as a poor way to approach gaming.

There are two ways to get a system which never produces a result you-the-player would choose not to accept. One is to make the "system" into Calvinball: the only rule is "you get whatever you want." Then there are no unacceptable results, even if there are elaborate rulesets for forcing the outcomes that you personally desire. But that would be bad, no one else would want to play a game that exists purely to gratify you.

The other is to have very low standards- low standards for challenge, low standards for artistic aspects, low standards for creativity. If you don't expect the game to challenge you, then its rules won't turn and bite you when you get unlucky- so no unacceptable outcomes there. If the game and the DM don't encourage much creativity, then you won't be mentally engaged with the world or the PCs, so you won't care very much if characters die from bad luck.

I don't like either of those. Characters are expendable but should not be expended casually; game rules should present enough of a challenge that you have to do things right to 'win,' which also means that sometimes bad luck will put you in a near-unwinnable position unless someone fudges. I approve of people being willing to fudge for the sake of fun.

Moreover, I think this approach is very inflexible: "if I don't like this one thing, I drop the system." Why not modify? Why not just, y'know, accept that you live in a flawed world and that it's easier to work with something that gives you what you want 90% of the time than it is to insist on something that gives it to you 100% of the time?


Moreover, in the case of many systems, there are effectively two results to most rolls - passing, and failing. In others, there are about four - passing, passing spectacularly, failing, and failing spectacularly. It's bad enough when a few results among a large collection are unacceptable, when 1/4 to 1/2 of them are it's well past time to reevaluate what is being played.Spectacular failures are one of those things that is "acceptable" much of the time, but not acceptable all of the time. Sometimes it just makes sense to quietly remove an outcome that's bad for all involved.


Either there is a reroll procedure or similar that adjudicates this, or the table is terrible. Moreover, fudging usually applies to actual game rules where there are generally far fewer results, and not to suggestion tables such as random encounters and such. Tables included in actual game rules really have no business including unacceptable results, even if it is only a few of them.What are you talking about? If I take a table out of the back of a printed book, it does not and cannot reflect the realities of my own unique campaign. If my PCs have already killed all the dragons on the continent, common bloody sense tells me I won't find any more dragons on the continent. If the random encounter table still has 'dragons' in it, does that mean I need to throw the book away and find a new one?

Or can I just use basic normal intelligence and say "if the table rolls up something that for specific reasons I shouldn't find in my campaign, reroll the dice?"


Either there is a reroll procedure or similar that adjudicates this, or the table is terrible. Given that it is a fumble table, I suspect the second.Have you ever actually found anything you don't think is terrible? You seem to be using "terrible" to describe things I would describe as "normal." And "reroll procedure" is exactly what we're talking about- the whole point of having a DM is that there's a human being who can apply a reroll procedure when it makes sense to do so.

Knaight
2012-06-10, 02:02 PM
There are two ways to get a system which never produces a result you-the-player would choose not to accept. One is to make the "system" into Calvinball: the only rule is "you get whatever you want." Then there are no unacceptable results, even if there are elaborate rulesets for forcing the outcomes that you personally desire. But that would be bad, no one else would want to play a game that exists purely to gratify you.

The other is to have very low standards- low standards for challenge, low standards for artistic aspects, low standards for creativity. If you don't expect the game to challenge you, then its rules won't turn and bite you when you get unlucky- so no unacceptable outcomes there. If the game and the DM don't encourage much creativity, then you won't be mentally engaged with the world or the PCs, so you won't care very much if characters die from bad luck.
There's a third option, and probably many more. The rules are made so that you only engage with them when they matter, so as to favor something that works. What, exactly, this constitutes obviously varies by group and game - for those that don't fudge in D&D, it apparently fits this criteria. However, some games are very good at this. I've never even heard of fudging being necessary for Dread, because it is a well made tool that does what it needs to. The same fits for Fiasco. I personally have never had any issues with Fudge, Fate 2, Chronica Feudalis, or Burning Wheel. I strongly suspect that Far West will fit in this category as well, based on what's been shown so far. All of these support bad things happening, and bad things happening due to a streak of luck (in Fiasco and Dread, it's less a matter of if than when), but because they are good games, and because many of them favor an approach to playing where you aren't courting disaster due to a single die roll in some inconsequential side point, it isn't an issue.

Moreover, modification is a part of this - altering a system and fudging on the fly are two very different things. It's just that the systems that tend to fail are those that practically assume fudging, and that repairing them is more effort than it's usually worth.

Amphetryon
2012-06-10, 02:24 PM
There's a third option, and probably many more. The rules are made so that you only engage with them when they matter, so as to favor something that works. What, exactly, this constitutes obviously varies by group and game - for those that don't fudge in D&D, it apparently fits this criteria. However, some games are very good at this. I've never even heard of fudging being necessary for Dread, because it is a well made tool that does what it needs to. The same fits for Fiasco. I personally have never had any issues with Fudge, Fate 2, Chronica Feudalis, or Burning Wheel. I strongly suspect that Far West will fit in this category as well, based on what's been shown so far. All of these support bad things happening, and bad things happening due to a streak of luck (in Fiasco and Dread, it's less a matter of if than when), but because they are good games, and because many of them favor an approach to playing where you aren't courting disaster due to a single die roll in some inconsequential side point, it isn't an issue.

Moreover, modification is a part of this - altering a system and fudging on the fly are two very different things. It's just that the systems that tend to fail are those that practically assume fudging, and that repairing them is more effort than it's usually worth.

Note that you've called a system where one result on one table that didn't fit your current game's individual backstory was possible "terrible". That appears to preclude modification of that table, because the proverbial baby's already been thrown out with the bathwater. The entire system was terrible because it forced a single change on a single table.

Dervag
2012-06-11, 05:30 AM
There's a third option, and probably many more. The rules are made so that you only engage with them when they matter, so as to favor something that works.Hm, that's fair I guess. But let me clarify.

There are three major classes of reasons why anyone ever rolls dice in an RPG. They can be called "how good," "how bad," and "which one."

"How good" rolls serve mainly to determine success, or the magnitude of a success. In D&D, an obvious example would be the random damage rolls on your attack. Rolling poorly on a "how good" roll usually does not matter in the long run, so there is seldom if ever any reason to fudge them even in a mediocre system*.

"How bad" rolls serve to determine the scope of a failure- you left a clue for the royal detective to find, how long is it before she figures out that you stole the jewels? Here, rolling badly is expected- the mere fact that I picked up the dice means you'll get caught sooner or later unless you get out of town or do something exotic to clear your name. Even in a diceless system you'd be in trouble. But the dice can tell us exactly how bad- do you need to flee town by midnight, on the fastest horse in the duchy? Or can you lounge around for a few weeks and gather tips from your informants about how the detective is looking for you?

If there is something about the campaign (there often is) that would just plain be less fun if it happened another way... well, that's a time when DM fudging just makes sense. You don't deliberately allow things to happen in a game at the expense of fun, it doesn't work.

*(Let us say 'mediocre' rather than 'terrible;' it makes no sense to say that half of all systems are terrible, especially if some of the terrible systems are far more popular than the non-terrible ones).
_____________________

Now, it doesn't have to be this way. You can bypass a LOT of "how good" and "how bad" rolls by making the system rely less heavily on dice. In the extreme limiting case you have something like Amber Diceless RPG, which is exactly what it says on the label. However, there are arguments both for and against dice- many players have strong preferences, but not all players prefer the same thing. You may like the mechanical predictability of a diceless system and how it leaves everything up to the long term direct consequences of human choices (including choices like how strong your character build is).

On the other hand, I may like the exact opposite qualities in a dice-full system: I may like not starting every contest of skill or strength with a pretty good idea of how it's going to turn out as soon as I watch the opening exchange of blows. I may like the fact that it's not all up to me- I have to be flexible and witty and resourceful enough to adapt my own play or DMing on the fly to cope with the consequences of events no one on the table saw coming. Those random events may let me illustrate facets of my character(s) I would otherwise never get to show- how does my fighter cope with the fact that a giant had him down on the ground with a broken neck at -9 hit points and he was just barely saved by his cousin's intervention and a well timed healing spell? How does my wizard cope with the idea that his devastating magics just... aren't working against this one enemy, who's rolled three saving throws in a row? Things like that.

So let's not be too quick to pooh-pooh the idea of introducing randomness into the game on purpose for "how good" and "how bad" questions. At the same time, though, that randomness should not be absolute, should not be chaos... which creates a place for fudges on the part of a sensitive, intelligent DM who understands how to make the game enjoyable for others.

And then there's a third class of randomness I think you're dismissing: the "which one" questions. Here, the DM is deliberately introducing a random element to the world, without prejudice about whether it will be good or bad. The classic example is the random wildnerness encounter. It may be predictable that in ogre country you meet ogres. But for a good table, it's not really predictable whether you encounter friends, foes, or neutrals who can be persuaded to help or harm you. Not every encounter has to be something the DM would know in advance would happen, and this creates more artistic challenge for the DM. And more for the players, because it means their expectations are occasionally broken: sometimes, a monster too big to fight shows up and the PCs have to think of some way to deal with it- by traps, by hiding, by negotiation, by bribery, and so on.

I like that. But if you're going to work out ahead of time what kind of random outcomes could be possible, simple common sense dictates limiting them to match your campaign... another source of rerolls, and one I don't see any problem with at all. Again, games should be fun.


Moreover, modification is a part of this - altering a system and fudging on the fly are two very different things. It's just that the systems that tend to fail are those that practically assume fudging, and that repairing them is more effort than it's usually worth.I'd argue that if the system is being played by intelligent, flexible people, why even bother? Why even criticize the machine for needing human input regularly, when it's a machine for human beings to play with?

Mikal
2012-06-11, 06:35 AM
One of my players had a freshly-rolled PC the other night that would have taken over 50 points of damage and would have been instantly killed (even without massive damage rules) because i crit-rolled with a x3 modifier weapon and made a solid hit on my second attack. I told him to take it down to zero hp and not take the kill just because it was a fresh character.

However i did kill a character off a crit with the first attack of the game a few games ago...but that was more or less my way of telling him that his build was horrible. (multiclass ninja-wizard-fighter) He brought in an identical character that was later abandoned...

I only fudge rolls in the player's favor and only when it wasn't because of their own stupidity.

Actually it sounds more like you cheat in favor of people and situations you like or feel sorry for, and then don't if the situation displeases you. That's kinda petty.

But then I've always been a believer in letting the dice fall where they may. It's a game. You win, you lose. It happens.

As a player if I found out or realized my DM did this against or for me I'd try to get him to go with the real results, or leave the table. I don't play just to let a DM weave a story. I play to play. And that means that sometimes weird against the odds crap happens.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-11, 06:40 AM
Note that you've called a system where one result on one table that didn't fit your current game's individual backstory was possible "terrible". That appears to preclude modification of that table, because the proverbial baby's already been thrown out with the bathwater. The entire system was terrible because it forced a single change on a single table.

Terrible may be an overstatement, but can we at least agree that useless things on the table is a sign of decreased quality?

If it's one entry on a d100 table that doesn't work...it won't come up much, and can be fixed by a reroll.

If it's 60 entries on the same table, rerolls become very common, and the table quickly becomes annoying to me.

Therefore, the value of a table to me is pretty strongly tied to how many invalid results it contains. Only one bad entry probably isn't enough for me to call it terrible, but if it has enough of them, it certainly is.

However, these aren't usually what people call fudging. Fudging in D&D seems to mainly revolve around attack and damage rolls, saves, and other "did he die" sorts of topics. So, DM fudging damage to not kill a PC? Common fudging example. DM fudging a save to keep his recurring bad guy from dying in round one? Also a common fudging example. But monster selection...not really.

Jay R
2012-06-11, 09:43 AM
Unless every result is acceptable, the system is failing me.

OK, fine. If I played in a game in which all results on all tables were equally applicable at all times, I might even agree with you.

But since my games go into many different kinds of places, and what has happened before affects what might happen now, the general tables aren't always perfect for the specific situation. So the available options are:
1. Create an entirely new table any time the situation changes.
2. Assume the situation never changes, so you can always use the general table.
3. Have a competent DM who applies common sense to the use of the tables.

You prefer option 2, it seems. I prefer option 3. That's fine. It's all right for people to be different.

The biggest problem with option 2 is that it requires an excellent, complete system. You solve this by being choosy about the system you play. When I started gaming, that was impossible, since the only system was the badly written and incomplete original D&D.

The biggest problem with my preferred option is that it requires an excellent DM. I solve this by being choosy about my DMs. Right now my DM is a graduate of a military academy and a 20-year veteran. I have far more faith in the validity of his fudge during a battle than in any table in any game.

I hope you enjoy your games as much as I enjoy mine.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-11, 09:51 AM
The biggest problem with my preferred option is that it requires an excellent DM. I solve this by being choosy about my DMs. Right now my DM is a graduate of a military academy and a 20-year veteran. I have far more faith in the validity of his fudge during a battle than in any table in any game.

While I have nothing against being choosy with DMs...I see no connection between military service and fudging die rolls.

Amphetryon
2012-06-11, 11:39 AM
Terrible may be an overstatement, but can we at least agree that useless things on the table is a sign of decreased quality?

If it's one entry on a d100 table that doesn't work...it won't come up much, and can be fixed by a reroll.

If it's 60 entries on the same table, rerolls become very common, and the table quickly becomes annoying to me.

Therefore, the value of a table to me is pretty strongly tied to how many invalid results it contains. Only one bad entry probably isn't enough for me to call it terrible, but if it has enough of them, it certainly is.

However, these aren't usually what people call fudging. Fudging in D&D seems to mainly revolve around attack and damage rolls, saves, and other "did he die" sorts of topics. So, DM fudging damage to not kill a PC? Common fudging example. DM fudging a save to keep his recurring bad guy from dying in round one? Also a common fudging example. But monster selection...not really.
The only thing I personally see the table as indicative of, is the value of the table. One possible result which doesn't mesh with what's happening at that moment in my campaign isn't enough for me to consider the table itself flawed. On the other hand, Knaight indicated that if the table could produce a single result which was unacceptable (possibly based on changes the GM had made to create a unique world history), the entire system is "failing" him, and is "terrible."

While I laud him for sticking to his high standards, I've yet to see a game that could withstand that exacting measure of quality.

kyoryu
2012-06-11, 12:15 PM
Terrible may be an overstatement, but can we at least agree that useless things on the table is a sign of decreased quality?

If it's one entry on a d100 table that doesn't work...it won't come up much, and can be fixed by a reroll.

If it's 60 entries on the same table, rerolls become very common, and the table quickly becomes annoying to me.


Totally agreed, but I'd make one minor refinement - if you're having to make a lot of changes, it shows that the table is not very useful for the style of game that you're trying to run - it might be particularly awesome in another game or system.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-11, 12:48 PM
Totally agreed, but I'd make one minor refinement - if you're having to make a lot of changes, it shows that the table is not very useful for the style of game that you're trying to run - it might be particularly awesome in another game or system.

Agreed. If I can run the kind of game I want to run easier in another system...I totally will. I've never been huge on making D&D run absolutely every game on earth. For some things, it works, for some, not so much.

Knaight
2012-06-11, 01:20 PM
The only thing I personally see the table as indicative of, is the value of the table. One possible result which doesn't mesh with what's happening at that moment in my campaign isn't enough for me to consider the table itself flawed. On the other hand, Knaight indicated that if the table could produce a single result which was unacceptable (possibly based on changes the GM had made to create a unique world history), the entire system is "failing" him, and is "terrible."

While I laud him for sticking to his high standards, I've yet to see a game that could withstand that exacting measure of quality.

I said that the system was failing me (and at that point, it really is), and that the table was terrible. I stand by that, and can easily list off games that don't have this issue - though very few of them actually involve much in the way of tables. Moreover, as I stated prior, fudging applies far more to tables involving actual rules and not stuff like random encounter tables. This would be something like a spell backfire table for wild magic that can spit out backfire effects that can't even be implemented - it's sloppy.

Amphetryon
2012-06-11, 05:35 PM
Pardon my error; I didn't quote precisely. This was your exact quote:

Unless every result is acceptable, the system is failing me. Systems that do that get dropped.
regarding this direct quote from Jay R:

You seem to believe either there is only one acceptable result, or every possible result on a general table is acceptable now. Fudging doesn't happen in either of those situations.
I hope you can see that your direct quote clearly appears to state that a single bad result on a table means the entire system is failing you.

Edog
2012-06-12, 06:18 AM
I've decided, a long time ago, that the most important thing in a tabletop RPG is fun. The players and the DM are all there to have fun, and the DM's policies should reflect that.

I'm in favour of fudging, provided it's used to make the game more fun, or to avoid results that make the game less fun. If, for example, I made an encounter that would result in a TPK, and the PCs wandered into it without any warning, I would probably fudge to give them a chance to escape rather than kill them all. (Although if they decided to keep fighting even when they were getting smashed, then I would kill them, to preserve the sense of danger.) Of course, different people have fun in different ways, so this won't be applicable to everyone.

One important thing, though, is that the players don't believe the DM will fudge the dice. If they think nothing bad can happen to them, it will kill the tension, and they'll feel cheated if the villain gets away due to a fudged roll.

Provided the GM has good judgment, and knows what his players want from the game, this shouldn't really become an issue either way.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-12, 06:50 AM
I'm in favour of fudging, provided it's used to make the game more fun, or to avoid results that make the game less fun. If, for example, I made an encounter that would result in a TPK, and the PCs wandered into it without any warning, I would probably fudge to give them a chance to escape rather than kill them all. (Although if they decided to keep fighting even when they were getting smashed, then I would kill them, to preserve the sense of danger.) Of course, different people have fun in different ways, so this won't be applicable to everyone.

Every GM that fudges insists that they do so to "make the game better". The issue I have with this is that many of them skip over the part where they explain HOW it does so.

If you have encounters that definitely cause TPKs with no chance of escape and no warning that the PCs just stumble into...either you're playing an extremely high lethality game, or you've made a rather obvious mistake.

If it's a high lethality game, no problem. Kill them all. For the other 99% of us, if you've made a mistake, you can either try to cover it, or you can cop to it. Note that even the most ardent defendants of fudging admit that players discovering it is usually not good for the game. And I don't care how good you think you are at bluffing, there's always a chance they'll figure it out.

So, where's the "improve the game" part happen, then?

Edog
2012-06-12, 07:56 AM
If you have encounters that definitely cause TPKs with no chance of escape and no warning that the PCs just stumble into...either you're playing an extremely high lethality game, or you've made a rather obvious mistake.
Well, that did happen to one of the posters above--I think someone mentioned a green dragon attack when the PCs were in a boat and couldn't escape--but I'll give you a different example (DnD 3.5):

A level 1 orc warrior with a greataxe attacks a level 2 barbarian PC, and gets a crit. That's 3d12 + 9 damage in one attack, with a maximum damage of 45. That's more than enough to kill any level 2 barbarian, even if they're raging and at full health. And unlikely as it is, it could happen to just about anyone.

Getting killed by a random mook sucks, especially if there was nothing you could do about it, and you were a lot stronger than it was. So, is it more fun for the DM to kill the character, or to fudge the dice and let him live? It really depends on the players, and the type of game they want to play. If you think it would be more fun for the character to die, and the others in your group do, too, that's fair enough, but I think most people wouldn't be happy with that outcome.


I don't care how good you think you are at bluffing, there's always a chance they'll figure it out.
That is an excellent point, which hadn't occurred to me. If you keep fudging to a minimum and use it only as a last resort, you're unlikely to encounter this problem; after all, there are other ways of avoiding TPKs and other such bad things, like having a dragon fly away after taking all the players' treasure rather than eating them. I suppose it's just one more of the challenges to GMing. And if you do, there are still ways to fix things up, and it shouldn't cause any long-term problems.


So, where's the "improve the game" part happen, then?
It happens where you stop events that aren't fun from occurring. It's basically just a specific application of rule zero, that affects die rolls rather than mechanics, or whatever else. Why do you have an issue with this, when you are fine (I assume) with rule zero in general?

Tyndmyr
2012-06-12, 08:12 AM
Well, that did happen to one of the posters above--I think someone mentioned a green dragon attack when the PCs were in a boat and couldn't escape--but I'll give you a different example (DnD 3.5):

A level 1 orc warrior with a greataxe attacks a level 2 barbarian PC, and gets a crit. That's 3d12 + 9 damage in one attack, with a maximum damage of 45. That's more than enough to kill any level 2 barbarian, even if they're raging and at full health. And unlikely as it is, it could happen to just about anyone.

Firstly, that's not a TPK, now is it?

A maxed crit with an extremely crit-focused char? Of course that's going to be lethal. If you don't want that, don't use crit-based builds. It's not like this was the default weapon in the statblock.

Make your encounters to produce the desired results. Selecting crit-happy stuff is saying that you want the outcome to vary wildly on crits. If you do not in fact want this...don't do that.


It happens where you stop events that aren't fun from occurring. It's basically just a specific application of rule zero, that affects die rolls rather than mechanics, or whatever else. Why do you have an issue with this, when you are fine (I assume) with rule zero in general?

I am not actually fine with rule zero, as it happens.

That said, it's still invalid to assume that since someone accepts specific applications of rule zero, they would accept ALL applications of it. That sort of logic leads to wild places.

valadil
2012-06-12, 08:22 AM
I'm just gonna give up on this thread ever getting back to its original question. Seems we can't bring up fudging without people explaining their views on it.


Every GM that fudges insists that they do so to "make the game better". The issue I have with this is that many of them skip over the part where they explain HOW it does so.


I used to fall into the crowd who fudged to make boss fights appropriately difficult. If you've come all this way to the final showdown with your nemesis, it's no fun if it's over after a single Finger of Death, right? I would have justified the villain making that saving throw by saying that fudging was increasing the players fun and not ripping them off of a boss fight.

I don't feel that way anymore. I think that instance of fudging would increase the drama level, but that's not the same as increasing fun. I'm also of the opinion that a memorable event is fun. One shotting the boss of a campaign is something the players will talk about for years. Why take that away from them? Finally, I've come to terms with ending the session early. If I have to tell the players "I thought that boss would take longer. I'm out of materials. Let's play video games," nobody at the table will have a problem with that.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-12, 08:27 AM
I don't feel that way anymore. I think that instance of fudging would increase the drama level, but that's not the same as increasing fun. I'm also of the opinion that a memorable event is fun. One shotting the boss of a campaign is something the players will talk about for years. Why take that away from them? Finally, I've come to terms with ending the session early. If I have to tell the players "I thought that boss would take longer. I'm out of materials. Let's play video games," nobody at the table will have a problem with that.

I've found that's true of many of the unanticipated things that were entirely unplanned. Nobody talks about the time they defeated the encounter in exactly average rounds and received standard wealth for the encounter. They talk about the time that someone did something remarkably stupid and died hilariously, or that time when they absolutely flattened something impressive.

People care about unusual stuff.

Jay R
2012-06-12, 09:15 AM
However, these aren't usually what people call fudging. Fudging in D&D seems to mainly revolve around attack and damage rolls, saves, and other "did he die" sorts of topics.

I suspect that this is our biggest actual disagreement. This statement is simply not true in my experience. That's certainly not a common example of what I call fudging, nor is it what most of us defending fudging are calling fudging.

As near as I can tell, most of us who approve of fudging in some circumstances don't believe that this comes up that often, and keep trying, with no success, to get you to consider the kinds of fudging that we are defending. For instance, I've already brought up my giant spider example. I fudged die rolls to get the spider minis off the table when I discovered a player had a spider phobia. This is what the people who support fudging call fudging.

The only time I can remember fudging a "did he die" roll was over thirty years ago. A first time player would have been killed by the first swing of a sword, before she ever took any action. That one time, I fudged a die roll for "did she die". But fudging an encounter roll or a reaction roll comes up anytime a general table gives a result that can't work in this specific situation.


That said, it's still invalid to assume that since someone accepts specific applications of rule zero, they would accept ALL applications of it. That sort of logic leads to wild places.

Exactly. And it seems that you are trying to assume that anyone who accepts specific applications of fudging would accept ALL applications of it. Specifically, you are trying to say that only the least justifiable and, in my experience, least common type of fudging is what those of us defending some applications of fudging are defending.


While I have nothing against being choosy with DMs...I see no connection between military service and fudging die rolls.

Neither would anybody else, under your restricted definition of fudging. But there is clearly a connection between having top-level scholarly study and personal experience of a situation and making common sense rulings about what happens in that situation.

valadil
2012-06-12, 09:18 AM
People care about unusual stuff.

Yup. Turns out that by shaving off those times I rolled too many ones or twenties in rapid succession, I was actually removing the most interesting stuff from the game. Why restrict the game to normal circumstances?

Tyndmyr
2012-06-12, 09:22 AM
I suspect that this is our biggest actual disagreement. This statement is simply not true in my experience. That's certainly not a common example of what I call fudging, nor is it what most of us defending fudging are calling fudging.

As near as I can tell, most of us who approve of fudging in some circumstances don't believe that this comes up that often, and keep trying, with no success, to get you to consider the kinds of fudging that we are defending. For instance, I've already brought up my giant spider example. I fudged die rolls to get the spider minis off the table when I discovered a player had a spider phobia. This is what the people who support fudging call fudging.

That sounds EXACTLY like fudging "did he die" rolls, like saves, hp, or attack rolls, and not at all like changing random encounter rolls.


The only time I can remember fudging a "did he die" roll was over thirty years ago. A first time player would have been killed by the first swing of a sword, before she ever took any action. That one time, I fudged a die roll for "did she die". But fudging an encounter roll or a reaction roll comes up anytime a general table gives a result that can't work in this specific situation.

Read back over what I wrote. You'll note that one of my examples is explicitly a DM fudging a roll that happens to an NPC. This isn't a PC only thing. It's pretty much exactly the same as the spider mini's thing.


Neither would anybody else, under your restricted definition of fudging. But there is clearly a connection between having top-level scholarly study and personal experience of a situation and making common sense rulings about what happens in that situation.

Just because it's a "military academy" does not guarantee that it's a top-level school. Nor does personal experience with the military provide accurate knowledge of how to DM. Look, I'm a vet too, but these things are pretty unrelated.

Mr.Moron
2012-06-12, 09:56 AM
A maxed crit with an extremely crit-focused char? Of course that's going to be lethal. If you don't want that, don't use crit-based builds. It's not like this was the default weapon in the statblock.


This is disingenuous. A level 1 Orc warrior with an Axe is not a "crit-focused character", or a "crit-based build". It's a NPC class mook, with no class features, feats or anything else of consequence that constitutes what could fairly be called a "build".

It's also an extremely iconic minion, that the system classifies as "Easy" for a group of 2nd level players. It's hardly even a threat, barring the about 4% chance it has to just randomly lop someone's head completely off.

This is for many people, stupid. This leaves you with three options really if you dislike the out-of-the-blue-head-chop:

A) "1st level NPC Orc with Axe" is not an opponent to put on the table until 5th level+, where the head-lopping won't occur.
B) You fudge a little in the rare case it comes up.
C) You change the rules for how the Orc's Axe works, changing it to a x2 or x1.5 crit. Call it "Crappy Orc Axe" or something.

Personally, I would and have done C over the others. Truth be told I really only vaguely follow the actual rules when creating adversaries for my games. However, many groups wouldn't be quite so at ease with playing that fast and loose with the rules. It could be argued that's just an even more heavy-handed form of fudging things. In that case B) is the best option for the GM not comfortable with excluding something that iconic, who also doesn't want an "Easy" generic mook to 1-shot a character because the planets aligned for it.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-12, 10:13 AM
This is disingenuous. A level 1 Orc warrior with an Axe is not a "crit-focused character", or a "crit-based build". It's a NPC class mook, with no class features, feats or anything else of consequence that constitutes what could fairly be called a "build".

Lots of strength and a x3 crit is about as crit-based as you get in NPC builds. NPCs are generally going to have less complex builds than PCs. Can't measure them by the same yardsticks.

Especially at this CR. Warrior doesn't HAVE class features. That's what NPC classes are like. There's only one feat. Meh.


It's also an extremely iconic minion, that the system classifies as "Easy" for a group of 2nd level players. It's hardly even a threat, barring the about 4% chance it has to just randomly lop someone's head completely off.

A single 1 HD orc IS easy for a party of 2nd level players. That said, I anticipate that a goodly portion of the time, such an encounter will be obliterated before the orc has a chance to swing, somewhat reducing the risk.

However, this is the swingiest char at it's CR level. That's why it always comes up in these discussions. If you want a heavy element of randomness, use this. If not...don't.


This is for many people, stupid. This leaves you with three options really if you dislike the out-of-the-blue-head-chop:

A) "1st level NPC Orc with Axe" is not an opponent to put on the table until 5th level+, where the head-lopping won't occur.
B) You fudge a little in the rare case it comes up.
C) You change the rules for how the Orc's Axe works, changing it to a x2 or x1.5 crit. Call it "Crappy Orc Axe" or something.

I have nothing against refluffing, but for those opposed to all of the above...I'm going to point out that "orc with an axe" need not mean "Orc with a greataxe". There's no particular reason that you can't use an orc with a handaxe. That's 1d6+3 instead of 1d12+4, so it's somewhat less horrible on a crit.

Honestly, I find it a bit silly when every warrior in random tribe x has no money, but a nice, shiny 2h weapon(frequently, all of them matching). I see no great reason we have to enable that.

Amphetryon
2012-06-12, 11:56 AM
I have nothing against refluffing, but for those opposed to all of the above...I'm going to point out that "orc with an axe" need not mean "Orc with a greataxe". There's no particular reason that you can't use an orc with a handaxe. That's 1d6+3 instead of 1d12+4, so it's somewhat less horrible on a crit.

Honestly, I find it a bit silly when every warrior in random tribe x has no money, but a nice, shiny 2h weapon(frequently, all of them matching). I see no great reason we have to enable that.What you're calling "refluffing" is EXACTLY what others will point to as "Rule Zero" - which you're on record as being against:


I am not actually fine with rule zero, as it happens.You're changing something in an iconic, by-the-book encounter, in order to make it better fit your desired results. That's Rule Zero; you're renaming it to "refluffing," which many folks reserve for changing those aspects of the game that have no mechanical effect on gameplay (like if I made all Hobgoblins blue and furry in my world, or something).

kyoryu
2012-06-12, 12:16 PM
What you're calling "refluffing" is EXACTLY what others will point to as "Rule Zero" - which you're on record as being against:

You're changing something in an iconic, by-the-book encounter, in order to make it better fit your desired results. That's Rule Zero; you're renaming it to "refluffing," which many folks reserve for changing those aspects of the game that have no mechanical effect on gameplay (like if I made all Hobgoblins blue and furry in my world, or something).

Eh.... it's more like house-ruling or customization. Rule Zero is typically "I know that's what the rules say, but that's not what happens in this case."

Tyndmyr
2012-06-12, 12:17 PM
What you're calling "refluffing" is EXACTLY what others will point to as "Rule Zero" - which you're on record as being against:

You're changing something in an iconic, by-the-book encounter, in order to make it better fit your desired results. That's Rule Zero; you're renaming it to "refluffing," which many folks reserve for changing those aspects of the game that have no mechanical effect on gameplay (like if I made all Hobgoblins blue and furry in my world, or something).

If you use the stats of a longsword, but describe the weapon as visually a bit different to get variety or whatever, that's pretty clearly a case of refluffing.

If your statline doesn't happen to match anything else, because you just spitballed it, and made up numbers...that's rule zero.

The former is quite reasonable. The latter one I view with skepticism.

kyoryu
2012-06-12, 12:31 PM
If you use the stats of a longsword, but describe the weapon as visually a bit different to get variety or whatever, that's pretty clearly a case of refluffing.


I think giving the orc a longsword in the first place is what he was referring to.

Mr.Moron
2012-06-12, 12:38 PM
If you use the stats of a longsword, but describe the weapon as visually a bit different to get variety or whatever, that's pretty clearly a case of refluffing.

If your statline doesn't happen to match anything else, because you just spitballed it, and made up numbers...that's rule zero.

The former is quite reasonable. The latter one I view with skepticism.

Personally, if I had to put on money what would be a more interesting and fair challenge:

A) Something a good GM with passable system knowledge created on their own, whole cloth or something modified in ways that go outside the standard monster creation guidelines.
B) Any given "CR-Appropriate" encounter taken RAW from the books.

Without getting to seem them first, I'd bet on A every single time. I'm wondering how much this is true for other people?

Amphetryon
2012-06-12, 12:48 PM
I think giving the orc a longsword in the first place is what he was referring to.

That's correct. The minute you decide that orcs have longswords, rather than the falchions or javelins the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm) equips them with, you're in Rule Zero territory. Because the write-up for them in the Monster Manual also mentions greataxes as specific to their preferences, you could arguably choose those instead. You'll be going against fluff and crunch the moment they are equipped with longswords, as they are specifically described as choosing weapons "that do the most damage in the least time" (represented in crunch as high-crit range or chance weapons, which longswords are not).

Tyndmyr
2012-06-12, 01:00 PM
That's correct. The minute you decide that orcs have longswords, rather than the falchions or javelins the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm) equips them with, you're in Rule Zero territory. Because the write-up for them in the Monster Manual also mentions greataxes as specific to their preferences, you could arguably choose those instead. You'll be going against fluff and crunch the moment they are equipped with longswords, as they are specifically described as choosing weapons "that do the most damage in the least time" (represented in crunch as high-crit range or chance weapons, which longswords are not).

The original example about crits was with a greataxe...that's not in the statblock. A bit of fluff about some preferring to use greataxes is fine. But don't tell me that an orc using a longsword is rule zero. They're humanoid, they're perfectly capable of it.

And the original example modified the statblock to use the most crit-biased option in the book and assumed max damage. A clearer case of making your own problems could not be found.

NichG
2012-06-12, 02:19 PM
I don't feel that way anymore. I think that instance of fudging would increase the drama level, but that's not the same as increasing fun. I'm also of the opinion that a memorable event is fun. One shotting the boss of a campaign is something the players will talk about for years. Why take that away from them? Finally, I've come to terms with ending the session early. If I have to tell the players "I thought that boss would take longer. I'm out of materials. Let's play video games," nobody at the table will have a problem with that.

In the campaign I'm in right now, this would really irritate me, since I travel two and a half hours, run my game, stay overnight, play in his game, then two and a half hours back (I might be a little nuts, of course). While this particular situation hasn't happened, I will say that I've gotten annoyed as a player when a big epic encounter that I wanted to see play out gets one-shotted. It has happened often enough that its not memorable anymore, its just content we didn't get to see. The one player whose finger of death it was certainly gets a rush, but the rest of the table gets to be useless.

That said, thats not necessarily a problem that needs fudging to be fixed - a more general solution is to have a standard list of easy kills that bosses need to be immune to, and arrange for those immunities either in the form of layers of spells, gear, or templates. But that is significantly more work, of course.

Another answer is 'there's always a backup plan'. If the endboss gets one-shotted, he was actually working for someone else. Its a different kind of fudging, one that hasn't been mentioned here yet actually: DM prep fudging. The DM introduces a new NPC or twist on the fly, or changes something in his notes mid-game because he realizes it will play out better that way, or other such things.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-12, 02:44 PM
I run with the "have backup material prepared" strategy. It's useful for all manner of things, from players going wildly off the rails, to encounters taking less time than anticipated, to everyone wanting a long session that night.

It's a much more general purpose solution, and generally, I'm gonna need to prep that stuff at some point anyhow. Might as well do it in advance in case I need it early.

Menteith
2012-06-12, 02:54 PM
Eh.... it's more like house-ruling or customization. Rule Zero is typically "I know that's what the rules say, but that's not what happens in this case."

I agree entirely with kyoryu here. I frequently will change around enemy feats, skill selections, give them class levels, or a higher stat distribution. I don't consider restatting enemies to be rule 0. There are specific rules governing how to restat, advance, customize, and wholesale create new monsters. I will follow established rules for creating new monsters and altering existing monsters. Making a decision to alter the written rules for a game is Rule 0. DM Fiat - "This works/fails purely because I say it does(n't) - or decisions to ignore the dice for any reason - You didn't kill the BBEG because I don't want you to - are rule 0 to me. These are just how I think of the term, and personal definitions.

Totally Guy
2012-06-12, 02:59 PM
How come no one ever discusses the role of the player in these examples: The player can react to the orc with the big axe. Fight or flight! The player is expected to make choices about things like this. "Is what I am fighting for worth the risk to my life?", "Should I choose the risky strategy over the safe one so I can defend my friends better?"

As a GM I am free from "encounter balance" because I am more transparent than most GMs. I play to find out what happens. The players make choices based on the information they have. Without these choices playing the game becomes a form of busy work.

"There's an orc wailing on you now" is never free from all the context like these discussions seem to assume. There is always an element of player choice leading up to the fight.

When a player has the character choose to risk his life for what he believes in that's a powerful moment. If the results of those moments are changed, that's when I don't want to play any more.

I played in a game where I kept failing dice rolls and the GM kept saying "You manage to do the thing (that keeps the game moving) but it was a bit rubbish." I was not amused, why was I even playing? I wanted the things I thought I was risking to actually be at risk. The failures had the potential to be really interesting but the GM didn't have the guts to make it so.


One of the biggest problems with D&D for me is that there is very little support for setting a stake in a physical conflict other than death. I prefer the dice rolls not to offer unacceptable outcomes such as death when it is not appropriate to the game. I like games in which the stakes can be set to be appropriate to the situation. Losing should be fun. Losing should make situations complicated.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-12, 03:10 PM
How come no one ever discusses the role of the player in these examples: The player can react to the orc with the big axe. Fight or flight! The player is expected to make choices about things like this. "Is what I am fighting for worth the risk to my life?", "Should I choose the risky strategy over the safe one so I can defend my friends better?"

That's a totally reasonable way to play. The player can see the burly orc with a big greataxe, and recognize the danger if that thing connects with his neck.

Not everyone chooses to play that way, and that's fine, but it seems really strange to select such options and then make them...not actually dangerous. The apparent lethality of a situation should be a good guide to the actual lethality of it, in most cases. Traps in the dangerous dungeon of death? Legit. Deathtraps in the open field where bunnies are romping and playing for no reason whatsoever? Probably going to go over less well.

Totally Guy
2012-06-12, 03:50 PM
The apparent lethality of a situation should be a good guide to the actual lethality of it, in most cases. Traps in the dangerous dungeon of death? Legit. Deathtraps in the open field where bunnies are romping and playing for no reason whatsoever? Probably going to go over less well.

The better communicated the situation, the better a player can make an informed choice about it. Thumbs up!

kyoryu
2012-06-12, 04:03 PM
How come no one ever discusses the role of the player in these examples: The player can react to the orc with the big axe. Fight or flight! The player is expected to make choices about things like this. "Is what I am fighting for worth the risk to my life?", "Should I choose the risky strategy over the safe one so I can defend my friends better?"

As a GM I am free from "encounter balance" because I am more transparent than most GMs. I play to find out what happens. The players make choices based on the information they have. Without these choices playing the game becomes a form of busy work.

"There's an orc wailing on you now" is never free from all the context like these discussions seem to assume. There is always an element of player choice leading up to the fight.

When a player has the character choose to risk his life for what he believes in that's a powerful moment. If the results of those moments are changed, that's when I don't want to play any more.

I played in a game where I kept failing dice rolls and the GM kept saying "You manage to do the thing (that keeps the game moving) but it was a bit rubbish." I was not amused, why was I even playing? I wanted the things I thought I was risking to actually be at risk. The failures had the potential to be really interesting but the GM didn't have the guts to make it so.

One of the biggest problems with D&D for me is that there is very little support for setting a stake in a physical conflict other than death. I prefer the dice rolls not to offer unacceptable outcomes such as death when it is not appropriate to the game. I like games in which the stakes can be set to be appropriate to the situation. Losing should be fun. Losing should make situations complicated.

Totally agreed. Of course, we've both been infected by BW, so it makes sense that we'd share some of those opinions.

"Fudging" dice is usually a sign of:

1) Using an inappropriate system for the game. (D&D is a high-lethality system at its core.)
2) The DM having too much invested in a particular outcome. ("But the BBEG has to escape or it derails my plot!")
3) Lack of player agency. ("The players are stuck on a ship, by me, and being attacked by an encounter that I amped up way too high. It's not fair to kill them!")
4) Situations that have no acceptable failure scenario ("If they don't lift the gate, they'll be stuck and the game goes nowhere!" or "If they don't kill all the monsters, they die and the game ends!")

Dervag
2012-06-13, 01:32 AM
Well, that did happen to one of the posters above--I think someone mentioned a green dragon attack when the PCs were in a boat and couldn't escape--but I'll give you a different example (DnD 3.5):

A level 1 orc warrior with a greataxe attacks a level 2 barbarian PC, and gets a crit. That's 3d12 + 9 damage in one attack, with a maximum damage of 45. That's more than enough to kill any level 2 barbarian, even if they're raging and at full health. And unlikely as it is, it could happen to just about anyone.Uh, don't arm your orcs with greataxes, give them swords or spears instead? :D

More generally, though, I tend to side with you. Sometimes, a battle is unwinnable for the players because of a DM error, which must be corrected behind the scenes. But it may also be unwinnable for other reasons. The players may, through no fault of their own, have erred in their planning. Say, they had a bad experience fighting archers last time, so their spell line-ups are totally prepared to fight archers, only this time they were supposed to go after the ogre chief and his minions who are big mean melee brutes. Sometimes, players will take a 'wrong' cue from you that's about as good as the 'right' one. And while you want that to hit them in a real way, so they go "oh crap we screwed up," it's rarely good for the party to be ruined because the players had a bad idea in good faith.

Edog
2012-06-13, 02:09 AM
"Fudging" dice is usually a sign of:

1) Using an inappropriate system for the game. (D&D is a high-lethality system at its core.)
2) The DM having too much invested in a particular outcome. ("But the BBEG has to escape or it derails my plot!")
3) Lack of player agency. ("The players are stuck on a ship, by me, and being attacked by an encounter that I amped up way too high. It's not fair to kill them!")
4) Situations that have no acceptable failure scenario ("If they don't lift the gate, they'll be stuck and the game goes nowhere!" or "If they don't kill all the monsters, they die and the game ends!")

Yes, those are the most common situations where fudging would come up. In each case, it seems like the DM has made a mistake--and in games, that happens, especially to newer DMs. There are usually many ways out of a situation like that, but fudging is often quicker, easier and cleaner than the alternatives. That's why people do it.

kyoryu
2012-06-13, 04:21 AM
Yes, those are the most common situations where fudging would come up. In each case, it seems like the DM has made a mistake--and in games, that happens, especially to newer DMs. There are usually many ways out of a situation like that, but fudging is often quicker, easier and cleaner than the alternatives. That's why people do it.

The problem is that the latter three are all due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of having encounters. In essence they all boil down to having encounters with predetermined outcomes, or encounters that are forced upon the players by the DM. They all boil down to effectively removing player choice.

Encounters need to be decision points. That's their purpose. If there's no decision, it's not an encounter, it's a cutscene.

valadil
2012-06-13, 08:14 AM
Say, they had a bad experience fighting archers last time, so their spell line-ups are totally prepared to fight archers, only this time they were supposed to go after the ogre chief and his minions who are big mean melee brutes. Sometimes, players will take a 'wrong' cue from you that's about as good as the 'right' one. And while you want that to hit them in a real way, so they go "oh crap we screwed up," it's rarely good for the party to be ruined because the players had a bad idea in good faith.

They should be ready to flee the encounter and have the means to do so. If win or die are the only two options, eventually they'll die when they hit an unwinnable situation. When the options are win, die, or flee, unwinnable isn't quite so bad.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-13, 09:34 AM
They should be ready to flee the encounter and have the means to do so. If win or die are the only two options, eventually they'll die when they hit an unwinnable situation. When the options are win, die, or flee, unwinnable isn't quite so bad.

I also like including lose options that aren't die. Capture is one, but hardly the only option.

Even death need not be the end.

valadil
2012-06-13, 09:46 AM
I also like including lose options that aren't die. Capture is one, but hardly the only option.

Even death need not be the end.

I mentioned flee because it's something the players choose to do. If the GM knocks out all the PCs, they have no control over whether they're dead or captive. Surrender can work, but it's still up to the GM to accept the surrender. Too many players have the win or die mentality though.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-13, 09:50 AM
I mentioned flee because it's something the players choose to do. If the GM knocks out all the PCs, they have no control over whether they're dead or captive. Surrender can work, but it's still up to the GM to accept the surrender. Too many players have the win or die mentality though.

Depends on situation...I occasionally have honorable sorts offer surrender when they feel the PCs have no chance(not that their perception of the situation is always correct). If the PCs refuse it and declare it a fight to the death, well, that's on them. For some opponents(mindless undead, many animals), this doesn't work, though.

Post-death, players may be offered a resurrection, depending on circumstances. That's again a player decision.

And there's always fights where loss means things like "the enemy gets away", not death as such. Relying on death as the penalty for everything risks being repetitive.

Knaight
2012-06-13, 01:28 PM
A level 1 orc warrior with a greataxe attacks a level 2 barbarian PC, and gets a crit. That's 3d12 + 9 damage in one attack, with a maximum damage of 45. That's more than enough to kill any level 2 barbarian, even if they're raging and at full health. And unlikely as it is, it could happen to just about anyone.

Getting killed by a random mook sucks, especially if there was nothing you could do about it, and you were a lot stronger than it was. So, is it more fun for the DM to kill the character, or to fudge the dice and let him live? It really depends on the players, and the type of game they want to play. If you think it would be more fun for the character to die, and the others in your group do, too, that's fair enough, but I think most people wouldn't be happy with that outcome.
Plenty of people disagree on the second point - for some, the ability for some schmuck to take down any character at any time with enough luck is a selling point (see: The entire Riddle of Steel fanbase). If you disagree, then the easiest way is to play a system which isn't geared to some random schmuck being able to kill anyone with luck. D&D isn't that system, given the preponderance of Save or Die effects, and how quickly melee can become rocket tag.

One of D&D's defining characteristics is that it is high lethality. If you want a game that isn't high lethality, D&D is probably a very bad choice.

Ranting Fool
2012-06-14, 11:07 AM
Wow a few posts here were quite a lot more aggressive and confrontational then I would have thought the subject matter warranted, but now I know what a dangerous subject this is! :smallbiggrin:

I've a whole host of random points and views while I'll ramble about in no particular order :smallcool:


I mentioned flee because it's something the players choose to do. If the GM knocks out all the PCs, they have no control over whether they're dead or captive. Surrender can work, but it's still up to the GM to accept the surrender. Too many players have the win or die mentality though.

Yeppity, When offered the choice "Cake or DEATH!" I do encourage my PC's to ask "I'll have the chicken"

Games should be fun :smallbiggrin: but then me and my PC's find a challenge fun, even the risk of an unlucky Level 1 Orc crit (Though this is why I tend to start groups off at level 3) in my current campaign I asked my players at the start how dangerous and/or realistic do you wish this world to be. They wanted a challenge so they may well come across a BBEG or monster that is just too damn scary to fight/kill. That is when it's time for them to look for another way to do things (Or just run away)

I have been guilty of fudging and even the REALLY bad kind of "oh **** they killed my BBEG I better make sure he/she/it lives/gets away" though that was mostly being new to being a DM

@OP: I would go with whatever the party went with as having one rule for one member and another for me would bug me. Though I would never want my DM to say "Shall I fudge rolls" I would hope he/she would say "Do you wish to play with every dice being open?"

As lots of people have already said a lot of RPG's are about trust... can you trust your DM to make a world and play a campaign without endlessly cheating to force the game down the path the DM wants? Or just kill my character out of spite? If I couldn't trust the DM to be fair or to give players the ability to decide their fate (which is where too much fudging/Rule 0 comes in) then I would just tell the DM this and go play with others/something else.

I'm glad jumped in on the whole "If dragons are dead in my campaign then I'll just re-roll on the random monster table" I have been known to roll on the random treasure table and veto results because they don't fit in with the current world. Why not just make up a new table, because I wanted to speed up things by using a pre-gen table (And I often do make up my own tables when I have enough time)

Oh and one more minor thing, a few people seem to have made the assumption that if an encounter is too high then it is a mistake or just bad DM'ing. I run a rather open Sandbox-ish (well try to be open) type game and having a complete and detailed encounter list for every possible action or area that the players decide to go to. If they want to go to some Orc infested hills then they can and shockingly not every single Orc they meet will be using the exact same equipment or if the decide to wander off to the Dragon infested mountain of Dragondoom(tm):smalltongue: at level 2 then they can (They may very well meet some NPC farmer Joe who warns them that "Here Be Dragons") I had a point somewhere and I think I lost it... ah yes I dislike worlds where every single encounter will be within your current level range, but that's just me :smallbiggrin:

kyoryu
2012-06-14, 11:55 AM
This link was posted in another thread:

post by the author of BW (https://plus.google.com/u/0/111266966448135449970/posts/Q8qRhCw7az5#111266966448135449970/posts/Q8qRhCw7az5)

In it, the author talks about his experiences recently playing D&D, but trying to do so "with fresh eyes". It's a good look at the system, and what "old school" gaming is.

More relevant to this thread, there's a bit where he talks about fudging, and why, at least in the context of "old school" D&D, it's a terrible thing and cheapens the game.