How do you feel about fudging die rolls?

[Libertad]

This issue is a controversial one in tabletop gaming. People in favor of fudged rolls argue that sometimes it's okay to do, as an act of DM compassion. You might not want the new player to die from a lucky cirt in the first battle, or you might realize that the boss monster's going to be too tough as is.

People against it argue that it's a betrayal of trust between players and GM, that it can be easily abused.

Others fall somewhere in the middle: you really shouldn't do it, but extreme exceptions are understandable.

Where do you stand on this issue?

I personally almost never fudge die rolls as a GM, except one or two times to avoid a TPK from an encounter I poorly planned which turned out to be too strong. The "fudging" I usually do in games is enemy tactics, having monsters act differently than the normally would based upon circumstances.

[KillianHawkeye]

As a player, I don't really like it. I need there to be a sense of danger, and if I know that the DM is pulling his punches, it really ruins the dramatic tension of combat. On the other hand, I suppose fudging the occasional roll to correct for an unlikely string of one-sided rolls (the monster can't roll above a 7 or below a 15, for example) would be alright provided that the DM was good at hiding it.

As a DM, I am more likely to fudge a monster's HP to make sure it doesn't die too quickly (if it's supposed to be a boss monster).

[hymer]

How do I feel, where do I stand... Obviously, only the GM can fudge rolls. Otherwise the word is clearly not 'fudge' but 'cheat'.
Generally, fudging should not be done. There may be some very rare occurences where fudging is in order, but these usually have meta-game out-of-game reasons.
A good system doesn't need the GM to fudge rolls. It takes away the sense of accomplishment if the GM fudges in my favour, and the sense of fair play if the GM fudges against me.
I used to have a GM who believed that as long as he fudged both ways, that somehow made it okay. Let's just say, I don't agree. I say roll out in the open unless it's supposed to be a secret roll for some reason. Let the dice fall where they may, most games have means of ressing characters or otherwise cheating death.

[Incom]

I always thought it might be a good idea to fudge rolls at the beginning of a campaign (nobody likes to die at low levels), but then switch to rolling openly after a massive plot development (something akin to Kefka's stunt in FF6) to symbolize that things just got very, very dangerous.

[Libertad]

I've often heard of building reroll options into the game mechanics (such as Luck Points) as an option to discourage fudging. It's a finite resource they can save up until the right time, but they must abide by the new results. It's also rolled in the open, so everybody knows what they're getting.

Do you think that this option actually provides an incentive for GMs to avoid fudging?

[hymer]

Rerolls are usually tied to something the PC does, less the bad guys. So rerolls makes survivability higher, no question there, and as such it might alleviate a certain pressure on the GM to fudge in favour of the players. But it doesn't directly affect his rolls, after all.
So yes, some.

We (in my group) talked about the possibility of having 'negative' rerolls at one point. Say you reroll something twice, and you only have one reroll. You are now at -1 reroll, which the GM may then use for an NPC or to force you to reroll something you just rolled. In the hands of a benign GM, this should also reduce player death somewhat, and might even help him make something dramatic.
But we haven't actually tried it.

[Water_Bear]

I'm very much against fudging die rolls, not for any clear reason but just a vague sense of it being counter to the rules. As a DM I have never fudged a roll, and IMO my games have run better for it.

[Darius Kane]

I'm against fudging. If I realize that an encounter might be way more dangerous than I intended/anticipated then I just change the monster stats/tactics accordingly. Rolls are open and final.

[Phaedrus2129]

I always use a luck system; you get three luck points that let you re-roll bad rolls, which regenerate at one per in-game day OR refresh at the start of the session (depending). With that I rarely feel the urge to fudge a roll, and have never gone and done it.

Well, there was that practice session with a new player; but he was consistently rolling crap attack rolls while the enemy was rolling good ones. The PC was changing tactics to draw the enemy out of cover, and while sprinting to a new spot the bad guy rolled a hit that would likely have killed the PC. I called it a miss, for training purposes. ;)


In actual, serious games? Never.

[valadil]

Used to like it. Currently I don't do it and prefer the same from my GM, but I don't think it's inherently wrong.

What made the difference was when I tried not fudging for one session. We got some weird rolls. I think I got 5 crits in a row during what was an allegedly easy fight. You know what? It made the fight more interesting. The veterans at my table have played through countless average fights. They hadn't played in many where the dice didn't behave. Those abnormal results made the fight tons more interesting than it would have been otherwise. After that, I stopped fudging entirely in that game. If the aberrant results were neat, why was I shaving them off, making everything look more average?

Anyway, doing that got me to pay closer attention to how other GMs fudge. I used to not care. So long as I didn't detect fudging, I figured it was harmless. But now that I was thinking about it, fudging became easier to detect. When you notice that the first 3-5 spells against a boss enemy will always fail because the GM needs the boss to live for that long, it no long matters what you hit that enemy with. Once you start seeing things that way it's really hard to car about the decisions you make for the character because they just don't matter.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Depends. What are dice rolls used for? My preferred philosophy is you roll dice when you aren't sure, or when you disagree, as to what should happen. If one of the players wants to do a backflip and behead all of the baddies in mid-air with one swing, and nobody has a problem with him doing this (including myself), there's no need to roll to see if they succeed. So I don't really see a need to fudge rolls: If I think the PCs should succeed at whatever they're trying to do, I just let them narrate what they do without rolling.

[Aron Times]

I played in a PbP campaign on rpol.net where the DM was way too fond of editing player posts instead of posting a new reply. The first ever fight my Lasombra Antitribu was in was against a Sabbat Lasombra, which was described in a way where I had no choice but to fight. He kept the rules secret, and kept editing my posts to add information or delete OOC stuff, and it ended up with my character getting killed in the first fight.

Now, for all we know, I could have simply fallen prey to the random number gods, but his constant editing of player posts combined with secret rolls for the bad guys really destroyed any trust I had in him. It got worse when he posted a condescending explanation that White Wolf games were not like D&D where the enemies scale according to the party level. I can't remember exactly how he phrased it, but it really pissed me off and made me rage quit.

Which is quite an achievement, since it is very difficult to provoke me to anger in real life. I'm generally a mellow person who rarely raises his voice except when dealing with my mischievous but oh-so-cute dog, Katie (a Wheaten Terrier), who loves to jump on my stomach when I'm lying in bed or on the couch.

[Jay R]

If you trust your DM, then trust her. If she ever fudges a roll, then there will be a straightforward purpose, which the players usually shouldn't know.

If you don't trust your DM, it doesn't matter whether you fudge rolls; the game has already broken down.

I once put the giant spider minis on the table, and then saw on one player's face that she was deathly afraid. The first spiders hit died on a single roll, and the rest "failed a morale throw" and fled. Spiders off the table in less than 30 seconds, without telling the rest of the players why.

[ghost_warlock]

It really depends on how committed to the story of the campaign rather than the mechanics.

For my old DarkSun campaign I would occasionally fudge rolls either way - making things easier or harder for the PCs to suit the story and create/ease tension. And, really, fudging rolls to make things harder for the PCs in a brutal, unfair, and bleak setting like DarkSun seemed appropriate.

In the current season of 4e Encounters I'm running I can't really be arsed to fudge rolls. :smalltongue: Of course, the season is composed of many skill challenges and RP encounters instead of just straight combat like previous seasons, and the combat that is involved has yet to be a genuine threat to the party.

I haven't decided yet whether or not I'll fudge rolls for the Planescape campaign I'll be starting early next year.

[DrBurr]

Only if I have a hot streak on Attack rolls, I regularly roll between 3 and 5 crits in a row with my black d20, which my group has dubbed the evil die for obvious reasons. Typically I'll switch it out for my black and blue or big red die if I have them on hand otherwise one of those crits will only deal normal damage

[Glimbur]

Let the dice fall where they may. If I'm going to save the PC's, then I'll make the Storm Elemental flee rather than killing the warlock, but sometimes fate requires a TPK. If the risk is illusory, then it makes the game less fun for me. Not that I like killing PCs, but...

[Yukitsu]

As a player, it's pretty much completely wrong.

As DM, when I'm doing an encounter, I'm willing to make it a little slanted, because sometimes, you're level 3 and your orc with an axe just crits a guy automatically killing a guy, which just isn't fun.

[Amphetryon]

I'm against fudging. If I realize that an encounter might be way more dangerous than I intended/anticipated then I just change the monster stats/tactics accordingly. Rolls are open and final.

I'm fascinated by the notion that you don't consider the changing of monster stats/tactics in medias res "fudging." It is a viewpoint I had not seen before.

[Raum]

Where do you stand on this issue?The only way to fudge rolls while keeping your integrity is to be explicit and open about it. Either tell the group ahead of time you'll fudge "when I feel like it" (or in whatever situation you'll do so) or simply bring up a given result you don't like and ask.

I roll in the open so it would be the latter if / when it occurs. Can't remember the last time I needed to bring it up though.


How do I feel, where do I stand... Obviously, only the GM can fudge rolls. Otherwise the word is clearly not 'fudge' but 'cheat'.
The GM is simply a player with a slightly different role. If he's changing results when the players are expecting otherwise it's just as much 'cheating' as if another player had done so. This is why expectations need to be set explicitly.

[tedthehunter]

Generally speaking, I like to avoid fudging as much as possible, however, as a DM, I have to admit that I have fudged die on more than one occasion in order to save a dying PC. My basic rule of thumb is if the player of the character is no longer having fun, then a little helpful die rolling is perfectly acceptable. Of course, with this rule you have to be wary of players who stop having fun every time their character misses an attack, takes damage, sets off a trap, etc.

On the other hand, however, I have had moderate success with encounters where I end up fudging all or most of my rolls, using my judgement to make the fight more interesting or tense or easier or more difficult. Sometimes I just roll dice indeterminately behind my screen, just so the players can hear them roll, and without even checking the results, I'll continue the round. Now this is obviously an extreme, and really doesn't even count as fudging, but the result is often a combat encounter that runs quickly, smoothly, and is exciting for everyone, even players that are being overwhelmed.

I guess overall my point is that fudging rolls to baby immature players is obviously a no no, but that doing so to make the game more fun (for everyone), to preserve the effectiveness of game elements (such as combat encounters), or to correct a mistake you've made, is clearly a better option than following the rolls exactly and potentially ruining the fun of the game. Also you have to consider the fact that the necessity of these fudged die rolls depends heavily on the rigidity of your players. I think more experienced players may be willing to accept accidental lvl 1 TPKs, whereas first timers might just assume that "this game sucks."

[erikun]

I don't fudge dice rolls, but I'm a skilled enough GM at this point that I don't need to. I can fudge opponent stats, numbers, or strategies easily enough to accomplish the same result.

Occasionally, I might just fudge an entire scenario, but only when the entire table agrees that the situation has just gone bizarre. (This is commonly the case in bought pregenerated campaign books, which either mess up the stats or the strategy or just the numbers.)

I try not to make a habit of it, as I don't want to go around killing my PCs. However, there are times when the PCs just don't think and don't plan, and I generally don't bother trying to fudge in these situations - only when my own planning unintentionally created an unwinnable situation.

[NotScaryBats]

I fudge all the time. Like, all the time. Maybe its 'cus I started playing 2nd ed D&D when I was 6, or maybe because I just hate when 'X uses his ultimate power. It does this really cool thing, and -- blah blah oh wait it did nothing.'

Anyway, I've never really felt bad about it, and as far as I know none of my players ever have, either.

[Totally Guy]

For me fudging is a total no no.

It's a sign that a game is in conflict with itself.

The problem was not that you would hit an undesirable outcome but that the undesirable outcome was something that you pursue possibly aided by the game.

Lets say for example that the characters are all going to die by monsters and that's unacceptable. If monsters killing the characters is unacceptable then why would you introduce monsters that are trying to kill the characters? The answer here tends to be that one of the major game parts is about fighting monsters to the death. The game parts are in conflict with the gaming experience you want.

If you fudge then the game is no longer about fighting monsters. And that can be ok, as long as the players don't expect the game to be about fighting monsters.

But me, I expect games to be about what they say they're about.

[TheOOB]

I for one never fudge die rolls. If I want a roll to go a specific way, I don't roll, I just have it happen that way(or occasionally I roll and ignore the outcome). It's not an issue of trust, but game design. In order for a game to be fun, IMO, there needs to be risk. Sometimes PC's die, and I'll let it happen. My players know that, I know that. If the plot demands something, I just do it, I don't roll.

The Dice exist to serve the game, never to rule over them.

[hymer]

@ Raum: I tend to agree with you, but it really does depend on the system. GM fiat is a thing in many games, and fudging could be defended as a sort of quiet, unstated fiat.
But as people have said in this thread, if you were gonna fudge a roll, don't roll. Just announce the result and move on. Better use of the fiat in my view.

[Darius Kane]

I'm fascinated by the notion that you don't consider the changing of monster stats/tactics in medias res "fudging." It is a viewpoint I had not seen before.
The question is about fudging die rolls, no? Besides, no I don't consider changing stats as fudging. Until the players interact with something, it is just a possibility, nothing more, and it could even not exist at all.

[Drelua]

I only ever fudged one roll as a DM, although that's partly because I had, and still have, very little experience as anything but a player. Our regular DM had just broken up with his girlfriend, and felt like being a player for once. Things went pretty smoothly, mostly because all you have to do to get my group to go where you want them to go is have an NPC either ask real nice or offer them money, until we got to the boss fight. They cut their way though a some hobgoblins and ogres, then got to a room with a Barbarian warlord type in it, who they killed, taking a few major hits in the process. Then an Intellect Devourer (Brain Dog, as I like to call them) jumped out of his head. They fought and won, but not before it got a lucky crit on my usual DM's character, and killed him. Not knocked him into negatives, flat-out killed him. So I shaved a few points of damage so he was still alive, and the druid healed him.

I was inexperienced, and I threw too much at them, so I decided not to kill the recently-dumped guys PC. Of course, it was his fault for making an Inquisitor (pathfinder class, d8 HD, average BAB) and playing it as a front-liner with 12 CON and no buffs, but still.

Edit: I meant to hit Preview Post... :smallredface:

[molten_dragon]

I will occasionally fudge die results to break a long streak of either really good or really bad luck on an enemy's part. It's pretty rare though.

[Raum]

@ Raum: I tend to agree with you, but it really does depend on the system. GM fiat is a thing in many games, and fudging could be defended as a sort of quiet, unstated fiat.I think it needs to be based on the group's social contract rather than the system. ;) Though I do agree some use the system as an excuse.


But as people have said in this thread, if you were gonna fudge a roll, don't roll. Just announce the result and move on. Better use of the fiat in my view.Agreed, though I tend to phrase it differently..."if the potential die results aren't all interesting, don't roll".

[Slipperychicken]

It's cheating. The rules say you should get such an outcome with such a die roll, and you ignored it and substituted your own. You robbed your friends of the fair game they agreed to. You changed the conflict resolution mechanism from "what the dice say" to "what I say", without telling anyone, misleading them to continue thinking they're playing the same game as before. You have lied to your friends and cheated them.

Fudging removes all sense of danger or uncertainty, since you know that the outcome isn't determined by the die you just rolled, but by how the DM's feeling, or what he thinks would be funny or cool. It makes victory lukewarm, since you didn't overcome a challenge, you didn't achieve anything, you're all just wasting your time with a masturbatory exercise in talking with stupid voices while gawking at funny-shaped dice.


I'm playing for tactics and problem-solving. If you fudge and lie to me, even to prevent my character's death, you robbed me of both the challenge and the experience, and I will never trust you to run a fair game again.

[DrBurr]

It's cheating. The rules say you should get such an outcome with such a die roll, and you ignored it and substituted your own. You robbed your friends of the fair game they agreed to. You changed the conflict resolution mechanism from "what the dice say" to "what I say", without telling anyone, misleading them to continue thinking they're playing the same game as before. You have lied to your friends and cheated them.

Fudging removes all sense of danger or uncertainty, since you know that the outcome isn't determined by the die you just rolled, but by how the DM's feeling, or what he thinks would be funny or cool. It makes victory lukewarm, since you didn't overcome a challenge, you didn't achieve anything, you're all just wasting your time with a masturbatory exercise in talking with stupid voices while gawking at funny-shaped dice.


I'm playing for tactics and problem-solving. If you fudge and lie to me, even to prevent my character's death, you robbed me of both the challenge and the experience, and I will never trust you to run a fair game again.


Rule of Fun trumps rule of Fair Dice, DM/GMing is about putting on a entertaining game just as much as refereeing. So no its not against the rules to fudge some DMG's even tell you to change the game to keep it fun

Now You find tactics and open roles fun it gives you a sense of danger but that doesn't mean the rest of us find a string of crits or a total wipe fun, and your open to your opinion but could you stop calling us cheaters for doing an advised tactic

[scurv]

House rules here

First few sessions We tend to stick to the rule of cool concerning fudged die rolls. Its DM option and if it does happen we tend to make it happen in such a way that it adds to the flavour of the plot.

Once things get going....Well The DM might make some Adjustments behind closed doors. But it is forbidden for players to do so.

[Raum]

Rule of Fun trumps rule of Fair Dice, DM/GMing is about putting on a entertaining game just as much as refereeing. So no its not against the rules to fudge some DMG's even tell you to change the game to keep it fun

Now You find tactics and open roles fun it gives you a sense of danger but that doesn't mean the rest of us find a string of crits or a total wipe fun, and your open to your opinion but could you stop calling us cheaters for doing an advised tacticAgain, this depends on the social contract / group expectations. If you're lying about fudging, it does qualify as 'cheating'. If you weren't it wouldn't need a lie.

[Darius Kane]

It's cheating. The rules say you should get such an outcome with such a die roll, and you ignored it and substituted your own. You robbed your friends of the fair game they agreed to. You changed the conflict resolution mechanism from "what the dice say" to "what I say", without telling anyone, misleading them to continue thinking they're playing the same game as before. You have lied to your friends and cheated them.

Fudging removes all sense of danger or uncertainty, since you know that the outcome isn't determined by the die you just rolled, but by how the DM's feeling, or what he thinks would be funny or cool. It makes victory lukewarm, since you didn't overcome a challenge, you didn't achieve anything, you're all just wasting your time with a masturbatory exercise in talking with stupid voices while gawking at funny-shaped dice.


I'm playing for tactics and problem-solving. If you fudge and lie to me, even to prevent my character's death, you robbed me of both the challenge and the experience, and I will never trust you to run a fair game again.
Harsh. I like it.

[DrBurr]

Again, this depends on the social contract / group expectations. If you're lying about fudging, it does qualify as 'cheating'. If you weren't it wouldn't need a lie.

Thats exactly what I'm talking about, it depends on the group so its a little presumptive and rude to be calling other DMs and GMs cheaters because their group isn't the same

[obryn]

It's cheating. The rules say you should get such an outcome with such a die roll, and you ignored it and substituted your own. You robbed your friends of the fair game they agreed to. You changed the conflict resolution mechanism from "what the dice say" to "what I say", without telling anyone, misleading them to continue thinking they're playing the same game as before. You have lied to your friends and cheated them.
The game's already unfair. I have infinite orcs.

-O

[Slipperychicken]

The game's already unfair. I have infinite orcs.

-O

"I disguise myself as an Orc, navigate the Sea of Orcs to my objective, and level up from all the XP."

"I Teleport/Plane Shift to safety."

"I befriend the Orcs and earn their respect. Since there is a nonzero chance that any given Orc in the group will aid me or join my quest, I now also have infinite Orcs."



It's unfair when you say "I have infinite Orcs who render your objectives impossible, which you can neither defeat, overcome, trick, or evade".

[Jeraa]

I prefer a DM who occasionally fudges rolls. If I wanted something that mindlessly adheres to the written rules, I would just go play a video game. Better graphics, and I wouldn't have to wait for the rest of the part to act during a battle.

(In my view, the DM is not just another player. He is the Dungeon Master, and has final control over anything. What he says, goes.)

[SoC175]

The question is about fudging die rolls, no? Besides, no I don't consider changing stats as fudging. Until the players interact with something, it is just a possibility, nothing more, and it could even not exist at all.But doesn't it take some rounds of interaction with the players to realize the encounter is more dangerous than intended/anticipated and that something has to be done?


Personally I as a DM fudge rolls to avoid killing PCs in stupid situations. E.g. not telling about the crit I just rolled against the PC who is already dying and I didn't want to attack anymore in the first place, but had to attack because he was adjacent to a monster with no logical excuse to attack anyone else

[Darius Kane]

But doesn't it take some rounds of interaction with the players to realize the encounter is more dangerous than intended/anticipated and that something has to be done?
Not for me. And the problem can be dealt with in more ways than just fudging stats or rolls.

[Glimbur]

It's unfair when you say "I have infinite Orcs who render your objectives impossible, which you can neither defeat, overcome, trick, or evade".

The greater point wasn't that he has sufficient orcs, it's that he controls the entire world. If he wants the PCs to die, they will die. Sure, they might escape the town guard who thinks they look just like those murderers (shapechangers pretending to be the PCs) and they could evade the group of Neanderthals sent on a spirit quest specifically to kill them, but once the dragons show up because the PCs' hearts happen to be incredibly rare magical reagents or the gods get involved because of a prophecy, the PCs will die.

So the question is not "can the PCs be killed", it is "what level of risk of death is most fun?" Fudging is a method for controlling risk.

[White_Drake]

@ Dr Burr: Unless the game has rules in place for GM fiat or the GM has stated that he will be changing rolls or such if he deems it necessary (thus changing the rules that group will be using), by fudging rolls he is, by definition cheating and lying because the group agreed to play X, and partway through the GM effectively changed it to X* without notifying anybody.

Whether this is right or wrong isn't the question, if you prefer a GM that cheats then it's fine by me, but he is cheating.

[Jeraa]

Dungeon Masters Guide, page 18.

While it doesn't specifically say fudging is 100% allowed, it implies its up to the DM. Its neither right nor wrong for the DM to fudge. One thing it is clear on, is that if the DM does fudge, to never let the players know it. That section is the closest thing there is to a rule about DM fudging.


Do you cheat? The answer: The DM really can’t cheat. You’re the umpire, and what you say goes. As such, it’s certainly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or keep things running smoothly.

Its a question of style. In my experience, newer players (ones who started with 3.X) tend to be strict with the rules. What the rules say goes, and the DM must follow the rules. Older players (who started with AD&D or earlier) have no problem ignoring the rules, and following what the DM says/does, even if the rules say differently. (Granted, there are exceptions. And like I said, my own personal experience. Others may have different experiences.)

Neither is the right way to play, and neither is the wrong way. Its just two different styles of play. As long as everyone has fun, who really cares?

[White_Drake]

Sorry mate, but these are the wrong boards for a specific reference. Although a specific game could make the discussion quite a bit easier.

I dislike fudging; if I didn't want rolls to matter, then why am I not playing a diceless game?

[Jeraa]

Sorry mate, but these are the wrong boards for a specific reference. Although a specific game could make the discussion quite a bit easier.

Doesn't matter. That section, while it does appear in a D&D book, really has no rules. Its discussing whether the DM/GM/Referee is within his rights to fudge, and can very well apply to any system.

[Amphetryon]

The question is about fudging die rolls, no? Besides, no I don't consider changing stats as fudging. Until the players interact with something, it is just a possibility, nothing more, and it could even not exist at all.

And the OP clarified - within his opening post - that his preferred method of "fudging" (his term) was in tactics of the NPCs. Your response to the thread - which presumably included the OP's comments in total because it did not isolate an aspect as your focus - was that you're against fudging, AND that you don't consider something which the OP specifically called fudging to be so. That consideration is what I found surprising, and what I specifically responded to.

[Totally Guy]

Doesn't matter. That section, while it does appear in a D&D book, really has no rules. Its discussing whether the DM/GM/Referee is within his rights to fudge, and can very well apply to any system.

Can I coin the term "D&Dnormativity"?
"Dungeonormativity?"...?

[Thialfi]

I do it all the time with things like random encounters. When the party is in bad shape and the dice say that they run into the maximum number of a tough opponent, I say different.

[supermonkeyjoe]

Fudging shouldn't be needed if the DM is throwing appropriate challenges at the players and they are playing competently then everything should run smoothly, fudging should only really need to occur IMO when the DM messes up to set things right weather it's doctoring dice or adding an extra chunk of HP to an enemy.

[Jay R]

@ Dr Burr: Unless the game has rules in place for GM fiat or the GM has stated that he will be changing rolls or such if he deems it necessary (thus changing the rules that group will be using), by fudging rolls he is, by definition cheating and lying because the group agreed to play X, and partway through the GM effectively changed it to X* without notifying anybody.

Whether this is right or wrong isn't the question, if you prefer a GM that cheats then it's fine by me, but he is cheating.

This is simply false-to-fact. Every version of D&D I've ever played, and many other games I've played, have contained a statement somewhere that the DM makes the final decision, and might choose to change die rolls or other results.

Unless the GM has stated that he will not be changing rolls or such, then refusing to accept that the DM does the fudging which the rules say he can do is by definition cheating and lying because the group agreed to play X, and partway through somebody effectively changed it to X* without notifying anybody.

-----

Yes, the above words are overly harsh. But they are the exact words aimed in the other discussion.

The truth lies in between. Role-playing started with the idea that the DM was a referee, not a player. Her job was to create a world and run it, making all final decisions. She rolled dice, but was supposed to accept the final responsibility on every decision. This style of play was assumed and clearly laid out in the rules and in the commentary in The Strategy Gamer and The Dragon.

A later approach developed years later, that the DM/GM/referee was merely a player with a different set of rules. This idea, completely alien to the origins of role-playing, has grown and is also quite popular.

But the actual idea of the DM's role as final arbiter is also quite popular. There has never been a time since the mid-1990s that both traditions weren't alive and thriving.

Claiming that somebody is "cheating and lying", when they are in fact playing according to many sets of published rules and the longest role-playing tradition is clearly a false statement, and does not serve any useful purpose.

If you feel that the longest-lived, most traditional mode of role-play is not to your taste, then you may certainly choose not to play that way.

But please do not claim that I am cheating and lying because I play D&D as it was designed, and as I've played it since 1975, and as the rules have said it should be played since 1974.

[Deepbluediver]

I think it depends entirely on the circumstances.

If your group is in the middle of a months-long epic campaign and has gotten itself either really in trouble, gone entirely off the rails, or has somehow gotten the BBEG in a headlock way ahead of schedule, it can be justifiable if it preserves the story. A good DM should be able to use it sparingly and work things out so players hardly notice.

In one shots, shorter games, and with groups who don't care much about individual characters, then let the dice lie where they fall. That's the nature of a random, open-ended table top game. Some times you blast through the entire dungeon in an hour, and sometimes you get sniped by kobolds. If I wanted the exact same bland, boring, non-dangerous situation every time I played, I'd just renew my WoW subscription.

[LordBlades]

Personally, I'm 110% against fudging. I really can't think of any valid (to me) reason to fudge (apart from maybe playing with very new players in a learning campaign).

Regarding fudging to protect players, I like feeling that there's real danger to my character, a chance I can actually fail and real consequences to my actions. Playing with 'safety net' kind of takes all that away.

Regarding fudging to protect the story, I hate that too. If I managed to outsmart the villain (or simply get lucky), I don't like seeing all that effort rendered moot because 'he wasn't supposed to die for a couple more months'.

Some of my best D&D moments involve unlikely rolls. For example once we got in over our heads and had to do a hasty retreat against a white dragon way over our CR. Party cleric only lived (and got to do some pretty epic deeds later on) because the dragon charging him rolled a nat. 1. Had it not been in the open, everybody would have been like 'the GM is just cutting us some slack for screwing up'.

[Eldonauran]

Do I fudge die rolls as a DM? :smallconfused:

Well, yeah. All the time. Its called a circumstance modifier. Whether or not I grant a bonus (or penalty) relies heavily on 'fun factor' or decisions made by the NPCs I control or the PCs.

I make up a lot of stuff as a DM (I love fly-by-the-seat games where even I don't know whats coming up next). I do not need to make up success or failure of dice rolls. I have no problem influencing them though.

[Jay R]

Personally, I'm 110% against fudging. I really can't think of any valid (to me) reason to fudge (apart from maybe playing with very new players in a learning campaign).

Really? Not any valid reason? I recently posted the following:


I once put the giant spider minis on the table, and then saw on one player's face that she was deathly afraid. The first spiders hit died on a single roll, and the rest "failed a morale throw" and fled. Spiders off the table in less than 30 seconds, without telling the rest of the players why.

The reason for fudging in this case was to deal with her phobia in the quickest possible way without embarrassing her by telling the other players.

Do you think that this is not a valid reason? Why is it invalid?

[LordBlades]

Really? Not any valid reason? I recently posted the following:



The reason for fudging in this case was to deal with her phobia in the quickest possible way without embarrassing her by telling the other players.

Do you think that this is not a valid reason? Why is it invalid?

Yeah, that was a valid reason, but also an extraordiary circumstance. What I meant was reasons related to the game.

[Amphetryon]

Yeah, that was a valid reason, but also an extraordiary circumstance. What I meant was reasons related to the game.

The minis and the Players involved aren't reasons related to the game?

[Jay R]

Yeah, that was a valid reason, but also an extraordiary circumstance. What I meant was reasons related to the game.

Once you have acknowledged that I should use my judgment, then I should use my judgment.

Most often I re-roll because I want a random result over a subset of the options on the table. For instance, if I roll a wandering monster and get an owlbear, but I know where all the nearby owlbears are, I will either choose the next one on the table, or re-roll.

Having said that, I've fudged maybe three rolls in the last five years.

But if you aren't going to trust me to do that reasonably, then you shouldn't play with me at all, because you will never know when I do it.

[LordBlades]

The minis and the Players involved aren't reasons related to the game?

I count somebody's phobia as an out of game issue.

[Amphetryon]

I count somebody's phobia as an out of game issue.

As is your prerogative. I don't believe that to be a universal belief, of course.

[White_Drake]

This is simply false-to-fact. Every version of D&D I've ever played, and many other games I've played, have contained a statement somewhere that the DM makes the final decision, and might choose to change die rolls or other results.

Unless the GM has stated that he will not be changing rolls or such, then refusing to accept that the DM does the fudging which the rules say he can do is by definition cheating and lying because the group agreed to play X, and partway through somebody effectively changed it to X* without notifying anybody.


Making an allowance for clauses such as those was the first thing I typed.


Unless the game has rules in place for GM fiat or the GM has stated that he will be changing rolls or such if he deems it necessary (thus changing the rules that group will be using), by fudging rolls he is, by definition cheating and lying because the group agreed to play X, and partway through the GM effectively changed it to X* without notifying anybody.

[Jay R]

Making an allowance for clauses such as those was the first thing I typed.

Oops. My mistake.

But what game doesn't have rules in place making the DM the final authority over everything? Certainly the DM has that authority in D&D, Hero System, GURPS, and (I think) every game I've ever played.

[Amphetryon]

Oops. My mistake.

But what game doesn't have rules in place making the DM the final authority over everything? Certainly the DM has that authority in D&D, Hero System, GURPS, and (I think) every game I've ever played.

Several posters on the forum will happily point you to games without a GM.

[Jay R]

But what game doesn't have rules in place making the DM the final authority over everything? Certainly the DM has that authority in D&D, Hero System, GURPS, and (I think) every game I've ever played.Several posters on the forum will happily point you to games without a GM.

A game with no DM is completely irrelevant to this thread, and equally irrelevant to my question.

[Amphetryon]

A game with no DM is completely irrelevant to this thread, and equally irrelevant to my question.

A game with no DM can quite easily have the potential of fudging in general, or fudging die rolls in particular. That sounds relevant.

[Randomatic]

Oops. My mistake.

But what game doesn't have rules in place making the DM the final authority over everything? Certainly the DM has that authority in D&D, Hero System, GURPS, and (I think) every game I've ever played.

Houses of the Blooded gives players narrative control over the game when they make successful die rolls, allowing them to introduce facts to the game world that the GM can't in any way contradict.

Burning Empires is a game where the GM and Players are playing against each other, with each side trying to win. Any fudging of die rolls is clearly spelled out as cheating.

Psi*Run has all the die rolls done by the players out in the open, so there isn't any way to fudge the dice.

It looks like you only have experience in traditional RPG's, but there are many other ways of running games out there. None of them are going to be right or wrong, it all depends on what you like, but games are out there that are getting far out of the mold created by Dungeons and Dragons.

[Acanous]

If you're going to fudge the die roll, why bother rolling the dice at all? You could be playing a diceless system or just writing a novel (First for if you're a PC, second for if you're the DM) if you do that.

If the dice are feeling especially fickle, your DM should allow the PCs a place to rest, or perhaps a sidequest to recover from it, but don't start fudging rolls :/

[Jay R]

If you're going to fudge the die roll, why bother rolling the dice at all?

As I said earlier today, "Most often I re-roll because I want a random result over a subset of the options on the table. For instance, if I roll a wandering monster and get an owlbear, but I know where all the nearby owlbears are, I will either choose the next one on the table, or re-roll."

[Greylond]

When I GM and when I play it's "Let the Dice Fall As They May."

[Doug Lampert]

This issue is a controversial one in tabletop gaming. People in favor of fudged rolls argue that sometimes it's okay to do, as an act of DM compassion. You might not want the new player to die from a lucky cirt in the first battle, or you might realize that the boss monster's going to be too tough as is.

People against it argue that it's a betrayal of trust between players and GM, that it can be easily abused.

Others fall somewhere in the middle: you really shouldn't do it, but extreme exceptions are understandable.

Where do you stand on this issue?

I personally almost never fudge die rolls as a GM, except one or two times to avoid a TPK from an encounter I poorly planned which turned out to be too strong. The "fudging" I usually do in games is enemy tactics, having monsters act differently than the normally would based upon circumstances.

I never fudge die rolls and never use a screen for combat rolls. If you can't tollerate every possible roll of the dice, then don't roll dice. But the big reason I don't fudge is that I don't think I'm the world's best DM (my players think I'm pretty good, but I don't think I'm the best).

The world is FULL of players with stories about CRAPPY GM's who THINK no one can tell that they're fudging and railroading right and left while their players KNOW they're faking on the rolls.

The internet is FULL of GMs who are convinced that they are good enough that their players don't know they're fudging.

I've never heard anyone say "Yeah, I'm a crappy GM who fudges and railroads and my players all know it but I do it anyway". Yet based on the Players with stories of massive fudging which they easily spot, so GMs who get spotted must exist (and I've spotted some over the top fudging myself over the years, and I didn't like it and I didn't call the GM on it, I simply left the game).

So if you think you can fudge and not get caught, "HOW DO YOU KNOW?" I've got fairly strong evidence that bad GMs who fudge badly are so common that NEARLY everyone seems to have a story about one...., How do you know you're not one of those jerks?

Also: The most common reason to need to fudge is bad encounter design. The solution to bad encounter design is not to paper it over with fudged rolls and keep going as if nothing happened. It is to stop, acknowledge "That was bad" and FIX THE PROBLEM then avoid it in the future. Fudging says, "bad encounter design isn't a problem, because I can always fudge later", it encourages bad encounter design, rather than working to correct this and have well designed encounters.

When I feel the urge to start fudging to avoid a TPK I'll simply tell the players. "You've screwed up" (or alternately "I've screwed up", both have happened once in the last 5 years or so), then continue, "If we finish this battle as is, you're all going to die. Shall we break here, and then next week I'll have a solution preped, probably X will show up to rescue you, that's at least plausible in the situation."

In the "You've screwed up" case, I also told them, "We've established that you're the fated heroes, so I don't mind handing you one get out of jail free, but this is the only time I'm doing this for this campaign when it's your fault. Screw up again in a way that logically results in a TPK and I can always create another campaign." They went the next 3 years or so without me needing to do so again, and we finally (successfully) finished the campaign last session.

[Doug Lampert]

Personally, I'm 110% against fudging. I really can't think of any valid (to me) reason to fudge (apart from maybe playing with very new players in a learning campaign).

Regarding fudging to protect players, I like feeling that there's real danger to my character, a chance I can actually fail and real consequences to my actions. Playing with 'safety net' kind of takes all that away.

It's more than just that even.

One measure of how good an RPG session is, is how often people bring up fond stories about the game years later, then two of my current players have a story from about 20 years ago about a TPK that resulted from a massive series of crits by a group of random wandering monsters (Broo in Glorantha with RuneQuest II as the system).

They have several other stories from that campaign and setting, and I suspect one reason WHY the other stories are still remembered, is that the TPK from pure bad random luck, provided strong evidence that all the other stories really were the result of extrordinary luck and skill to let the PCs win against the odds.

That GM demonstrably WOULD let them die, randomly, and that demonstratable thing improved every game he ever ran for those players.

[LordBlades]

Once you have acknowledged that I should use my judgment, then I should use my judgment.

Most often I re-roll because I want a random result over a subset of the options on the table. For instance, if I roll a wandering monster and get an owlbear, but I know where all the nearby owlbears are, I will either choose the next one on the table, or re-roll.

Having said that, I've fudged maybe three rolls in the last five years.

But if you aren't going to trust me to do that reasonably, then you shouldn't play with me at all, because you will never know when I do it.

What I had in mind with fudging was actually combat stuff (attack rolls, saves, damage etc.). Even if fudging random encounter tables or treasure rolls is technically still fudging, I've got no issue with it because it doesn't directly impact my character. I don't even use random encounter tables most of the time when I DM and I just pick some monsters that would be cool. Same goes for treasure. Quite often I customize it slightly to the party (if I roll a +3 longsword and the party fighter has all his feats invested in rapiers, it's going to be a +3 rapier) and I always pre-roll it because I think it makes sense for monsters to use parts of their treasure if it helps them.

When it comes to combat however, I prefer the DM rolled stuff for his monsters in the open.

[Doug Lampert]

As I said earlier today, "Most often I re-roll because I want a random result over a subset of the options on the table. For instance, if I roll a wandering monster and get an owlbear, but I know where all the nearby owlbears are, I will either choose the next one on the table, or re-roll."

If you decide in advance that certain options are "Reroll and use that result", or "Apply next entry on the table", then following that rule/decision isn't a fudge at all.

Random encounter tables are rarely part of the game rules, your use of one is your choice, you can modify the table as you like.

This is no more fudging than it would be if PRIOR to an encounter I decided "This orc warrior 1 has a 20 strength rather than a 19".

I have declared "we're going to run a one-shot random battle today to test the combat rules" and given my rules for selecting foes, in those cases changing random encounter tables would be fudging, and I wouldn't do it. Similarly I once told my players that the random encounter table for an area included everything from CR 0.1 to CR 40 encounters, and that if they wandered the area at random then sooner or later I WOULD kill them, I never fudged that table since it's existence was part of the stated rules, "You can't count on level appropriate unless you do something to make level appropriate the expected thing".

But if I'm using something with an encounter table and change the table in advance, that's not fudging, that's adventure design.

[Slipperychicken]

They have several other stories from that campaign and setting, and I suspect one reason WHY the other stories are still remembered, is that the TPK from pure bad random luck, provided strong evidence that all the other stories really were the result of extrordinary luck and skill to let the PCs win against the odds.


This is what I'm talking about. Losing a fair fight once in a while, and not letting up in general (if a monster happens to change targets without provocation, right as the first one gets down to 4hp, that's "letting up", and it's about as bad as fudging rolls). Making it clear that the PCs can and will die establishes credibility; that you aren't just letting the PCs win.

I'd even prefer a DM who would tell me (like in one story on these forums) "If you die, I win", to one who wouldn't let me lose, assuming the former didn't fudge or put us in no-win scenarios. Because then I would at least know I earned my victories. If my character makes it to level 5, I know it's because of my wits and luck, not because the DM had pity. If my character dies, I know it's because I messed up, or the dice rolled against me, not because the DM had a bad day.

And yeah, you can tell (or at least I feel like I can) when the DM's fudging. It's usually after he rolls a crit in secret, looks shocked or worried, shamefully asks you what your HP total is, then your PC miraculously survived at -9 :smallannoyed:. Or he confirms 5 secret-crits in a row after learning your touch AC was 38, or right after you say "don't worry about it, I still have 118 hp left".

It can also be in his tone. If he's clearly frustrated with what you're doing right as the entire universe starts conspiring against your PC, you can be pretty sure he doesn't want you to succeed, and is willing to abuse his DM-powers to stop it.

They also tend to let people win, or "toy with" people, at other games as well. Like if you're playing a fighting game, and it's clear he lets you knock him down to 1/2 health before suddenly kicking you straight out of the ring.

[Jerthanis]

I don't always plan out my games perfectly. A lot of the time I'm like, "Oh crud, it's Friday already? I've got an hour or two before people show up and I don't have anything but an outline."

So like, if they're getting their butts kicked, it's not because I engaged in a double blind study where I'm creating some objective set of circumstances that are designed to test the players' ingenuity and luck, it means the numbers I pulled out of thin air are higher than my players are rolling on a totally random die. It's not a matter of choice or tactics, ultimately the winning strategy in D&D is to roll better than your opponents' numbers, or have them roll poorer than your numbers. Perhaps you can make your numbers better, but in D&D you're fighting a rubber ruler. The DM is expected to make numbers that challenge your numbers; higher if your numbers are higher, lower if your numbers are lower.

If I kill my players because I made the numbers too high, it's not because they made some failure to live up to some objective set of numbers that I had no hand in. It's either my failure in that I put numbers in front of them that were too high, or the dice just fell randomly in the direction of the PCs failing against the odds, and the PCs are heading to a defeat that has nothing to do with the choices they made.

So in a lot of cases, I fudge like it's the last fudging day on fudging earth. I have no problem letting the dice fall when the party turns on itself, or when an individual character knowingly takes a risk, or if it's at the lynchpin moment of a plan... but when it's essentially mop up, or unexpectedly deadly monsters with arbitrary numbers, or a case where PCs are acting fine, but the dice just are against them with a vengeance, I pretty much feel no aversion to the practice of fudging and wouldn't apologize.


If you're going to fudge the die roll, why bother rolling the dice at all? /

If you're going to roll dice, why bother to try and tell a story with any nonrandom elements at all?

See, that's how I see this argument when it's leveled against people who fudge. It's not like every single die roll results in the outcome expected by the DM regardless of result, never to deviate from a path if you use fudging. It's just the recognition that dice do stupid things, balance isn't going to work out a lot of the time, good tactics and smart play don't matter if you can't roll anything but a 1 and your opponent rolling a 20 can mean all your choices don't matter. It's a tool to reduce the random element's impact on the story, not a bomb that can only ever eliminate the random element in its entirety.

[Medic!]

The last time I fudged a die roll as a DM:

The party was level 20, facing off against a prepared and waiting Baphomet from FC I, after crawling through a dungeon designed as a treasure vault/prison for Bapho.

The paladin was trapped in a maze spell from the outset of combat (and had an INT score of 10), the arcane caster was polymorphed into a gold dragon and trying to grapple Bapho with pretty equal grapple modifiers and bad rolls.

The others were doing their best to whittle Baphomet down with marginal success...it was a damn close fight but the party was tipping over the scales onto the losing end and fast. Needless to say, my personal level of suspense and tension was damn high, and I was cheer-leading the party, "Do something awesome!" every turn.

Suddenly the duskblade remembers that his sword was a Weapon of Legacy (Caladbolg) and looked through his abilities with it, his eyes landing on the capstone of the weapon...Imprisonment. He strikes Big B unfailingly, triggering the weapon's ability, and prompts a save...

Now I always do my rolling out in the open. No DM screen, declare rolls ahead of time, etc as a DM. So I roll Bapho's save, and even let everyone know what his save modifier is (they'd been in combat with him for a few rounds and basically had his stats figured out anyway). tl;dr if the d20 comes up higher than a 4 the ability doesn't work.

D20 comes up a 12, out in front of everyone, more than one player is a round away from becoming string-cheese on a hot summer day, smeared on a Dolorian's dashboard.


I reached out and flipped the die over to a 1. The party's lead-up and play to that point warranted something awesome happening, and it allowed me to leave a tasty plot point down the road.

[Vknight]

I'm thinking of fudging occasionally based on the fact with my own dice in most systems I roll like a god.
Think the best example is Little Fears where you roll again on a d6, I kept rolling and rolling and rolling and rolling. Once I had passed the DC by double we just said no and stopped.

In a game of Monsters I rolled 8x10(Which is good), right after the player had rolled a 6x10 also really good.

So that insane luck I'm deciding needs to be curbed with some hits to my dice here and there to help the party

[Slipperychicken]

I don't always plan out my games perfectly. A lot of the time I'm like, "Oh crud, it's Friday already? I've got an hour or two before people show up and I don't have anything but an outline."


I understand this, having come to several sessions unprepared myself, even with the scanty prep-work asked of a player. If you can admit the reason for fudging (in this case, balancing an encounter poorly), and it's reasonable enough for everyone to agree they shouldn't by TPK'd by it, then you're not lying so you're clear on that front. Although it's still cheating, it's by far the lesser of two evils (extreme unfairness vs. rules-breakage).

[Forderz]

I sent my group of four lvl 3 adventurers into a warehouse, going on a lead of a petty thief. They accidentally stumbled onto a drug operation being run by the niece of the crimelord in the area.

They were up against 7 rouge 1/fighter 1 dudes, three of them on catwalks with poisoned crossbows, and two attack dogs. All humanoid dudes were hopped up on a drug that gave +4 str, +4 dex, and +4 con, with a -4 wis dmg.

9 augmented CR1 creatures against a split party of four. The baddies won the initiative roll, with the entire pack going before the first PC. Thank god my randomly decided target for first round crossbow attacks had uncanny dodge, otherwise it would've been over right there.

The baddies were rolling crits left and right, the blind support Bard got jumped by the baddy hiding in the lab, the players were rolling 3s and 4s left and right.

The end of the fight had two PCs up with 4 and 2 hp respectively, two down but stabilized, and one baddie in the negatives but alive.

**** that was a hardcore fight. I was on pins and needles the whole two hours it took to resolve. When it was a 3v2 at the end of it, and the changeling had the good sense to drink that potion of mage armour... damn.

Fudging die rolls would've taken all the excitement out of an otherwise standard killfest.

[LordBlades]

I sent my group of four lvl 3 adventurers into a warehouse, going on a lead of a petty thief. They accidentally stumbled onto a drug operation being run by the niece of the crimelord in the area.

They were up against 7 rouge 1/fighter 1 dudes, three of them on catwalks with poisoned crossbows, and two attack dogs. All humanoid dudes were hopped up on a drug that gave +4 str, +4 dex, and +4 con, with a -4 wis dmg.

9 augmented CR1 creatures against a split party of four. The baddies won the initiative roll, with the entire pack going before the first PC. Thank god my randomly decided target for first round crossbow attacks had uncanny dodge, otherwise it would've been over right there.

The baddies were rolling crits left and right, the blind support Bard got jumped by the baddy hiding in the lab, the players were rolling 3s and 4s left and right.

The end of the fight had two PCs up with 4 and 2 hp respectively, two down but stabilized, and one baddie in the negatives but alive.

**** that was a hardcore fight. I was on pins and needles the whole two hours it took to resolve. When it was a 3v2 at the end of it, and the changeling had the good sense to drink that potion of mage armour... damn.

Fudging die rolls would've taken all the excitement out of an otherwise standard killfest.

+1. Epic fight. Stuff like this makes me dislike fudging and putting the 'kids gloves' on. It robs you of moments like these.

This Sunday I've experienced what I'd rate as probably one of the worst combats I've ever experienced in a D&D game. Could have been epic but the DM for some reason didn't go through with it.

Party: Druid (me), 2 clerics, spirit shaman, sorcerer, 2 psions and some warblade/barbarian/swashbuckler multiclass.

Setup: We're on an airship and we accidentally get jumped by a bunch of Immoths and Ice Golems. The encounter was non-divinable due to some world events we're trying to stop(parallel timelines are stating to blend, you can divine your own timeline but not what happens if/when you cross into another one or if/when something from another one crosses into yours). Bottom line: we're completely unprepared.

Battle is joined, and immoths (due to having very high initiative roll) fire off an astounding barrage of save-or-dies/suck before all but 2 of us can act. DM ruled that they can only activate 1 rune per round, but that still was a combination of 10-12 disintegrates, evard's black tentacles, cloudkills and feebleminds. Everybody saves (excellent DMM buff coverage from one of the clerics) except for the Spirit Shaman who rolls a nat. 1 and gets Feebleminded. And she has no immediate reroll either. The rest of the party gets to do their rounds and they clear most of the field.

Immoths' second round comes, and they're down to only 3 of them now. First 2 do something smart and switch to damage. 4 cold damage fireballs go off
in an area catching the two clerics, the feebleminded spirit shaman and the warblade, leaving all of them below 20 hp. The 3rd Immoth (who is sandwiched between me an my animal companion and has taken a fair bit of damage) could either go out in a blaze of glory and fire off 2 additional fireballs killing the 4 PCs, teleport/ddoor away or fire off 1 fireball and then teleport away. Astonishingly, the DM has him ddoor about 50 ft. away from his current position, and cast blindness/deafness at the cleric (save negates when we had made 90% of our saves the round before).

Could have been an interesting fight, but it ended up as a great disappointment. The danger wasn't even that great. Out of the 4 guys in the blast area, one cleric had delay death and revivify prepared (so he could save himself and another PC), I also had LAst Breath prepared so it would only have resulted in 1 PC casualty.

[Jay R]

What I had in mind with fudging was actually combat stuff (attack rolls, saves, damage etc.). Even if fudging random encounter tables or treasure rolls is technically still fudging, I've got no issue with it because it doesn't directly impact my character. I don't even use random encounter tables most of the time when I DM and I just pick some monsters that would be cool. Same goes for treasure. Quite often I customize it slightly to the party (if I roll a +3 longsword and the party fighter has all his feats invested in rapiers, it's going to be a +3 rapier) and I always pre-roll it because I think it makes sense for monsters to use parts of their treasure if it helps them.

When it comes to combat however, I prefer the DM rolled stuff for his monsters in the open.

I certainly am more in sympathy with this than with your original "Personally, I'm 110% against fudging." You and I are in agreement that some things should be decided by the DM, and that some things are decided purely by the dice. We aren't in full agreement about what those things are, but we're a lot closer than you think we are. I can't remember the last time I've affected a combat roll, other than to get the spider minis off the table.

And I've fudged a die roll maybe three times in the last five years.


If you decide in advance that certain options are "Reroll and use that result", or "Apply next entry on the table", then following that rule/decision isn't a fudge at all.

I don't decide that in advance. I look at the result, and decide if it is reasonable. In the specific case, one of the NPCs had been trapping owlbears to release on the town, and I knew there were no owlbears running around. That was the plot. If the party had found one, they would have assumed it was a clue, and pursued the wrong direction. I hadn't even considered the possibility that they would get an owlbear on a random table. When the result came up, I saw that it was not possible, so I changed it.

-------------------

I think most people arguing against fudging believe that it's primarily to keep people from losing. People should be allowed to lose. It's not a game until you can lose. I don't like fudging dice to prevent that.

When I change a result, it has a specific purpose, and I can't remember ever fudging a combat roll to let somebody survive. The closest I've ever come to it was a post-combat decision, after an entire party missed the same saving throw, leading to a quick TPK. OK, that was kind of an unsatisfying loss. I didn't change it.

But next week the game opened with them all in chains, prisoners of their enemy, who was offering to free them if they undertook a quest.

[Deepbluediver]

Regarding fudging to protect the story, I hate that too. If I managed to outsmart the villain (or simply get lucky), I don't like seeing all that effort rendered moot because 'he wasn't supposed to die for a couple more months'.

I agree that plot-armored villians can be annoying, and ideally if you are really concerned about your carefully crafted BBEG then you keep him out of reach of the PC's, but in some cases it's just not possible (or believable or interesting) that every end-boss style enemy is both a physical bad@$$ and a chessmaster who spends most of the time brooding in castle, sending out lesser minions for would-be heroes to practice against.

And it's not just if the villian is in danger. I've seen DM's fudge the die roll to be merciful to a party that's gotten in over it's head FAR more often than the other way around. If you're 3 months into a 6-month campaign against some supernatural entity with world-ending plans, it kind of sucks to get a TPK just because you had a bad roll with a trap or random encounter or you zigged when the DM thought would zag and ended up fighting an entire army of ninja-assassins that you should have just avoided.


To summarize: fudging rolls is acceptable in some circumstance, but in ALL cases should be done discreetly and only as an absolute last resort.
(one DM I gamed with would, in some campaigns, periodically roll a d20 even if absolutely nothing was going to happen, just to either mess with us or so if he wanted to throw something in later he could claim it was based on a die roll)

[Killer Angel]

I'm an ex-fudger, now i find that mechanics that use luck points, remove the need to fudge.
I understand some of the reasons behind the fudge, be them "for the story", or to avoid stupid killings, or to reinforce a BBEG that isn't giving enough opposition: luck points give to the DM and the players, a way to somehow modify the fate.
My personal experience is great, but yeah, anecdote is anecdote.

That said, here's a little rant:


It's cheating. The rules say you should get such an outcome with such a die roll, and you ignored it and substituted your own. You robbed your friends of the fair game they agreed to. You changed the conflict resolution mechanism from "what the dice say" to "what I say", without telling anyone, misleading them to continue thinking they're playing the same game as before. You have lied to your friends and cheated them.

Fudging removes all sense of danger or uncertainty, since you know that the outcome isn't determined by the die you just rolled, but by how the DM's feeling, or what he thinks would be funny or cool. It makes victory lukewarm, since you didn't overcome a challenge, you didn't achieve anything, you're all just wasting your time with a masturbatory exercise in talking with stupid voices while gawking at funny-shaped dice.


I'm playing for tactics and problem-solving. If you fudge and lie to me, even to prevent my character's death, you robbed me of both the challenge and the experience, and I will never trust you to run a fair game again.

Maybe Slipperychicken was only speaking for himself (i concede the benifit of doubt) but frankly, I've had enough of this kind of attitude, ala "hoy crusade against those vile cheaters".
Fudgers DM have a different playstyle, often to suit the players playstyle. Some players like hack 'n slash, others want investigation. Some like monty haul, some want to manage and excel with low resources. SOme like gritty and deadly games, some don't want to die too often. Fudge is a resource for the DM, to be used if there's need, according to the type of players.
Live with it, and please stop to accuse fudgers of doing it wrong.

Another typical critique is "if you don't accept the die's result, don't roll it. Play something diceless and tell your wonderful story".
Well, it works both ways. In many game system, D&D included, fudging is (more or less) stated in the rules. It is mentioned in the DMG.
What this mean? that if you don't like the concept of fudging, maybe it's you, the ones that should play something else?

[hymer]

"if you don't accept the die's result, don't roll it. Play something diceless and tell your wonderful story"

The first part of that is akin to a sentiment I've stated here. The second part seems (which I underlined for clarity) to be something you read into what people here have said. At least I didn't notice that implication.

[Jerthanis]

I understand this, having come to several sessions unprepared myself, even with the scanty prep-work asked of a player. If you can admit the reason for fudging (in this case, balancing an encounter poorly), and it's reasonable enough for everyone to agree they shouldn't by TPK'd by it, then you're not lying so you're clear on that front. Although it's still cheating, it's by far the lesser of two evils (extreme unfairness vs. rules-breakage).

I wouldn't apologize even if it wasn't everyone agreeing it was a reasonable reason either though, because I feel like my fundamental premises undermine the very idea of Tabletop RPGs as a challenge. Therefore, I consider the argument that I'm cheating by shaving off HP, AC, damage bonuses or saves from my monsters to be irrational, because as someone else said, I have infinite orcs. It's not a fight I have the capacity to lose if I want to win, my job is to lose in a satisfying way. If we can accept that that is the goal of a DM, then we can accept that accidental TPKs are the result of the DM failing to succeed MORE than it is the players failing to succeed.

Therefore, even victories we don't imagine we have clawed unexpectedly from the jaws of the DM disappear from our 'proud moments' pool and we're left with only situations where luck turned against us, then turned back in our favor. I'm personally never going to be proud of that. It was dice. I maybe had to fight harder and smarter and use more temporary resources than I otherwise would have, but it wasn't the swords and spells, twas dice killed the beast. Might as well play the cardgame War as a resolution method and claim you got something out of your victories.

Now, this isn't to say I won't let bad things happen to good PCs. If it's a dramatically appropriate death, or handling the fallout of an unexpectedly difficult fight will drive a different plot element, or if they have some resource in reserve like a gun that can kill anything, but with only limited ammunition, or other story oriented elements at play, I'll be happy to let the dice fall where they may so the PCs' decisions during or after the fight are informed by a different context. But when it's "Bears have been attacking travellers" and then bears attack to reinforce that it's not just a rumor, I'm not going to have one PC sit out the whole adventure due to bear wounds when that was just the hook anyway.

[Killer Angel]

The first part of that is akin to a sentiment I've stated here. The second part seems (which I underlined for clarity) to be something you read into what people here have said. At least I didn't notice that implication.

I didn't read it, and I didn't want to say that this was something implied by someone in this thread.

(EDIT: on a second thought, and rereading the thread, we could make a case on what has been said by Acanous: "If you're going to fudge the die roll, why bother rolling the dice at all? You could be playing a diceless system or just writing a novel (First for if you're a PC, second for if you're the DM) if you do that.". :smalltongue:)

Now, to repeat myself, I find better to avoid fudging at all, and to use something different (luck points), to obtain a similar result. Roll in the open, yadda yadda.
But I don't like to see excessively criticized this habit.

[valadil]

One measure of how good an RPG session is, is how often people bring up fond stories about the game years later.

True fact. I have a tangent to expand on that. My last game was almost two years long. Went to a BBQ with some of the players and listened to them tell other firends stories about the game, trying not to smile too obnoxiously. Literally all of their fond memories were of times when they went off rails and did what they wanted. None of the stories were about the things I did to them, but about how they chose to handle those things.

I realize that the players may not behave as randomly as the dice, but this still told me a thing or too about how much fun the players have and how tightly you have the game under control.

[Raum]

Live with it, and please stop to accuse fudgers of doing it wrong. Some are "doing wrong" - not all certainly but internet arguments tend to be too binary. :/

My argument against 'fudging' is purely ethical. If it requires lying, whether overt or by omission, it is wrong.


Another typical critique is "if you don't accept the die's result, don't roll it. Play something diceless and tell your wonderful story".
Well, it works both ways. In many game system, D&D included, fudging is (more or less) stated in the rules. It is mentioned in the DMG.
What this mean? that if you don't like the concept of fudging, maybe it's you, the ones that should play something else?
While I and many others do play 'something else', you seem to have fallen into the same hasty generalization as those you argue against - one roll is not the game.

Forget playing dice less, the real question is why force a roll for a trap (or whatever) if failing is not an acceptable outcome?

[Friv]

Forget playing dice less, the real question is why force a roll for a trap (or whatever) if failing is not an acceptable outcome?

As several people have pointed out, usually it happens not because a single roll isn't going the way you wanted it to, but because a whole string of unlikely things have occurred, likely because of a mistake on the part of the DM, which threatens to turn a situation into not fun anymore with extreme speed.

That said, I don't fudge, precisely, unless I have made a truly dramatic error in judgment when building an NPC. I have been known to quietly attach certain rules to my NPCs before battles start, such as "this guy is not capable of doing more than X damage, regardless of what he rolls", or "no matter how badly this guy does, he always manages at least an X (unless it's a critical failure)". I don't specifically discuss these rules with my players, but I assume that they are aware that many of my NPCs are shorthand built and not designed to be identical to PCs.

It's sort of fudging, because the NPCs are playing by a different subset of rules than the PCs and people do not necessarily know that. But it is also not fudging, because within the ranges I have pre-defined, the dice will fall as they may.

(Also I sometimes make math errors, because I play Exalted a lot and people's defenses fluctuate with the freaking tides, and how much accuracy you get affects your damage so my players' damage pools are not always as consistent as they should be because I've forgotten a modifier somewhere.)

The last time I actually fudged was a few years back in an Exalted game, when I ruled someone unconscious instead of dead when a single extremely lucky hit from an unimportant enemy punched through his defenses and laid him out. Given how narrative Exalted is, how deadly Exalted can be, and how long it takes to make a character in that game, I felt it was a fair ruling. It was after that when I started my "damage threshold" rules.

[Tengu_temp]

I fudge the rolls sometimes when running a game, if it makes it more fun or exciting. If a bad guy just keeps rolling high over and over and over again, while the players keep rolling low, I "make" him roll bad from time to time - it's not their fault the luck is against them. On the other hand, if a bad guy who's supposed to be a big threat starts having really bad rolls that reduce him to a joke, then I up his rolls from time to time to preserve the tension of the fight. In general, I try to keep things equal and for every time I fudge the rolls to the party's advantage, I also do it once to their disadvantage, and the opposite.

If you think that fudging rolls kills all the tension and excitement in the game, it's okay. If the only way you can keep your game exciting is with random rolls in combat, then I probably wouldn't be interested in playing with you anyway.

[Killer Angel]

My argument against 'fudging' is purely ethical. If it requires lying, whether overt or by omission, it is wrong.


I agree on the principle



While I and many others do play 'something else', you seem to have fallen into the same hasty generalization as those you argue against - one roll is not the game.


Guilty. But devil is in the details. :smallsmile:



Forget playing dice less, the real question is why force a roll for a trap (or whatever) if failing is not an acceptable outcome?

'cause sometime you had to roll, cause the players know a roll must be made (contest, and so on).
When your fighter is failing the third grapple check, and he finally rolls a 18, and the monster rolled a 19, you could decide to "award" the 18...

(that's one of the reason 'cause luck points are amazing: they remove the urge to fudge.)

[Darius Kane]

If the only way you can keep your game exciting is with random rolls in combat, then I probably wouldn't be interested in playing with you anyway.
If you wouldn't be interested in playing with me for such a minor (almost silly) reason then I wouldn't be interested in playing with you too. And no, it's not the only way, but it's one of the ways and I'd rather not give it up for no reason. I'd rather have 3 ways for my game to be exciting than 2.

[Tengu_temp]

It's not a minor reason. If a game is exciting only because of the tension in combat, then that means there's really nothing to it except random dice rolling. I'm gonna stay away.

[Darius Kane]

If a game is exciting only because of the tension in combat, then that means there's really nothing to it except random dice rolling.
No, it doesn't. That's a mighty assumption, rude one at that. Rolling adds to the excitement. The excitement doesn't consist solely of rolling.

[Tengu_temp]

What assumption? We're not talking about the same situation. Look what I said, bolded for emphasis:

If you think that fudging rolls kills all the tension and excitement in the game, it's okay. If the only way you can keep your game exciting is with random rolls in combat, then I probably wouldn't be interested in playing with you anyway.
I'm not assuming anything. If someone says that fudging rolls kills all the tension in their game, then clearly rolls are the only source of tension in it. It's a logical conclusion.

And on an additional note, fudging the way I do doesn't lower the excitement from the game, but increase it. It's the sole reason I do it in the first place. Well, some people fudge rolls to keep PCs from dying, but I prefer more elegant solutions, like systems where you get KO'd instead of dying by default.

[Darius Kane]

I'm not assuming anything. If someone says that fudging rolls kills all the tension in their game, then clearly rolls are the only source of tension in it. It's a logical conclusion.
Except I didn't say it. I specifically left that part out of the quote.


And on an additional note, fudging the way I do doesn't lower the excitement from the game, but increase it.
How? If I know that my rolls don't matter because the DM will just fudge wherever he likes (even if he does it rarely or only in my favor) then it definitely detracts from my enjoyment.

[Jay R]

My argument against 'fudging' is purely ethical. If it requires lying, whether overt or by omission, it is wrong.

Playing D&D according to the rules, which explicitly allow DM fudging, is not in any way lying.

Your claim that lying is involved is ..., well, let's call it a statement that is false-to-fact.

[Tengu_temp]

Except I didn't say it. I specifically left that part out of the quote.

Did I say you said it? I said we're not talking about the same situation. And leaving parts out of the quote to change its meaning is not something anyone should do. Leave that to book/movie blurbs.


How? If I know that my rolls don't matter because the DM will just fudge wherever he likes (even if he does it rarely or only in my favor) then it definitely detracts from my enjoyment.

It's easy:
1. I only fudge my rolls, not the players', and I do it so rarely and so discreetely that it's not noticable.
2. I fudge rolls to preserve the drama of the situation. If an enemy who was supposed to be a hard and climatic battle goes down like a chump, then it's no longer a dramatic situation. If a routine battle turns into a string of high rolls at the part of the NPCs while the players barely roll above natural 5 on d20, then it's no longer challenging, it's frustrating.
3. I generally play with people who care about characters and story more than providing the group with tactical challenges to overcome.


My argument against 'fudging' is purely ethical. If it requires lying, whether overt or by omission, it is wrong.

Technically you are lying by playing make-believe games where you pretend to be someone who you aren't.

And do you really think that lying is wrong, always, in all circumstances? Because that's simply untrue.

[valadil]

It's not a minor reason. If a game is exciting only because of the tension in combat, then that means there's really nothing to it except random dice rolling. I'm gonna stay away.

I think you're extrapolating a bit too far. A game might have other sources if tension but if I have to sit through a couple hours of combat where I'm acutely aware of the safety net, I'm going to have a bad time.

[Raum]

Playing D&D according to the rules, which explicitly allow DM fudging, is not in any way lying.

Your claim that lying is involved is ..., well, let's call it a statement that is false-to-fact.You may wish to reread the quote. Or look up the meaning of the word "if".

That said, if your players don't read the GM directed texts, I wouldn't rely on it to tell them for you.

[Raum]

Technically you are lying by playing make-believe games where you pretend to be someone who you aren't.Wrong. Lying is "a statement made with deliberate intent to deceive".


And do you really think that lying is wrong, always, in all circumstances? Because that's simply untrue.This is open to debate. I'll leave answers to the philosophers...they've written books on the subject. :-)

[Water_Bear]

...

2. I fudge rolls to preserve the drama of the situation. If an enemy who was supposed to be a hard and climatic battle goes down like a chump, then it's no longer a dramatic situation. If a routine battle turns into a string of high rolls at the part of the NPCs while the players barely roll above natural 5 on d20, then it's no longer challenging, it's frustrating.

...

Actually, from both sides of the DM screen, those moments are usually the points where you lean back from the table and breathe out "...so....Badass..."

Think about it; this villain's been built up as a huge dangerous menace. He shoots a lightning bolt, Generik the Barbarian dodges it, charges in and cleaves his head off of his body with one mighty swing. The rest of the Party and the baddy's minions stand open-mouthed, and then Generik nat 20's his intimidate check and the bad-guys scatter for the exits.

Those moments are the moments I dream about, where smart tactics or just dumb luck makes the impossible possible and your character, or even an NPC, Wins D&D (/CoC/nWoD/Exalted/whatever).

I can't imagine why you would want less of that.

[Darius Kane]

Did I say you said it?
Well, in the post I quoted you said "you" and I responded with "me", and considering that right now you're talking with me, then yeah, it's a reasonable assumption that "someone" might as well mean me.


And leaving parts out of the quote to change its meaning is not something anyone should do. Leave that to book/movie blurbs.
I didn't change it's meaning. I addressed a specific sentence.


1. I only fudge my rolls, not the players', and I do it so rarely and so discreetely that it's not noticable.
Well, duh. It's pretty hard to fudge a roll that you don't even roll yourself.


2. I fudge rolls to preserve the drama of the situation. If an enemy who was supposed to be a hard and climatic battle goes down like a chump, then it's no longer a dramatic situation. If a routine battle turns into a string of high rolls at the part of the NPCs while the players barely roll above natural 5 on d20, then it's no longer challenging, it's frustrating.
All that can be dealt with without a single fudge given.


3. I generally play with people who care about characters and story more than providing the group with tactical challenges to overcome.
Oh. So you're one of them. Well, there's always Storytelling/Freeform games if you're not particularly interested in rules, you know.


Technically you are lying by playing make-believe games where you pretend to be someone who you aren't.
That's kinda the point of RPGs. But it's not the point of playing a game with rules and dice to ignore the dice when it's convenient.
Here's an idea for ya: Use Action Points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm). I do. But give more than is suggested, that way your players will always have a way out of a sticky situation.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Actually, from both sides of the DM screen, those moments are usually the points where you lean back from the table and breathe out "...so....Badass..."

Think about it; this villain's been built up as a huge dangerous menace. He shoots a lightning bolt, Generik the Barbarian dodges it, charges in and cleaves his head off of his body with one mighty swing. The rest of the Party and the baddy's minions stand open-mouthed, and then Generik nat 20's his intimidate check and the bad-guys scatter for the exits.

Those moments are the moments I dream about, where smart tactics or just dumb luck makes the impossible possible and your character, or even an NPC, Wins D&D (/CoC/nWoD/Exalted/whatever).

I can't imagine why you would want less of that.Because that's a nice moment for one player that can easilly mess things up for everyone else.

It can definitely be an awesome moment, but if it means the last three sessions worth of plans are now worthless (or even that the plans for the next three hours of this session are worthless) I can definitley see the temptation to fudge the roll or the NPC's HP or something to make the fight still work and it isn't remotely about "wanting anything less". I dont' think that three hours of greatly reduced fun for everyone (especially if the DM's not a great improvisor) is worth letting Generik feel awesome over what he knows was a lucky roll. (Yes, there's an element of poor planning on the DM's part here, but it's more important to learn from it for next time than to let it wreck the whole game as the "proper" consequence of it.)

[Darius Kane]

It can definitely be an awesome moment, but if it means the last three sessions worth of plans are now worthless (or even that the plans for the next three hours of this session are worthless) I can definitley see the temptation to fudge the roll or the NPC's HP or something to make the fight still work and it isn't remotely about "wanting anything less".
So Generik is robbed of his awesome moment because the DM sucks at his job.
I always have a Plan B, or sometimes even Plan C, in case something unexpected (but probable) happens. Yeah, more often than not backup plans are ****tier than Plan A, but what can you do. Still better than fudging.

Speaking of GenerikB. He plays Black Ops 2. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_VRKYEtlqU)

[Johnzy11]

Fudging die rolls, or any part of a system, is perfectly OK to maintain a campaign or go easy on new players. If a DM screws up the CL of a routine encounter they should be careful not to punish the players for that mistake and should exercise DM's fiat to fix it.

From what I've seen experienced players that understand the system can take a lot more abuse without feeling picked on or punished for ignorance. As a matter of pride they prefer the abuse of the occasional challenge above their level and the possibility of character death in combat. New players can't take that kind of treatment.

Off topic: I use to encourage PC's to make a second pre-approved character of a different race and class so that player deaths in the middle of a game night weren't as big of a deal. That way the show could go on as long as there was at least one or two survivors.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

So Generik is robbed of his awesome moment because the DM sucks at his job.Or the whole party is robbed of a fun evening because one guy rolled really well. It's not like it's even that awesome a moment; Generik gets three great rolls in a row (dodging a lightning bolt, critting the boss and intimidating all the minions into running). Woo hoo. Clearly it's because he's awesome and super duper cool rather than because, you know, he got lucky. I don't think one player getting an "awesome moment" that even he has to know was just dumb luck is worth everyone else's fun being ruined. It would be different if the awesome moment was the result of some great roleplaying or a cool plan coming together, but a lucky roll's a lucky roll.

If you'd climb off your high horse long enough to look closely, you'll notice I never said that I'd do this. Hell, I even said it was a sign of bad planning. I did say I could see the temptation for DMs whose bad planning does lead to moments like this. I also said it should serve as a wake up call about what they should plan for. You know what,? Not every DM has been doing it for years. Everyone had to be inexperienced at one point. A DM should have backup plans, but not every one knows to or does.

If giving the bad guy a few more HP means the table as a whole has more fun, it's not ideal, but I think Generik will live with having intimidated all the minions and dealt enough damage to the boss to make him retreat with one attack.

[Water_Bear]

If you think a single lucky roll isn't enough to make the PCs feel like badasses, I'm not sure what games you've been playing. And three lucky rolls plus a dead BBEG is a pretty genuinely awesome moment in my book at least, not something to put scare quotes around.

Don't get me wrong: no one should rely on pure random chance to give them a fun game, that's an unrealistic expectation. Yet at the same time there's no perfect formula to make a game fun; I truly believe that artificially prolonging combats or avoiding player death is a route which will ultimately lead to stale gameplay, where only a narrow range of pre-selected outcomes is acceptable. Using random elements to determine the results of a risky move, whether that results in success or failure, is the core of what an Adventure Game is and why the genre has come to define RPGs. Not all RPGs need to be Adventure Games, but all Adventure Games need a system of arbitration which can produce unexpected results without emotion or bias.

Fudging isn't inherently wrong, not in moderation anyway, but it's a mistake to turn defeats into victories or victories into defeats. At that point the DM is deciding the outcome of the contest, and dice never should have hit the table in the first place if there was never a chance of an unexpected outcome.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

If you think a single lucky roll isn't enough to make the PCs feel like badasses, I'm not sure what games you've been playing. And three lucky rolls plus a dead BBEG is a pretty genuinely awesome moment in my book at least, not something to put scare quotes around.I'm not saying it doesn't feel great, but it loses a wee bit of its shine when it brings the entire session to a screeching halt.

[Jerthanis]

My argument against 'fudging' is purely ethical. If it requires lying, whether overt or by omission, it is wrong.

My moral framework requires harm to be considered wrong. Thus, lying is only wrong insofar as it causes harm. As an example: Lying to cover up what present I got for my secret santa isn't wrong because it causes no harm.

Lying to misrepresent the result of a random die roll only matters insofar as the integrity of the die and the randomness of numbers is considered valuable. I personally do not value the randomness of numbers generated by dice very highly, and so I don't consider a lie about them to be harmful. If my players do value that, I can't even begin to wrap my head around why they might and I suppose I'd apologize about my shortcoming there. The only reason I wouldn't warn people ahead of time that I might fudge HP, AC, saves, and so on is that I think that most players already assume it's happening to some degree, since I can't think of a reason not to, since as I said before, it's all designed by me and is arbitrary.


Or the whole party is robbed of a fun evening because one guy rolled really well. It's not like it's even that awesome a moment; Generik gets three great rolls in a row (dodging a lightning bolt, critting the boss and intimidating all the minions into running). Woo hoo. Clearly it's because he's awesome and super duper cool rather than because, you know, he got lucky. I don't think one player getting an "awesome moment" that even he has to know was just dumb luck is worth everyone else's fun being ruined. It would be different if the awesome moment was the result of some great roleplaying or a cool plan coming together, but a lucky roll's a lucky roll.

Yeah... I recently played Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, and in the final confrontation with Lolth, she had two aspects, one a giant murderous spider thing and another a Drider-looking bard. In the first round I cast Flesh to Stone on the spider thingy, and the DM rolled something like, 4 on the save when like, a 7 would have saved. The DM basically said, "Well, that's pretty much the fight..." because I got lucky. It was actually frustrating for me, because I've seen Flesh to Stone fail against far weaker enemies and found myself barely contributing as a result in other battles. But when we got to the huge payoff, blam, over before it began.

Lame

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Yeah... I recently played Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, and in the final confrontation with Lolth, she had two aspects, one a giant murderous spider thing and another a Drider-looking bard. In the first round I cast Flesh to Stone on the spider thingy, and the DM rolled something like, 4 on the save when like, a 7 would have saved. The DM basically said, "Well, that's pretty much the fight..." because I got lucky. It was actually frustrating for me, because I've seen Flesh to Stone fail against far weaker enemies and found myself barely contributing as a result in other battles. But when we got to the huge payoff, blam, over before it began.

LameAgreed. Though this is really just my problem with save-or-die spells as a whole. If the DM uses them, the players have a good chance of dying entirely because of one bad roll with nothing they could have done about it. If the PCs use them, you end up with epic fights like this reduced to a single roll. They're handy for story stuff ("The princess has been turned to stone. Find a way to save her.") or building up NPCs as badasses ("The chancellor just killed the king and his whole court with a single spell!") but they utterly suck from a gameplay perspective. Still, that's neither here nor there.

[obryn]

Yeah... I recently played Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, and in the final confrontation with Lolth, she had two aspects, one a giant murderous spider thing and another a Drider-looking bard. In the first round I cast Flesh to Stone on the spider thingy, and the DM rolled something like, 4 on the save when like, a 7 would have saved. The DM basically said, "Well, that's pretty much the fight..." because I got lucky. It was actually frustrating for me, because I've seen Flesh to Stone fail against far weaker enemies and found myself barely contributing as a result in other battles. But when we got to the huge payoff, blam, over before it began.
As written, that encounter is a major anticlimax. Demonweb Pits broke me on 3.5, basically.

-O

[Darius Kane]

Or the whole party is robbed of a fun evening because one guy rolled really well. It's not like it's even that awesome a moment; Generik gets three great rolls in a row (dodging a lightning bolt, critting the boss and intimidating all the minions into running). Woo hoo. Clearly it's because he's awesome and super duper cool rather than because, you know, he got lucky. I don't think one player getting an "awesome moment" that even he has to know was just dumb luck is worth everyone else's fun being ruined. It would be different if the awesome moment was the result of some great roleplaying or a cool plan coming together, but a lucky roll's a lucky roll.
If a few lucky rolls destroy the groups evening then something is seriously wrong with that group (or the DM sucks, like I said earlier). But really, you're saying "the whole party is robbed of a fun evening" or "everyone else's fun is ruined" like it's a fact or certainty. How do you know? The unexpected outcome might very well result in a fun and memorable improvised quest. You'll never know. Besides, the problem here is that if my lucky roll will become insignificant by fudging in order to save the DMs work (which isn't really lost or anything, it can always be reused, even in the same game) and "the groups evening" it will definitely impact my fun (because I was robbed of a potential awesome moment that I could remember for years to come), meanwhile "the worst possible outcome" (evening ruined for everybody else) is only a possibility, nothing more.
And having lucky rolls is part of the excitement. I would never whine about another player's lucky roll, even if it would be a PvP game, and I expect the same from them.


If you'd climb off your high horse long enough to look closely
Nah, I see good enough from here.


you'll notice I never said that I'd do this.
Huh? Where did I say you said that?

[Raum]

My moral framework requires harm to be considered wrong. Thus, lying is only wrong insofar as it causes harm. As an example: Lying to cover up what present I got for my secret santa isn't wrong because it causes no harm.

Lying to misrepresent the result of a random die roll only matters insofar as the integrity of the die and the randomness of numbers is considered valuable. I personally do not value the randomness of numbers generated by dice very highly, and so I don't consider a lie about them to be harmful. Or the integrity of the game.

Whether or not 'harm' is caused is an open question. It's a question which can be applied to any game. And when looked at from a broader perspective it doesn't look so innocuous.

Should you deceive people about die results when playing Monopoly? What about a cooperative game like Arkham Horror? Or is there something special about one or more RPGs which makes it ethically acceptable? Perhaps it really is dependent on the other players accepting the action.


If my players do value that, I can't even begin to wrap my head around why they might and I suppose I'd apologize about my shortcoming there. The only reason I wouldn't warn people ahead of time that I might fudge HP, AC, saves, and so on is that I think that most players already assume it's happening to some degree, since I can't think of a reason not to, since as I said before, it's all designed by me and is arbitrary.We all come from different backgrounds and filter our world views through our own set of experiences. I've found the best way to minimize communication problems is to get rid of assumptions and make things explicit.

[Jerthanis]

Or the integrity of the game.

Whether or not 'harm' is caused is an open question. It's a question which can be applied to any game. And when looked at from a broader perspective it doesn't look so innocuous.

Can you explicitly tie the practice of treating the randomness of dice results as word of god to the idea of the integrity of the game as a whole being violated? Because most RPGs I've ever read has warned things like "Don't let the dice control the story" and "Sometimes fudging is a good idea" and "Take actions to deceive the Players as to what's going on behind the screen, they don't need to know you're leading them to the Good Stuff and avoiding boring stuff."

It can only undermine the integrity of the game if violating it violates a reason people are coming to the table. Since I don't understand the idea of playing an RPG for a challenge when the goal of the DM is to adjust the challenge to the capabilities of the Party, I fundamentally fail to see how on-the-fly adjustments are so very wrong when it accomplishes the same thing as more exact preparation and planning, but without taking so much extra time and effort.



Should you deceive people about die results when playing Monopoly? What about a cooperative game like Arkham Horror? Or is there something special about one or more RPGs which makes it ethically acceptable? Perhaps it really is dependent on the other players accepting the action.

Uh, the fact that the goal of an RPG is fundamentally different than most other board games? That a singular person is responsible for the content of the game, and they're expected to use their judgement as a fundamental part of resolving situations involving the characters and story, and that is a very different aesthetic?

Also, I've played Monopoly, lost 6+ turns in jail and the other players just said, "Dude, you get out of jail... that's enough". So yeah, sometimes, you fudge dice to make the experience more fun in other games that involve a random element, reducing that random element to increase overall enjoyment. Sometimes, random runs of luck just make any strategy you're developing moot, and that is undesirable for everyone.



We all come from different backgrounds and filter our world views through our own set of experiences. I've found the best way to minimize communication problems is to get rid of assumptions and make things explicit.

I also don't say before I run a game, "I'm going to be describing things using the English language, and sometimes I'm going to describe things in insufficient detail and you can ask clarifying questions. There are events that will take place outside your characters' point of view and I'm going to judge that your characters aren't aware of details that your character didn't witness, but in other cases you can assume you were caught up on the details between scenes. We'll resolve this on a case-by-case basis and we'll all use our best judgement..."

And on and on, detailing every other aspect of the method of playing Role Playing Games. Some stuff is going to be remarked on only if it is exceptional. The idea of occasionally modifying mechanics on the fly after seeing their current mechanics producing unsatisfactory results, or deciding to limit the random element if it's not contributing to the scene are things I find so unexceptional as to not mention them.

However, seeing how many people are so deeply offended by the idea, perhaps it's more worth mentioning than I would have otherwise thought. In cases where people are offended by the idea, I'd probably put a "luck point" system in and just be much more careful with how I balance fights, putting in a lot of extra work on the mechanics that I could put into making more interesting plots or characters.

[LordBlades]

Agreed. Though this is really just my problem with save-or-die spells as a whole. If the DM uses them, the players have a good chance of dying entirely because of one bad roll with nothing they could have done about it. If the PCs use them, you end up with epic fights like this reduced to a single roll. They're handy for story stuff ("The princess has been turned to stone. Find a way to save her.") or building up NPCs as badasses ("The chancellor just killed the king and his whole court with a single spell!") but they utterly suck from a gameplay perspective. Still, that's neither here nor there.

Actually, there's so many ways to get rerolls&boost saves in 3.5 that save-or-die is usually '1 die roll or die' only at quite low levels of optimization. No-save-just-suck/die on the other hand (like solid fog or wall of force) are much more troublesome IMO.


What assumption? We're not talking about the same situation. Look what I said, bolded for emphasis:

I'm not assuming anything. If someone says that fudging rolls kills all the tension in their game, then clearly rolls are the only source of tension in it. It's a logical conclusion.

And on an additional note, fudging the way I do doesn't lower the excitement from the game, but increase it. It's the sole reason I do it in the first place. Well, some people fudge rolls to keep PCs from dying, but I prefer more elegant solutions, like systems where you get KO'd instead of dying by default.

Many people fudge to stop PCs from dying. If players catch on to it, that does kill the combat tension because the threat of dying in combat is pretty much off the table.


I certainly am more in sympathy with this than with your original "Personally, I'm 110% against fudging." You and I are in agreement that some things should be decided by the DM, and that some things are decided purely by the dice. We aren't in full agreement about what those things are, but we're a lot closer than you think we are. I can't remember the last time I've affected a combat roll, other than to get the spider minis off the table.




Sorry for not explaining my point better from the start.

[Tengu_temp]

Actually, from both sides of the DM screen, those moments are usually the points where you lean back from the table and breathe out "...so....Badass..."

Think about it; this villain's been built up as a huge dangerous menace. He shoots a lightning bolt, Generik the Barbarian dodges it, charges in and cleaves his head off of his body with one mighty swing. The rest of the Party and the baddy's minions stand open-mouthed, and then Generik nat 20's his intimidate check and the bad-guys scatter for the exits.

Those moments are the moments I dream about, where smart tactics or just dumb luck makes the impossible possible and your character, or even an NPC, Wins D&D (/CoC/nWoD/Exalted/whatever).

I can't imagine why you would want less of that.

I've been there. These moments were not awesome. When the bad guy went down like a chump, players went "really? That's it?" and were kind of disappointed there was no epic confrontation they expected. And when they just kept rolling badly for attacks over and over while the enemies kept rolling high to hit almost every time, and the players knew it was only because of the dice, the battle didn't become excitingly dangerous. It became frustrating.


Well, in the post I quoted you said "you" and I responded with "me", and considering that right now you're talking with me, then yeah, it's a reasonable assumption that "someone" might as well mean me.

I didn't change it's meaning. I addressed a specific sentence.

Well, you made the wrong assumption then. It wasn't about you, at least not specifically. It might've been if you actually said that phrase. And addressing a specific sentence out of content, without the surrounding ones, often changes its meaning. It was the case here.


All that can be dealt with without a single fudge given.

Changing the stats on the spot, circumstantial modifiers, giving extra unplanned hero/action/whatever points? Same thing. You're modifying an encounter on the spot.


Oh. So you're one of them. Well, there's always Storytelling/Freeform games if you're not particularly interested in rules, you know.

You're making a wrong assumption again. I very much like rules-heavy games, ones where you can build interesting characters with wide arrays of options at their disposal. And beating bad guys when there's some mechanics involved is more satisfying than when the DM throws his hands up and says "alright, you won, woo hoo". But when rules and fun collide? It's the rules that have to go. Hell, DND even says that with its Rule 0.

And before you, or anyone else, say "fudging the rolls is the same as just telling the group they won outright before rolling anything, because they were never really in danger" - no, it's really not. That's a myth propagated by some people in order to look down on others' playstyles. What matters is the journey, not the destination - it's what happened during the fight, not which side won, that makes it memorable.


Here's an idea for ya: Use Action Points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm). I do. But give more than is suggested, that way your players will always have a way out of a sticky situation.

I don't play DND.

[Raum]

Also, I've played Monopoly, lost 6+ turns in jail and the other players just said, "Dude, you get out of jail... that's enough". So yeah, sometimes, you fudge dice to make the experience more fun in other games that involve a random element, reducing that random element to increase overall enjoyment.Yes! This is what I've been saying all along...it's only a problem if / when deception is involved.

[navar100]

Yeah... I recently played Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, and in the final confrontation with Lolth, she had two aspects, one a giant murderous spider thing and another a Drider-looking bard. In the first round I cast Flesh to Stone on the spider thingy, and the DM rolled something like, 4 on the save when like, a 7 would have saved. The DM basically said, "Well, that's pretty much the fight..." because I got lucky. It was actually frustrating for me, because I've seen Flesh to Stone fail against far weaker enemies and found myself barely contributing as a result in other battles. But when we got to the huge payoff, blam, over before it began.

Lame

If you didn't want Flesh to Stone to work, then why did you cast it?

[huttj509]

Also, I've played Monopoly, lost 6+ turns in jail and the other players just said, "Dude, you get out of jail... that's enough". So yeah, sometimes, you fudge dice to make the experience more fun in other games that involve a random element, reducing that random element to increase overall enjoyment. Sometimes, random runs of luck just make any strategy you're developing moot, and that is undesirable for everyone.


You only spend 3 turns in Jail.

From the official Monopoly rules (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Monopoly/Official_Rules#Jail), a player remains in jail until:

[...]
fails to roll doubles on his/her third turn in jail, in which case the $50 charge is levied anyway (the player may not use a "Get out of Jail Free" card in this situation)

[White_Drake]

And do you really think that lying is wrong, always, in all circumstances? Because that's simply untrue.

My Arbitrary Definition of Morality is Infinitely and Absolutely Better Than Your Arbitrary Definition of Morality, and I Will Defend it to Your Death! :smallfurious:

I think that what's going on is that fudging supports one playstyle well, but actively undermines another playstyle. If a character in a game I'm playing lops off the BBEG's head in one fell swoop I think it's awesome, not anticlimactic, apparently you think otherwise. Clearly your way of playing is a travesty of how RPGs are meant to be played, and you are an unholy scourge on the face of gaming. Or we both have equally valid points, and we should just accept that neither is going to give any ground. Of course, I love arguing as much as the next guy, so screw that, what's your rebuttal? :smallbiggrin:

[LordBlades]

And before you, or anyone else, say "fudging the rolls is the same as just telling the group they won outright before rolling anything, because they were never really in danger" - no, it's really not. That's a myth propagated by some people in order to look down on others' playstyles. What matters is the journey, not the destination - it's what happened during the fight, not which side won, that makes it memorable.


Even if I agree that the journey matters more than the destination (a hard-fought loss is usually more epic and memorable than a 1 round win), I feel fudging takes away more than it adds.

If you fudge to prevent the players from dying, you lessen the impact of their bad calls (which is a bad thing IMO) and bad luck (might be good might be bad depending on playstyle)

If you fudge to prevent anticlimactic endings to BBEGs you lessen the impact of PCs' good calls (the anticlimactic ending can just happen due to awesome planning, and taking it away would be a bad thing IMO) and good luck (once again, might be good might be bad; I personally like to believe that the mook levelling his grandpa's flintlock and the power armored space marine might just get lucky and hit a vital spot).

[Tengu_temp]

Fudging can take away from the game, or it can add to it, depending on the situation. And I fudge only when it adds to the game.

[hymer]

My problem with that, Tengu, is differing expectations. Some of your players may agree it's a good time to fudge, some might not. If all of them agree, then it's definitely a good time to fudge.
However, I've never heard a player call the DM out for not fudging.

[Darius Kane]

I don't play DND.
Then why the buck am I even talking with you?! :smallconfused: Bye bye.

[LordBlades]

My problem with that, Tengu, is differing expectations. Some of your players may agree it's a good time to fudge, some might not. If all of them agree, then it's definitely a good time to fudge.
However, I've never heard a player call the DM out for not fudging.

Very well put. In order to further the enjoyment of the game by the players, you should fudge not necessarily when YOU think you should, but when all/most of THEM think you should. And unless you're telepathic or an extraordinary judge of character, you're bound to get it wrong sometimes.

[Jay R]

My problem with that, Tengu, is differing expectations. Some of your players may agree it's a good time to fudge, some might not. If all of them agree, then it's definitely a good time to fudge.
However, I've never heard a player call the DM out for not fudging.

Perhaps.

But if my players keep asking me to run another game, if they keep coming back for more, if people are still asking me to re-open a game I ran in a previous century, ...

... then I have to assume that the sum total of my judgment calls meets with their general approval.

[Friv]

Then why the buck am I even talking with you?! :smallconfused: Bye bye.

Presumably because D&D is not, in fact, the only RPG in the world? :smallconfused:

[Jerthanis]

Yes! This is what I've been saying all along...it's only a problem if / when deception is involved.

But Monopoly doesn't have any DM screen, and being released from jail unexpectedly early doesn't lead to a storyline of indebtedness to the local Thieves' Guild. Monopoly is a different game.

RPGs are games where the DM is trusted and expected to make judgments much like the judgement of "It's taken you too long to roll doubles, you get out of jail" unilaterally by design. The default assumption of RPGs is that there are things the DM knows that you do not, and that not everything that occurs, happens by strict interaction of unfeeling rules and numbers. Some stuff is just what the DM thinks should happen. Fudging occasionally is within that default assumption.

The DM doesn't ask, "Is it okay if this forest has been corrupted by insane druids who are being ridden by parasites?" because it ruins the surprise. If he plans that out and right after the first hint of the parasites is dropped to the players, one of the players says, "Man, that would be so friggin' lame! Parasites riding people? I mean, seriously", it's not too late to fudge that plotline to have a different outcome. So why is it that major elements of the world are totally up to the DM such that these druids could come down with and then spontaneously recover from an infection without the PCs ever being told... but when the PC says, "I think the shady sheriff hid something in his office." and you say, "Roll Search", and behind the DM's screen you roll the Sheriff's Sleight of Hand, and realize that it'd be better if the PC finds it, you CANNOT decide that the Sheriff has 2 fewer ranks in that skill on the fly? He could actually turn out to be loyal, or turn out to be the Devil himself, or actually an illusion... but he CANNOT have 2 fewer ranks in a skill?



You only spend 3 turns in Jail.

From the official Monopoly rules (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Monopoly/Official_Rules#Jail), a player remains in jail until:

I know that now, but like "Landing on Free Parking gives you the money in the Community Chest" misunderstanding, it's one of the rules in Monopoly that is commonly played wrong because little kids who want to play a game don't want to read a pamphlet for 20 minutes first.

So yeah, it's not the best example because Monopoly has almost nothing in common with most Tabletop RPGs, but when someone said there was no element of fudging in it, I felt the need to point out that in some cases, there actually is at least one such element.

[KhaineGB]

I do it very, very rarely to save the party if they're having a run of bad luck.

If they're dying because they don't know how to deal with a monster, or because they're being stupid... then tough. Basically I save my fudging only for when the poor sods are missing attacks vs a reasonable AC (say 10 or lower needed to hit on a d20), failing lots of saves or just generally having their dice cursed by the dice gods.

I don't mind them dying due to my good luck, or their own stupidity. I do have issues with them dying simply because of bad luck.

[valadil]

I've been there. These moments were not awesome. When the bad guy went down like a chump, players went "really? That's it?" and were kind of disappointed there was no epic confrontation they expected. And when they just kept rolling badly for attacks over and over while the enemies kept rolling high to hit almost every time, and the players knew it was only because of the dice, the battle didn't become excitingly dangerous. It became frustrating.


GMing is a wisdom skill. You need to be able to read what you're group is feeling. Just because a debate on the internet told you to never fudge, doesn't mean you should stick to that policy in the situation you've described above. This is why I try to talk about my standard operating procedures and what I think my preferences are as a player, rather than delaing in absolutes. Read your players and see how they respond when you roll three twenties in a row.

Incidentally I used to play with a fudge heavy group. They asserted that PCs should never die. I got yelled at for killing a PC, but giving him a (story appropriate) free rez 10 minutes after the fight.

Anyway, we all took turns GMing and I didn't mind fudging for them, but I was a much better liar. There were some fights where I rolled dice for the noises they made and didn't even look at the results. I actually kept a d20 set to 20 and a d20 set to 1 by each of the corners of my GM screen, so if I needed to convince them I made or failed a key roll, I could reveal whatever result I wanted and let them assume it was the die I rolled. I did this to make sure their fights looked really tough, but nobody was in danger of dying because I didn't want to get yelled at again.

After one particularly fudgy session one of the other GMs took me aside and explained fudging to me. He was under the assumption I was letting the dice fall where they may and had never even thought to adjust things for the betterment of the story.

The point is, you need to read your group.

[hymer]

@ Jay_R: Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt you do a splendid job as GM. That doesn't necessarily say much about the merits and drawbacks of fudging, though. I'm sure my players forgive some of my bad points, but they're still bad points. Not that fudging has to be bad (as I said, if everyone wants fudging, it's obviouslt not bad for that group). But compared to not fudging, it generates more negative reactions.

[Amphetryon]

@ Jay_R: Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt you do a splendid job as GM. That doesn't necessarily say much about the merits and drawbacks of fudging, though. I'm sure my players forgive some of my bad points, but they're still bad points. Not that fudging has to be bad (as I said, if everyone wants fudging, it's obviouslt not bad for that group). But compared to not fudging, it generates more negative reactions.

My experiences to not sync up with the part I bolded. I've no doubt your experiences do. Is one of us simply wrong, or being lied to by our respective groups?

[hymer]

My bad, I wasn't being clear. I meant in this thread.

[LibraryOgre]

I far prefer a GM to fudge tactics... rather than refuse to kill me because of a lucky hit, to have them fail to follow up an advantage that they maybe should have, or something of that nature.

[Amphetryon]

I far prefer a GM to fudge tactics... rather than refuse to kill me because of a lucky hit, to have them fail to follow up an advantage that they maybe should have, or something of that nature.

That's fair, but I've been at more than one table where such tactical gaffes lead to OOC comments about "grabbing the Idiot Ball," which to me indicates it's an issue at those tables.

[Jay R]

@ Jay_R: Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt you do a splendid job as GM. That doesn't necessarily say much about the merits and drawbacks of fudging, though. I'm sure my players forgive some of my bad points, but they're still bad points. Not that fudging has to be bad (as I said, if everyone wants fudging, it's obviouslt not bad for that group). But compared to not fudging, it generates more negative reactions.

My bad, I wasn't being clear. I meant in this thread.

A fact which has no relevance whatsoever, as long as I'm not playing with people in this thread.

Also, several people in this thread who have negative reactions in this thread have admitted that the examples I've described make sense.

I won't fudge a combat roll merely to prevent PC death. (You're not playing a game unless it's possible to lose.)

I have fudged a combat roll to deal with a personal issue; I have fudged a wandering monster roll to preserve the plot. I came close once to fudging a treasure roll to prevent an item from appearing that could have destroyed the rest of the adventure, but that roll didn't happen. (If a Rod of Rulership had come up when the PCs were in a political plot, trying to prevent a battle, I would have changed it.)

There are two main points I'm trying to get people to see:
1. DM Fudging is specifically encouraged in the rules of D&D, Hero Systems, GURPS, and other games. People who choose to play the game as written are not being unreasonable or dishonest, even if you don't want to play that way.
2. Not all fudging is the same, and a blanket condemnation of all fudging is no better than telling a DM she must fudge rolls, and for the same reason.

When a DM decides to change a roll, it requires a serious judgment call. It should only be done for a compelling reason, which is clearly better for the game as a whole. (Keeping a PC artificially alive is not clearly better for the game as a whole; I don't even think it's automatically better for that one player.)

I only DM for people who agree with me that a game should include risk, and that the DM should exercise judgment, and are willing to trust that I will exercise that judgment well. Also, I give two or three pages of introductory notes for my campaigns. Nobody's surprised by how I run the game.

[valadil]

I far prefer a GM to fudge tactics... rather than refuse to kill me because of a lucky hit, to have them fail to follow up an advantage that they maybe should have, or something of that nature.

I agree but only to a point. When the dragon suddenly stops full attacking one target so it can attack each party member once, it's pretty damn obvious someone's pulling punches. I'd rather decide dragon breath didn't recharge or the wizard already cast his limited wish for the day than make blatantly bad decisions.

[LordBlades]

My experiences to not sync up with the part I bolded. I've no doubt your experiences do. Is one of us simply wrong, or being lied to by our respective groups?

Could you expand a bit on that? I'm genuinely curious under what circumstances would players complain about not fudging.

[Killer Angel]

I agree but only to a point. When the dragon suddenly stops full attacking one target so it can attack each party member once, it's pretty damn obvious someone's pulling punches. I'd rather decide dragon breath didn't recharge or the wizard already cast his limited wish for the day than make blatantly bad decisions.

That's true. I find it breaks the suspension of disbelieve, if an intelligent enemy starts fighting in a dumb way.
Yes, you can change tactic, but sometimes it would only be a bad move. The "new" tactic, must have a reasonable explanation.

[RPGuru1331]

Could you expand a bit on that? I'm genuinely curious under what circumstances would players complain about not fudging.
I'd be pretty irked if some Goblin pissant ruined a plotline* I'd been looking forward to by killing me in the game's second encounter, because my GM felt a dice roll was more sacred than plot.** I don't even really care about winning, as someone else put up as the alternative; 'dying' and 'losing' aren't really synonyms, and there's a reason for that.

I mean, you really can't imagine anyone ever getting annoyed at the dice falling where they may? You can't even tap into the narrative of a whiny, entitled player?


Then why the buck am I even talking with you?! Bye bye.

That must make communicating with most people incredibly difficult, what with the fact that most people don't play DnD.

*Although outside of the hypothetical, I'd be more irked at myself for not having done due diligence in ensuring the GM wasn't the kind to find the dice entirely sacred and everything else secondary to them.

**And if I were interested in the game at all, I can be reasonably certain the GM made something interesting, plot-wise and that I did my level best to work with it. Granted, that almost definitionally precludes 'goblins' or any other DnD trappings, but the point is that they're irrelevant minions in the buildup phase.

[LordBlades]

I'd be pretty irked if some Goblin pissant ruined a plotline I'd been looking forward to by killing me in the game's second encounter, because my GM felt a dice roll was more sacred than plot.* I don't even really care about winning, as someone else put up as the alternative; 'dying' and 'losing' aren't really synonyms, and there's a reason for that.

I mean, you really can't imagine anyone *Ever* getting annoyed at the dice falling where they may? You can't even tap into the narrative of a whiny, entitled player?

To make my question a bit clearer: I didn't mean situations where a player would like the DM to fudge (I can imagine plenty of those). I meant situations where a player would openly call the DM out for not fudging.

For example, I've seen players telling the DM 'dude, I think you fudged that roll, it sucked' or 'dude, you played those monsters like retards, not cool' several times, but never 'dude, you should have fudged that roll'.

[RPGuru1331]

To make my question a bit clearer: I didn't mean situations where a player would like the DM to fudge (I can imagine plenty of those). I meant situations where a player would openly call the DM out for not fudging.
"What the hell are you thinking, allowing some no-name mook in what amounts to act 1 to off my character? I worked on her for hours - three of them with you!"

[huttj509]

To make my question a bit clearer: I didn't mean situations where a player would like the DM to fudge (I can imagine plenty of those). I meant situations where a player would openly call the DM out for not fudging.

For example, I've seen players telling the DM 'dude, I think you fudged that roll, it sucked' or 'dude, you played those monsters like retards, not cool' several times, but never 'dude, you should have fudged that roll'.

"Killer DMs" Sometimes it's dracoliches against level 2 PCs in an arena, but sometimes it's just monsters played tactically intelligently, and lucky rolls.

[hymer]

A fact which has no relevance whatsoever, as long as I'm not playing with people in this thread.

And this is where fudging gets dodgy. Because how do you know about the people around the table? You'd know if you asked them about it. If you ask, you've tipped your hand, which is fine if everybody's happy with fudging. Or you can just fudge anyway, and hope you don't get caught.

Or just avoid the whole thing and don't fudge. When RPGuru1331 starts to make a fuss, you ask him if he were confused about the rules of the game when he made his character, since he seems to feel so betrayed. If during character creation he had aired that much entitlement, it would be time to get on the same page before continuing.

That's why I say I prefer not fudging from both sides of the screen, and if fudging must be, let it be open DM fiat. Again, with the caveat that specific groups do fudge and do so to their own advantage - I'm just not in those groups.

Or we could look at it from three samples: Your group, my group, and some random off-the-street group. In my group, fudging is frowned on. In yours it's cherished. Which says little about the subject at hand either way. But we're trying to discuss it, so let's look at the random group. What's the best way to go about things here? I'd say geting on the same page fast. Which either means stating a no-fudge policy, or stating a fudge policy. Which one do you think is more likely to get a negative response?

[Jay R]

And this is where fudging gets dodgy. Because how do you know about the people around the table?

The last game I DMed, I'd known the players for an average of about 18 years. The person I'd known the least amount of time I'd known for three years, and she was the one who asked for the game.

Furthermore, I told them, before they joined the game, that I was playing D&D. The rules are published, and available to all. Those rules include occasional DM judgment calls, cuirrently referred to by the unfortunate term "fudging".

I've had long talks with most of the players about D&D, role-playing, and gaming in general.


If you ask, you've tipped your hand, which is fine if everybody's happy with fudging. Or you can just fudge anyway, and hope you don't get caught.

Why in the world would I "hope I don't get caught" following the rules?

If somebody "caught me" getting the spider minis off the table to avoid a player's phobia, I don't object to that.

If somebody "caught me" putting out a wandering monster that fit the scenario rather than accepting a roll that doesn't, I don't object to that, either.


That's why I say I prefer not fudging from both sides of the screen, and if fudging must be, let it be open DM fiat. Again, with the caveat that specific groups do fudge and do so to their own advantage - I'm just not in those groups.

Well, I am in such a group. We actually play by the rules in that regard.


Or we could look at it from three samples: Your group, my group, and some random off-the-street group. In my group, fudging is frowned on. In yours it's cherished.

I can't imagine anyone "cherishing" it, any more than anyone "cherishes" to-hit rolls, knowledge checks, wandering monster tables, or any other tool for producing a game.

I have no problem with people saying they want to play without knowledge checks, or any other tool. But I don't accept somebody saying that other people's games shouldn't use knowledge checks.

Similarly, I have no problem with people saying they want to play without the DM having the ultimate authority to determine a result - "fudging", if you will. But I don't accept somebody saying that other people's games shouldn't use fudging.

I cherish producing a good game. Every once in a while, maybe once a year or so, a situation comes up in which the specific die roll would hurt the game, and another, equally likely one, would serve better. In those extremely rare situations, I remember that I am the final authority, not the die, and rule accordingly.


Which says little about the subject at hand either way. But we're trying to discuss it, so let's look at the random group. What's the best way to go about things here? I'd say geting on the same page fast. Which either means stating a no-fudge policy, or stating a fudge policy. Which one do you think is more likely to get a negative response?

Who cares? I never play with a theoretical random off-the-street group. I always play with real people, whom I really know.

[hymer]

The reason I divided it into three hypothetical groups is to have a discussion about the subject. I don't think anybody objects to the DM fudging the dice (tell me if you come up with a better word, I'll be happy to use that. Fiat perhaps? Veto?) in groups where everyone is fine with that. And I don't think anyone objects to not fudging in groups where nobody wants fudging.
In other words, to discuss the object at hand, we have to turn to (hypothetical, we're not doing actual experiments after all) cases that are not clearly cut one way or the other.
Of course, you're free to refuse discussion of the matter at hand, especially if you see no value in doing so.


Every once in a while, maybe once a year or so, a situation comes up in which the specific die roll would hurt the game, and another, equally likely one, would serve better. In those extremely rare situations, I remember that I am the final authority, not the die, and rule accordingly.

Let me just point out that we agree, apparently, that fudging should be kept to a minimum. The question becomes, why fudge this particular die at all? Why not announce the result you want without rolling? After all, you're not worried about geting caught, everyone at your table is perfectly fine with you fudging.
Or are we talking about realization striking after the die was rolled?

[Amphetryon]

Could you expand a bit on that? I'm genuinely curious under what circumstances would players complain about not fudging.(For those who have skipped ahead, "that" in the above quote is my contention that, in my experience, 'not fudging' does not generate less negative reactions than 'fudging' does.)


Dragon Full Attacks the same Character in consecutive rounds, because said Character was the most damaging/dangerous to the Dragon. Player feels picked on.
If using a DM screen, Players complain with equal vigor about two crits in a row and about an expert marksman BBEG who spontaneously cannot hit the flatfooted Barbarian for an entire combat.
Combat is set up so that a second wave of attackers is supposed to come in after 3 rounds; Players complain of a DM spontaneously generating more NPCs because they did too well in rounds 1 - 3.
a Lockdown BFC Wizard uses those tactics to cripple movement of the party; they complain. Next encounter with him, he changes tactics, they talk about "DM just being nice."

I could continue, if you wish.

[hymer]

(For those who have skipped ahead, "that" in the above quote is my contention that, in my experience, 'not fudging' does not generate less negative reactions than 'fudging' does.)

I couldn't parse that. Would you rephrase?

I note that all your examples are players wrongfully complaining. I don't know what to make of that, though, since I don't know what the first bit means.

[Amphetryon]

I couldn't parse that. Would you rephrase?Let me get the original conversation, below:


Originally Posted by hymer
@ Jay_R: Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt you do a splendid job as GM. That doesn't necessarily say much about the merits and drawbacks of fudging, though. I'm sure my players forgive some of my bad points, but they're still bad points. Not that fudging has to be bad (as I said, if everyone wants fudging, it's obviouslt not bad for that group). But compared to not fudging, it generates more negative reactions.

My experiences to not sync up with the part I bolded. I've no doubt your experiences do. Is one of us simply wrong, or being lied to by our respective groups?It was the above exchange between yourself and myself, rephrased. The above phrasing was itself difficult to boil down, because it's sort of a double negative about how 'not' not fudging influences tables.


I note that all your examples are players wrongfully complaining. I don't know what to make of that, though, since I don't know what the first bit means.I'm not sure how a Player truthfully expressing that she is not having a fun experience as a result of the DM's choices is "wrongfully complaining;" could you expound on that?

[hymer]

Thanks, I get it now. :smallsmile:

"Wrongfully" not in any emotional sense, but in a purely 'by the seat of my pants' sense. 'Mistaken' may be a better word.

"Player feels picked upon". But s/he isn't being picked upon, and diverting attacks against him to PC B would actually be picking on B.

"Players complain with equal vigor about two crits in a row and about an expert marksman BBEG who spontaneously cannot hit the flatfooted Barbarian for an entire combat"
I guess you added the screen, because they wouldn't complain if you rolled openly - they're mistaken. So roll openly and save yourself the trouble.

"Players complain of a DM spontaneously generating more NPCs" The players are wrong, the DM isn't generating these NPCs as a response to luck or lack of same.

The last one I don't quite get. I guess the players are applauding the DM playing the wizard at 80%? Or are they assuming the guy changed tactics for metagaming reasons?

All of these seem to be about the players not trusting the DM to do her/his job, a sad case of affairs. Rolling openly might actually help with that. Writing a little note ("After three rounds, 2 more guards and the sergeant arrives") and putting it upside down out of your reach where they can all see it seems a better way of dispelling the third problem to me.

[Amphetryon]

Thanks, I get it now. :smallsmile:

"Wrongfully" not in any emotional sense, but in a purely 'by the seat of my pants' sense.

"Player feels picked upon". But he isn't being picked upon, and diverting attacks against him to PC B would actually be picking on B.

"Players complain with equal vigor about two crits in a row and about an expert marksman BBEG who spontaneously cannot hit the flatfooted Barbarian for an entire combat"
I guess you added the screen, because they wouldn't complain if you rolled openly - they're mistaken. So roll openly and save yourself the trouble.

"Players complain of a DM spontaneously generating more NPCs" The players are wrong, the DM isn't generating these NPC as a response to luck or lack of same.

The last one I don't quite get. I guess the players are applauding the DM playing the wizard at 80%? Or are they assuming the guy changed tactics for metagaming reasons?

All of these seem to be about the players not trusting the DM to do her/his job, a sad case of affairs. Rolling openly might actually help with that. Writing a little note ("After three rounds, 2 more guards and the sergeant arrives") and putting it upside down out of your reach where they can all see it seems a better way of dispelling the third problem to me.

Yet, in every case, the DM's decisions had a discernible, negative impact on the Players' enjoyment of the game. Is it your contention that the DM should simply ignore such concerns as "No, you're wrong, and here's why?" Is the DM not supposed to try to make the game fun for all Players involved (DM included)?

[Jane_Smith]

Hm. Its really the situation that counts for me, if its a group of friends and were just jacking off and acting stupid in the village or bar or dungeon and just doing something that has no damaging/negative drawbacks on a failed check we usually just fudge the rolls to speed up the pace of the game. Kinda like taking 20 in 1/4th the time or so. And sometimes our dm will fudge the roll if the real ones are REALLY stupid. We have had a case where our barbarian got four natural 1's in a row over four rounds, and the owl bear managed to get, and confirm, two claw crit attacks against him... so the dm kinda had to step in there to prevent a sudden player kill, though he did not have to, none of us had any qualms about it (Considering it was only the 2nd session and we wanted to keep the story going).

Though if the dm constantly pulls the dice to favor the pc's OR npc's, which has happened several times in the past in my experience as well, it does get exhausting. So overall, light to moderate fudging for basic story-advancement/fairness is legit in my book. Heck, its why my group never rolls for ability scores anymore, one of my group ALWAYS gets like three 16-18's or more, then someone will get like four 6-10's, and we got tired of granting rerolls on 1's/etc and just said meh, point buy for now on. We usually take average hit dice per level as well - a barbarian should never have to keep a nat 1 for a hit dice roll. :smallsigh:

[willpell]

100% in favor of not only fudging dice but entirely dispensing with them any time it's event slightly beneficial to the story. As DM, you are in charge of providing entertainment; the moment strict randomizers make the story lame, you should ignore them. The dice are there to make suggestions when you have no particular ideas. If the dice say the player should fail, but he's put tons of work into explaining his plan and he really deserves to succeed, don't make him suffer just because Lady Luck had a headache that day. Conversely, don't reward players for quasi-munchkinning their way to ridiculously huge piles of dice, or for the fact that overly simplistic rules say there should be a 5% chance of success no matter how bombastically ridiculous the task attempted. You control the universe, and all things WILL happen as you dictate; blaming the dice for when you can't come up with anything better than "you fail, you die, make a new character" is poor form to say the least.

[hymer]

@ Amphetryon: It is my position that if the problems you describe come up, there's deeper problems than whether or not the DM is fudging. Communication is needed here, not fudging. Unless you're dealing with peole you can't hope to communicate with. If these players were little kids, for example, I'd see it differently.
I don't believe it was only the DM's decisions alone that had this effect, by the way. It was also the players' ascribing false motives to the DM. Again, communication is the way forward.

The DM is also the arbiter of the game, and a certain amount of fairness and firmness is required. If anyone who just complains loud enough get their way, that's not fair to the others.

[valadil]

Yet, in every case, the DM's decisions had a discernible, negative impact on the Players' enjoyment of the game. Is it your contention that the DM should simply ignore such concerns as "No, you're wrong, and here's why?" Is the DM not supposed to try to make the game fun for all Players involved (DM included)?

You can't please everyone all the time. My reaction to a player like that is that they're more interesting in kicking butt than being challenged. I'd give them easier encounters. If the rest of the group felt otherwise, I wouldn't have a good answer unless the group dynamic somehow let me run a series of simultaneous duels rather than a group brawl.

[Amphetryon]

You can't please everyone all the time. My reaction to a player like that is that they're more interesting in kicking butt than being challenged. I'd give them easier encounters. If the rest of the group felt otherwise, I wouldn't have a good answer unless the group dynamic somehow let me run a series of simultaneous duels rather than a group brawl.

You'll note that the Players in my examples also voiced concerns that fudging was happening when things went easier than they expected, in the example with the marksman BBEG who couldn't hit the easiest target for an entire combat.


The DM is also the arbiter of the game, and a certain amount of fairness and firmness is required. If anyone who just complains loud enough get their way, that's not fair to the others.And if the complaining party doesn't get redress for the complaints and leaves - possibly taking another Player with him - that's . . . better?

[valadil]

You'll note that the Players in my examples also voiced concerns that fudging was happening when things went easier than they expected, in the example with the marksman BBEG who couldn't hit the easiest target for an entire combat.


In that case I'd run underpowered encounters with no screen.

I've also met some players who will have a complaint no matter what you do. One in particular gets his joy from pointing out what he thinks is wrong with the game. I don't worry as much about complaints from those players.

One other trick I've found with buttkickers is that they're more interested in appearing awesome than being awesome via game mechanics. I satisfied one such PC by giving her extra description. "It's only 12 damage, you can easily shrug that off," or something like that was usually enough to keep her happy. I guess this isn't really fudging, but spin. You have to spin the result of the roll so the PC looks badass.

(Not sure how widespread that last trick will be. It was literally the only thing I could do to please one player, but throwing out an extra sentence of description each time she rolled a d20 was a trivial effort on my part and made the game a whole lot better for her.)

[hymer]

And if the complaining party doesn't get redress for the complaints and leaves - possibly taking another Player with him - that's . . . better?

I suppose that depends on the specific example. Could go either way. If someone spends all the game complaining about imaginary problems, then them leaving is probably not so bad.
I don't think it's unreasonable for the DM to expect of the players that they can accept something they don't happen to agree with, at least until after the session when the matter can be dealt with properly.

Edit: Come to think of it, I wouldn't put up with that sort of social blackmail. Let them leave if they're going to leave. I'll be happy to be the big man and call them up a few days later, but they're not going to get their way like that. It would just undermine my credibility even further if I give in. The subtextual example:

Player: You're cheating!
DM: I am not.
Player: I'll leave if you don't admit you're cheating!

[Raum]

Dragon Full Attacks the same Character in consecutive rounds, because said Character was the most damaging/dangerous to the Dragon. Player feels picked on.
If using a DM screen, Players complain with equal vigor about two crits in a row and about an expert marksman BBEG who spontaneously cannot hit the flatfooted Barbarian for an entire combat.
Combat is set up so that a second wave of attackers is supposed to come in after 3 rounds; Players complain of a DM spontaneously generating more NPCs because they did too well in rounds 1 - 3.
a Lockdown BFC Wizard uses those tactics to cripple movement of the party; they complain. Next encounter with him, he changes tactics, they talk about "DM just being nice."

I could continue, if you wish.It appears most, perhaps all, of these could be solved by being more transparent. It's the lack of transparency (and perhaps a history) which causes adverse reaction to your fiat/fudging/changes - whatever we're calling it.

- A dragon attacks me repeatedly and I don't know why...is the GM taking out aggression or is there a reason?
- The GM is hiding his rolls and announcing consecutive rolls which would make him suspicious if I hid mine and did the same...is it any wonder I'm suspicious?
- We win easily and a new set of bad guys appears...is this a common occurrence? Is there a logical and overt reason for more to show?
- Bad guy cripples us and gets away...and switches tactics next time. Is there an overt reason or are we simply 'allowed' to take him out now when we weren't before?

All of these look like heavy handed GMing at best. Perhaps being more transparent about results, actions, and motives will help.

[Amphetryon]

It appears most, perhaps all, of these could be solved by being more transparent. It's the lack of transparency (and perhaps a history) which causes adverse reaction to your fiat/fudging/changes - whatever we're calling it.

- A dragon attacks me repeatedly and I don't know why...is the GM taking out aggression or is there a reason?
- The GM is hiding his rolls and announcing consecutive rolls which would make him suspicious if I hid mine and did the same...is it any wonder I'm suspicious?
- We win easily and a new set of bad guys appears...is this a common occurrence? Is there a logical and overt reason for more to show?
- Bad guy cripples us and gets away...and switches tactics next time. Is there an overt reason or are we simply 'allowed' to take him out now when we weren't before?

All of these look like heavy handed GMing at best. Perhaps being more transparent about results, actions, and motives will help.
-If you (generic) don't know why the Dragon is attacking you in the first example, then I don't know how to help; as indicated, the Dragon is attacking the person who is causing it the most damage. Dragons are - almost without exception - highly intelligent, and as such should not use unintelligent tactics without good in-game reasons to do so.

-The GM using a screen is automatically suspicious to you, then? That's curious to me, given how ubiquitous a GM screen is. Heck, they're included in a majority of games (that have a GM) with which I am familiar.

-If it is a common occurrence, then it seems from my experience that the Players are likely to complain that the GM is always flying by the seat of his pants; if it is a rare occurrence, then it seems from my experience that the Players will complain that the GM is punishing them for doing well in the first few rounds. If this requires the level of transparency suggested above in order to be assuaged, where the GM must show his notes to alleviate such concerns, then why is the GM bothering with private notes to begin with? Why should he not just post the tactics and strengths of every encounter? Where's the line?

-If the bad guy cripples the party and gets away, why didn't he go in for the kill? Sounds metagamey. If the bad guy got away after using tactic A and switches tactics afterwards, isn't it a reasonable assumption that he might have changed things anticipating that the PCs are better prepared for his previous tactics? If not, isn't it bad form on the part of the GM to keep hammering the PCs with tactics for which they have no answer?

[valadil]

-If you (generic) don't know why the Dragon is attacking you in the first example, then I don't know how to help; as indicated, the Dragon is attacking the person who is causing it the most damage. Dragons are - almost without exception - highly intelligent, and as such should not use unintelligent tactics without good in-game reasons to do so.


This is addressed by the spin I mentioned before. "The dragon evaluates the party. He finds you the most threatening. *rolls*" A little bit of flattery to let the player know why they're being attacked is all it takes for some players.

[Raum]

-If you (generic) don't know why the Dragon is attacking you in the first example, then I don't know how to help; as indicated, the Dragon is attacking the person who is causing it the most damage. Dragons are - almost without exception - highly intelligent, and as such should not use unintelligent tactics without good in-game reasons to do so."The dragon winces in pain from your hit and turns on you seeking vengeance!" or "The dragon circles warily before striking at the most imposing threat!" With transparency, that targeting is a badge of honor instead of a mysterious 'did I irritate someone today' question. The transparency also implies a method of redirecting his attacks...can I appear to be less of a threat?


-The GM using a screen is automatically suspicious to you, then? That's curious to me, given how ubiquitous a GM screen is. Heck, they're included in a majority of games (that have a GM) with which I am familiar.Screens are provided in a minority of games in my experience. That's not really the issue though. I was simply comparing the GM to a player in a similar situation. If you can't see the player's dice when he gets multiple crits on a dangerous opponent and multiple fails on a weak opponent, will you be suspicious? If so, why do you expect a different result when it's going the other way?


-If it is a common occurrence, then it seems from my experience that the Players are likely to complain that the GM is always flying by the seat of his pants; if it is a rare occurrence, then it seems from my experience that the Players will complain that the GM is punishing them for doing well in the first few rounds. If this requires the level of transparency suggested above in order to be assuaged, where the GM must show his notes to alleviate such concerns, then why is the GM bothering with private notes to begin with? Why should he not just post the tactics and strengths of every encounter? Where's the line?"The bandits are yelling for help..."; "The goblins' gutteral cries echo loudly..."; "The noisy combat shatters the grove's peaceful silence ..." Things shouldn't 'just happen' - there should be a narrative reason. No, it doesn't require revealing your notes.


-If the bad guy cripples the party and gets away, why didn't he go in for the kill? Sounds metagamey. If the bad guy got away after using tactic A and switches tactics afterwards, isn't it a reasonable assumption that he might have changed things anticipating that the PCs are better prepared for his previous tactics? If not, isn't it bad form on the part of the GM to keep hammering the PCs with tactics for which they have no answer?It does sound "metagamey" - there's no known narrative reason for the switch. If the bad guy left them alive the first time, why? Is there some reason he can't kill them? If so, wouldn't it make the story more interesting if the players discover this? They might be able to use it...

As for the players being prepared, let them have the satisfaction of nullifying the previous action! Not only do they look awesome but now the bad guy has a reason to switch tactics. If they haven't prepared, why not? Is it something you've prevented? Is it a surprise for some reason? If so, isn't the original reason for keeping them alive still in effect? And yes, hitting them with something they can't defend against can be a **** move. Particularly if the encounter is a surprise or isn't their choice. On the other hand, if they're chasing this guy down and already know what he can do...I'd let the chips fall.

[Amphetryon]

This is addressed by the spin I mentioned before. "The dragon evaluates the party. He finds you the most threatening. *rolls*" A little bit of flattery to let the player know why they're being attacked is all it takes for some players.

Glad that worked for you. Wish I could say the same.


If you can't see the player's dice when he gets multiple crits on a dangerous opponent and multiple fails on a weak opponent, will you be suspicious? If so, why do you expect a different result when it's going the other way?Did I say that? If not, you're ascribing behavior to the GM I didn't specify, to (somewhat dishonestly) create a justification that wasn't specified.


"The bandits are yelling for help..."; "The goblins' gutteral cries echo loudly..."; "The noisy combat shatters the grove's peaceful silence ..." Things shouldn't 'just happen' - there should be a narrative reason. No, it doesn't require revealing your notes.If the Players believe that combat is only noisy if the GM specifically describes it as such, then I think the Players already have issues with immersion, don't you?


It does sound "metagamey" - there's no known narrative reason for the switch. If the bad guy left them alive the first time, why? Is there some reason he can't kill them? If so, wouldn't it make the story more interesting if the players discover this? They might be able to use it...

As for the players being prepared, let them have the satisfaction of nullifying the previous action! Not only do they look awesome but now the bad guy has a reason to switch tactics. If they haven't prepared, why not? Is it something you've prevented? Is it a surprise for some reason? If so, isn't the original reason for keeping them alive still in effect? And yes, hitting them with something they can't defend against can be a **** move. Particularly if the encounter is a surprise or isn't their choice. On the other hand, if they're chasing this guy down and already know what he can do...I'd let the chips fall.The point is that every possible outcome can have the appearance of being influenced by metagame concerns, regardless of narrative setup. Some Players are likely to comment on that appearance, in my experience.

[Raum]

[QUOTE-Raum] If you can't see the player's dice when he gets multiple crits on a dangerous opponent and multiple fails on a weak opponent, will you be suspicious? If so, why do you expect a different result when it's going the other way?[/misquote]Did I say that? If not, you're ascribing behavior to the GM I didn't specify, to (somewhat dishonestly) create a justification that wasn't specified.Sensitive area? You didn't say it, I asked. You did list mysteriously consistent unseen rolls which were objected to; I'm simply saying suspicion should not be a surprise. Particularly if this occurs commonly enough to hit your list of 'what players object to on a regular basis'.


If the Players believe that combat is only noisy if the GM specifically describes it as such, then I think the Players already have issues with immersion, don't you?Is combat nothing more than "I roll to hit again."? :smalleek: Descriptions are good things. They're also the players' only view into any setting created or run entirely by the GM.


The point is that every possible outcome can have the appearance of being influenced by metagame concerns, regardless of narrative setup. Some Players are likely to comment on that appearance, in my experience.I'll go a step further and state the entire game is influenced by metagame concerns. Normal people don't seek dragons. :smallwink: If you want immersion, you need narrative reasons for those metagame driven actions.

[Amphetryon]

Sensitive area? You didn't say it, I asked. You did list mysteriously consistent unseen rolls which were objected to; I'm simply saying suspicion should not be a surprise. Particularly if this occurs commonly enough to hit your list of 'what players object to on a regular basis'.

Is combat nothing more than "I roll to hit again."? :smalleek: Descriptions are good things. They're also the players' only view into any setting created or run entirely by the GM.

I'll go a step further and state the entire game is influenced by metagame concerns. Normal people don't seek dragons. :smallwink: If you want immersion, you need narrative reasons for those metagame driven actions.

I have never, in any post in this thread, said that such narrative reasons were lacking, or that combat was nothing more than "I roll to hit again." I have said that such narrative reasons were insufficient to prevent complaints from Players in any of the situations I listed, and indicated initially (after the list) that the situations listed were not exhaustive. That is why I did not specify the narrative reasons or the descriptive nature of the combat: because they were not relevant to the outcome, and did not modify the expectation of complaint.

[Water_Bear]

It seems like a lot of the people here are using fudging to treat the symptoms of a much more serious issue; whiny Players.

If your Players are going to complain about rules-legal and sensible tactics being employed against them, or the very idea that they might die when they enter into a fight, then they are in need of a serious shaming. That kind of entitled attitude is toxic and needs to be dealt with immediately, not encouraged through capitulation. Even if you need to thin the group out a little, it's better to have a solid core of players than allow that to continue; remember that in most group tasks, the group's success can be predicted by the skill of the least competent member.

[RPGuru1331]

If your Players are going to complain about rules-legal and sensible tactics being employed against them, or the very idea that they might die when they enter into a fight, then they are in need of a serious shaming.
Well done, sir, you have truly found the source of the problem; yes, after encouraging, and all but demanding quality characters from my players (which has taken hours, each, of both my time and their's), and working closely with them to integrate them with the plot, the problem is just that they expect not to die for a while.


That kind of entitled attitude is toxic and needs to be dealt with immediately, not encouraged through capitulation.
Capitulation, that I work with my players to get what we both want out of the game? You have an interesting definition of that word.


Even if you need to thin the group out a little, it's better to have a solid core of players than allow that to continue; remember that in most group tasks, the group's success can be predicted by the skill of the least competent member.
What. The goal's to have fun. Throwing people out who aren't detracting from fun strikes me as counterproductive at best.

[valadil]

Glad that worked for you. Wish I could say the same.


Le suck. Out of curiosity, what does work for that/those player/players?

[BlckDv]

Everytime I see some version of this question I sigh and predict a long exchange that doesn't really lead much of anywhere, yet here I go chiming in.

The problem is that in asking the question, you presuppose AN answer, or more specifically a Correct Answer.

A better question might be: For what styles of play or sorts of players does fudging die rolls enhance their enjoyment, or conversely for what sorts of play or styles of players does fudging die rolls provide a cheapening effect/ loss of enjoyment?

I find that some players live very firmly in one world, and do not wish to sojourn in the other; while some players feel that this issue is as much a choice as what genre to play and may alter their wishes from game to game.

This is part of why pre-game planning is so critical. If a DM thinks he is making a strict test of player cunning and skill in which his roll is to test the party to the limits of the rules, but some of the players want an escapist romp in which they get to kill some monsters and roll over all barriers; you have a problem, most groups realize this but don't always realize this aplies to the dice.

In the same vein if you have a DM who feels that if the random elements of luck are not allowed to play out exactly as the rules dictate then the player has been robbed of his sense of achievement, and a player who thinks the DM's roll is to put risks before the players but take pro-active actions to ensure the players only fail by poor choices and not bad luck, you have a problem.

Obviously there are way more variations than I am going to enumerate. I have run and played in games in which the understanding at the table was not made clear, and it almost always led to less fun for all, and usually a campaign that dies out before reaching any kind of end of a story/quest.

For me personally the worst I had was when the players wanted the DM to be more of a Referee, and the DM wanted to be more of a co-operative storyteller. The players made some boneheaded choices and ended up in a fight we started split up and wounded against an enemy more powerful than we thought we would be facing. As players we laughed, decided to go down fighting, and began thinking up a new party.. except we won. The fact that the DM was fudging rolls so the enemy would miss us on high damage attacks and we would hit was painfully obvious to us, and robbed us of any feeling that our victory was earned. En Mass the players retired our PCs and made new ones a couple of weeks later, and this time we had a good talk with the DM about the expected playstyle, the new group ran much better.

[valadil]

This is part of why pre-game planning is so critical.

Do you trust the players to actually know what they want? Those of us who have been around the table, played with different groups, analyzed their own GMing, etc, can communicate with relative ease their gaming needs. I think that group is in the minority. Furthermore, when it comes to fudging, I don't think players are honest with themselves. I think there's a large portion of players that likes to tell themselves they can handle a game with no safety net, but that's not actually the case. IMO the only way to account for that is to read your players at the table. I don't mean to diminish the importance of the pre-game planning, but whatever you learn about your players during the pre-game is only the beginning. You have to adapt as you go.

[Darius Kane]

The problem is that in asking the question, you presuppose AN answer, or more specifically a Correct Answer.
:smallconfused:
He asked how we feel about it. It's not a "Yes or No" question, so really any (on topic) answer will be correct. Just because people started arguing in the thread doesn't mean that answering the OP is impossible or his question is somehow unanswerable.

[BlckDv]

Do you trust the players to actually know what they want? Those of us who have been around the table, played with different groups, analyzed their own GMing, etc, can communicate with relative ease their gaming needs. I think that group is in the minority. Furthermore, when it comes to fudging, I don't think players are honest with themselves. I think there's a large portion of players that likes to tell themselves they can handle a game with no safety net, but that's not actually the case. IMO the only way to account for that is to read your players at the table. I don't mean to diminish the importance of the pre-game planning, but whatever you learn about your players during the pre-game is only the beginning. You have to adapt as you go.

I agree with your stance that the pre-planning is only the beginning. Yes, some folks are really bad at being honest about what they want, some folks are self-deluding, and some folks will claim to what what they think will make others happy [And this all applies to DMs/GMs/Storytellers/Control/Boogiemen as much as players], among many other issues, but having had a talk gives you somewhere to start from, an awareness that there are issues here and not just a black and white "Right Way / Wrong Way" (which will be eye opening to a lot of newer players), and a chance to start gauging reactions and attitudes for players you don't have a longer term knowledge of.

Definitely just one part of a whole package of running a game well.

[Water_Bear]

Well done, sir, you have truly found the source of the problem; yes, after encouraging, and all but demanding quality characters from my players (which has taken hours, each, of both my time and their's), and working closely with them to integrate them with the plot, the problem is just that they expect not to die for a while.

There are systems out there where there isn't a risk of death in combat unless the Players and GM feel it helps the story. Prime Time Adventures is my favorite of these personally, and IMO a criminally underappreciated system. Most of these systems, like PTA, can be mastered in under twenty minutes and are designed to facilitate top-notch cooperative storytelling. There is no reason to play a game where PCs can die if you don't think that is an acceptable outcome.

And if you are playing a game where death is a possible outcome, and you have made a choice which might result in your character's death, and the rules say to adjudicate that chance with a die roll... what exactly is the point of complaining that a character died? It's like being angry that Hamlet doesn't end in a wacky marriage scene; bad outcomes due to unexpected die rolls are one of the major genre conventions of Adventure Games.


Capitulation, that I work with my players to get what we both want out of the game? You have an interesting definition of that word.

...

The goal's to have fun. Throwing people out who aren't detracting from fun strikes me as counterproductive at best.

You know what really adds up to a fun evening? Dealing with a bunch of entitled players who think that showing up means that they get whatever they want without effort or risk. And who get indignant that a swordfight ends with one of the combatants dead, because hey they wrote a whole backstory and that means their character is immortal.

Or rather, not that.

[Raum]

I suspect there is too much entrenched dogmatism to have a reasonable discussion on fudging. Some see it as a right, some as anathema, and others as a privilege which must be granted. In the end I think we need to remember we're talking about a recreational activity with friends. Not a struggle for power.


Do you trust the players to actually know what they want? Those of us who have been around the table, played with different groups, analyzed their own GMing, etc, can communicate with relative ease their gaming needs. I think that group is in the minority. Furthermore, when it comes to fudging, I don't think players are honest with themselves. Do you know how many awful things have been justified by stating 'I/we know what some person/group wants/needs better than they do'? Applying such a justification to a game doesn't make it any more palatable.

[Jay R]

The reason I divided it into three hypothetical groups is to have a discussion about the subject. I don't think anybody objects to the DM fudging the dice (tell me if you come up with a better word, I'll be happy to use that. Fiat perhaps? Veto?) in groups where everyone is fine with that.

Are we reading the same thread? I've seen:


I'm very much against fudging die rolls, not for any clear reason but just a vague sense of it being counter to the rules.

I'm against fudging.

For me fudging is a total no no.... It's a sign that a game is in conflict with itself.

It's cheating. The rules say you should get such an outcome with such a die roll, and you ignored it and substituted your own. You robbed your friends of the fair game they agreed to.

Personally, I'm 110% against fudging. I really can't think of any valid (to me) reason to fudge (apart from maybe playing with very new players in a learning campaign).

I joined the thread to disagree with this opinion.

I think of it as the DM exercising final judgment.


And I don't think anyone objects to not fudging in groups where nobody wants fudging.
In other words, to discuss the object at hand, we have to turn to (hypothetical, we're not doing actual experiments after all) cases that are not clearly cut one way or the other.
Of course, you're free to refuse discussion of the matter at hand, especially if you see no value in doing so.

That's pretty much the case. I have no interest in playing with strangers, and no particular knowledge or experience to offer on the topic.

Most of the people I play with I also do martial arts with (SCA fighting). And the exceptions are in the same organization, and attend our tourneys. These are people who expect a chance to lose in every fight.


Let me just point out that we agree, apparently, that fudging should be kept to a minimum. The question becomes, why fudge this particular die at all? Why not announce the result you want without rolling? After all, you're not worried about geting caught, everyone at your table is perfectly fine with you fudging.
Or are we talking about realization striking after the die was rolled?

Yes, of course it's a realization after seeing the specific result. There's never a situation in which I want only one specific single result (with the exception of the spiders, and even then I only knew about the problem after it came up). But on a table with 20 or more possible outcomes, it's quite possible that one or two of them are not suitable to the current situation. A lasso in AD&D 2E doesn't do damage. A critical hit that delivers "double damage" means nothing. If a fighter is being levitated and rolls "fall down" as a fumble, I would substitute another result.

I'm specifically unwilling to rule against a die roll just to prevent something bad from happening to a player. While I recognize that there are players who want to go through the motions of a combat or other encounter without any risk, I would be a very poor DM for them. Since their goals are not goals I particularly share, I doubt if I could invent a scenario that I would be happy running and they would be happy experiencing. (Similarly, I want my pie to be baked by somebody who likes pie.)

I don't think you and I have any actual disagreement here. Do you?

[RPGuru1331]

There are systems out there where there isn't a risk of death in combat unless the Players and GM feel it helps the story. Prime Time Adventures is my favorite of these personally, and IMO a criminally underappreciated system. Most of these systems, like PTA, can be mastered in under twenty minutes and are designed to facilitate top-notch cooperative storytelling. There is no reason to play a game where PCs can die if you don't think that is an acceptable outcome.
Unless we just happen to like Exalted, or DnD, or MnM, all of which can kill you on a dice roll to minions*, and only the middle one isn't intended for this anyway.

But what's your point? That we're not allowed to play a game because you don't like how we play? What gives? I don't go telling you you can't have fun however you want.



And if you are playing a game where death is a possible outcome, and you have made a choice which might result in your character's death, and the rules say to adjudicate that chance with a die roll... what exactly is the point of complaining that a character died?
Unless you play every RPG exactly as intended, which is highly unlikely unless you're in the RPGA, you need to whack the rules with a wrench anyway. As far as I'm concerned, nWoD isn't a system that permits random death in my games. Again, what's it to you?


It's like being angry that Hamlet doesn't end in a wacky marriage scene
More like being angry that Hamlet dies because the stage shattered under him in Act 1.


bad outcomes due to unexpected die rolls are one of the major genre conventions of Adventure Games.
Again, 'losing' is not synonymous with 'death'**. 'Bad' is not synonymous with 'game over'. What's really funny is that most of them wouldn't tolerate an antagonist dying early either, or a success where failure was the more interesting option, but you leapt to the conclusion that everyone only wanted to win. The problem with Death is that outside of DnD and Geist, it's generally final, not that it's bad.


You know what really adds up to a fun evening? Dealing with a bunch of entitled players who think that showing up means that they get whatever they want without effort or risk.
What is a Straw Man, Alex?


And who get indignant that a swordfight ends with one of the combatants dead, because hey they wrote a whole backstory and that means their character is immortal.
Dude, if I have sunk 4 hours of my time, and they have put in 6 hours of their's, neither of us is going to want to see the character whacked until it's the right time for it, and the 'right time for it' is certainly not on the first night. Why you hate this, I don't know, but it's not like I'm telling you that you have to play like this. I'm saying some of us do.

But you know, if everyone else is having fun at the table fudging? You're the one who's doing it wrong for trying to force a change on that group. I don't care if you think they're entitled; if the only person who finds something interesting is you, and you force that element in, I'd say you're the entitled one. Because you feel you're entitled to your game exactly as you see it, and nobody else gets a say in that.

*Okay, I lied slightly in that dying to actual extras is unlikely in Exalted, but dying to enemies it wasn't climactic to still is.

**Although, I'd have to hear a lot less about sports and League of Legends if it was, so if you feel like changing that in the real world, I might be listening. (Not really).

[hymer]

@ Jay R: Those people are responding to a question about how they feel about fudging. I expect they're being personal (as in how they'd like to play) rather than general (as in everyone should conform to this standard). I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if these posters don't agree.

Do you agree or disagree guys?

[Jerthanis]

I far prefer a GM to fudge tactics... rather than refuse to kill me because of a lucky hit, to have them fail to follow up an advantage that they maybe should have, or something of that nature.

While I agree that this is also a factor, and a superb tool, I find it's actually much more overtly felt than manipulation of the dice. As people have mentioned, when you see a dragon using his full attack to swing once at every PC instead of focus firing or picking one up and flying away. In-universe, a dragon whose dice are fudged is just being a little less skillfull, a little more luckless. A dragon who strikes each person once is throwing the fight in-universe.

Still, when you can have bitter, chaotic, greedy Slaads using AoE abilities to harm their allies at the same time as the PCs, or enemy wizards prioritizing their own safety by casting defensive buffs over buffing their allies or taking out PCs faster, that can work wonders because they still make sense from an in-universe perspective.

More largely, I consider the core of RPGs to be that it is about a DM being asked to be the judge of events, using randomness as a tool to resolve situations that are more interesting by being unknown. But events being more or less interesting is not a standard that can be held objectively, and the idea of a DM using his best judgement comes as a much more primary aspect than respect for randomly generated numbers.

So for me, Fudging makes all the sense in the world, since the judgement has primacy. However, I also accept that NOT fudging is acceptable, because if you judge that the random numbers are the 'correct' answer in every case is still you using your judgement to its fullest worth. I don't understand the idea of "RPG as challenge to overcome" because of the behind the scenes things we are all aware of, but if the dice always show the result you want, whether by saying that success or failure are of equal merit in every case or by balancing mechanics with such precision that you control events on the back end rather than the front, I'm totally down with either.

[Water_Bear]

But what's your point? That we're not allowed to play a game because you don't like how we play? What gives? I don't go telling you you can't have fun however you want.

No. My point was that, as you can see in a lot of these posts (like yours on the first page, or Amphetryon's last page) that there seems to be a population of players who feel that when the GM doesn't rule the way they deem appropriate that they can whine and threaten to leave the game over it.

I actually don't have any philosophical objection to fudging per se, its really an aesthetic thing for me, but what I do object to is players who act like prima donnas and try to "Backseat GM" as it were. That kind of behavior indicates such a fundamental lack of respect and poor sportsmanship that I can't imagine spending hours of my own time doing prep-work on a game for that kind of a person. It is rude and absolutely unacceptable.


Again, 'losing' is not synonymous with 'death'**. 'Bad' is not synonymous with 'game over'. ... The problem with Death is that outside of DnD and Geist, it's generally final, not that it's bad.

I absolutely agree, and that's why it's weird to me that people get offended when they are reminded that many many fine games exist with meaningful non-lethal loss conditions. There is really no reason to try to use D&D, or any similar game, to play that kind of game because either you'll have wasted time recreating a better system with your houserules or you'll spend the same time but end up with an awkward and inferior one.

I'm not saying "get out of my sandbox," rather pointing out that you're probably better off looking for a pool to do your backstrokes in.


But you know, if everyone else is having fun at the table fudging? You're the one who's doing it wrong for trying to force a change on that group. I don't care if you think they're entitled; if the only person who finds something interesting is you, and you force that element in, I'd say you're the entitled one. Because you feel you're entitled to your game exactly as you see it, and nobody else gets a say in that.

I've been a player in games where the GMs fudged copiously, both to our advantage and our detriment, and as annoying as it was I knew that it wasn't worth it to make a fuss if the game kept running smoothly otherwise. Because the player is there to play the game, to explore the world the GM made and interact with it and the other PCs in ways which are fun for everyone.

What I'm against is people who see perfectly legitimate rules calls, in fact the official rules calls, as unjust to the point that they feel free to complain about it or even threaten to leave the game over it. If they feel that way, let them go.

[navar100]

If the DM Honestly True overestimated the strength of the encounter and believes a TPK or individual PC death is uncalled for because of the unintended inherent unfairness, fudge away.

If through great strategy, tactics, and/or dumb luck the PCs defeat the BBEG in less than 3 rounds, the only fudge I like is chocolate.

[RPGuru1331]

No. My point was that, as you can see in a lot of these posts ([I]like yours on the first page
My what? I didn't post until page 5.


that there seems to be a population of players who feel that when the GM doesn't rule the way they deem appropriate that they can whine and threaten to leave the game over it.
Uh, yes, they can. It's a game or story, and at any rate is an allegedly fun activity. Definitionally, you can complain, if you're not having fun, and stop playing. Lest you think I'm speaking primarily from a player perspective, I'm only running games atm, and most of my last few roleplays have been as GM. Depending on how things are handled, I can sympathize; course, if you're in a group that absolutely hates that kinda thing, you're SOL, but hey, presumably you have fun on the whole.


I actually don't have any philosophical objection to fudging per se, its really an aesthetic thing for me, but what I do object to is players who act like prima donnas and try to "Backseat GM" as it were. That kind of behavior indicates such a fundamental lack of respect and poor sportsmanship that I can't imagine spending hours of my own time doing prep-work on a game for that kind of a person. It is rude and absolutely unacceptable.
Then you've done a poor job of explaining the root of the objection, in every post you've made in this thread heretofore.


I absolutely agree, and that's why it's weird to me that people get offended when they are reminded that many many fine games exist with meaningful non-lethal loss conditions. There is really no reason to try to use D&D, or any similar game, to play that kind of game because either you'll have wasted time recreating a better system with your houserules or you'll spend the same time but end up with an awkward and inferior one.
I don't actually play DnD. And "No, you're not dead, you're unconscious" is not ripping the guts out of the system and trying to kitbash it. I'd feel you better if you were talking major overhauls, but we're not. I mean, ffs, it's on the GM to make the 'don't die' an interesting thing, not really the system, because it's so easy to handle system-wise. You have to make there be more at stake than simply your own survival.


I'm not saying "get out of my sandbox," rather pointing out that you're probably better off looking for a pool to do your backstrokes in.
Um, lol? You've spent the majority of your posts here talking about 'entitled players'. That's most definitely 'ur doin it wrong' territory, even if you choose to change tack now.


I've been a player in games where the GMs fudged copiously, both to our advantage and our detriment, and as annoying as it was I knew that it wasn't worth it to make a fuss if the game kept running smoothly otherwise. Because the player is there to play the game, to explore the world the GM made and interact with it and the other PCs in ways which are fun for everyone.
Crikes that's an incredibly hierarchical view of the whole thing, but whatever you prefer, long as I'm not playing with you.


What I'm against is people who see perfectly legitimate rules calls, in fact the official rules calls, as unjust to the point that they feel free to complain about it or even threaten to leave the game over it. If they feel that way, let them go.

I don't know about 'unjust', but 'entirely counter to why I'm bothering' strikes me as an immediate concern.

[Gamgee]

I'm one of the middle ground people. For the most part I don't, but occasionally an exceptional situation arises.