Thoughts on fudging rolls

[Ronnocius]

What is everyone else's thoughts on fudging rolls (changing the result of the roll) as a game master? In particular what are your thoughts on the following situations:
1) fudges attack/damage to save a player
2) fudging hit points or something similar to save a villain or enemy

I do not believe in fudging rolls at all, because if the DM/GM is allowed to fudge rolls then the players might as well be allowed to fudge their rolls as well. There are exceptions for example fudging the hit dice (if applicable) or not even rolling and giving them a predetermined number of hit points, fudging a roll on something like a teleport to make for a better story etc. Obviously this should be done beforehand and not changing hit points in the middle of a combat.

So what are your opinions? What about other similar scenarios of game masters "fudging" things such as regenerating spell slots mid battles or changing prepared spells (assuming a Dungeons & Dragons type game)?

Sorry if there is already a thread about this topic.

[hymer]

I am not a fan of GM fudging, whether I am player or GM (and of course the players don't get to fudge - that's just cheating). If I feel I can't get around it, I'd rather not roll at all. If I mess up as GM, I do an open retcon rather than fudge the dice.

As a player, I'd much rather my PC dies than the DM fudges. If the DM fudges, it takes away any sense of accomplishment or victory.

[Kaptin Keen]

I generally feel players dying due to bad planning or miscalculation by the GM is more undesirable than fudging. So since I'm frankly bad at planning and calculating, I regularly adjust the difficulty of my encounters by ... adjusting my dicerolls.

Players dying because they are reckless or ignore obvious dangers ... that's on them. But they shouldn't have to suffer for my inability to work with numbers.

Numbers are occult and wicked, and propably the work of the devil.

[King of Nowhere]

I have retroactively added hit points to a boss on a couple of occasions to make a boss fight last a bit longer and end in what I perceived as a more satisfying way, but it never altered anything important. no character lived or died as a result of the fudges, at most the fight was prolonged for another round. Which was the intended result in the first place.

I've been tempted to do so several times, though, so in the end I homebrewed the "avatar of DM frustration (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22501962&postcount=14)" monster: a monster whose specific power was calling on the DM to fudge its dice rolls.
My players found it most frustrating to fight, as its "immunity to this and that" and "not quite defeated yet" powers made it completely unvulnerable until the completely random "DM rage check" failed.
No, I did not fudge the roll to determine if I was allowed to fudge the rolls :smallbiggrin:

[Minty]

I think if you're playing the kind of game where PCs shouldn't randomly die due to bad dice rolls or unexpectedly lethal encounters, then you should probably be playing the kind of system where fudging dice rolls isn't necessary to keep the PCs alive.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think fudging to save a player is a valid use of fudging a roll...Provided that you discuss the matter with your players beforehand. I've been in meat-grindery games and I've been in games where characters weren't always expected to succeed, but they were expected to survive with most of their bits intact. The latter approach, combined with non-fatal failure states (demonic possession, loss of wealth, loss of reputation, loss of important NPCs, loss of important limbs, etc.) can be useful for groups that don't want to remake characters and the DM wants to integrate their past into the story.

And yes, some systems are better than others for this, but getting everyone to agree on a system can be enough of an issue, especially if people don't have time to relearn the system...In particular, the DM. It is not an elegant solution, but it is a simple one.

However, while that might seem nice of the DM to do, some people want to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and won't be happy with the approach. The thrill of victory just isn't the same if it doesn't have the risk of bitter defeat. So discuss beforehand else you might have some justifiably annoyed players.

I'm guilty of fudging rolls when I was a younger DM, but I am too lazy to do that now. The players will often appreciate an easy victory if it's hilarious, so letting those dice fall where they will can produce some interesting results. Using horde-type enemies such as mindless zombies can also alleviate this problem as the group won't feel bad easily defeating a larger zombie, as opposed to a villian with an obvious backstory.

[Thrudd]

I think most of us are guilty of fudging things, in the heat of the moment, especially early in a GM'ing career. But when you have a chance to think and plan how you're going to run your game, there is no reason to fudge rolls, and in fact it takes a lot away from the players and the game experience.
As Minty said, if you don't want characters to die to random dice rolls, then make it against the rules to die from random dice rolls (or play a game where that is already a rule). Don't roll dice if you aren't going to accept the result of the roll. Decide what you want to randomly determine, what possible results you're willing to accept, before you roll.

If you don't want characters to lose their last HP except in certain fights, then make that the rule, and tell players when they are in a deadly fight and when they aren't (or let them decide if they want it to be a deadly fight or not). In a non-deadly fight, once they get down to 1 HP, maybe hits have some other effect on them (they lose their next turn, or they get knocked prone, or they have to retreat, or whatever you want). If you just want to decide what happens, you don't need to roll any dice. Some games, like FATE, have something like this already - the player gets to decide if they are willing to risk their character's life or not.

If the characters can't fail (or can't succeed) at a task, then they don't need to roll. If the players complain about not getting to roll for things because the GM is just deciding what happens - the GM should probably examine just what they think the game is supposed to be about and whether this is working for the group, rather than trying to hide their manipulations behind fudged dice rolls.

[Koo Rehtorb]

If you're playing a game where you think you need to cheat to have fun, then you should probably be playing a different game instead. Either switch to a new system, or sit down and house rule stuff that you think is objectionable about it.

[SuperFerret]

I've fudged. I regret some instances, others I don't. I don't see it as cheating though. I think it falls under the purview of DM Fiat, and is a tool in maintaining the flow of the story and enjoyment of the game.

[SirBellias]

I don't fudge rolls. The dice fall as they may, and if my game is dangerous enough for people to be put in a position to die they'll have known before they joined.

I also often times make up encounters on the spot, and as such might have to determine an enemy's AC or some such after a roll. Once I decide it, it doesn't change, though, and people in my games don't seem to mind this tactic as long as the enemies aren't too busted. They can usually take their stuff at the end anyways, so the more the merrier.

[Calen]

I have fudged enemy HP from time to time, more as a time saving device when they are playing mop up with the remainder but insist they want to fight it out.

[Quertus]

I really should QUOTE myself, but, in short, I'm not a fan. The GM shouldn't cheat - it takes away from the players' (or, at least, from my) sense of suspense, of accomplishment, and, heck, I'll throw immersion into the pot too.

Doesn't matter as much to me if a player does it, though.

[Darth Ultron]

The DM is free to fudge rolls, and really fudge anything and everything that happens in the game. The DM can and often does alter the game reality on a whim, and next to that changing a roll is nothing. And the DM can do more then just change things, the DM can also create things on a whim too.

There is the wacky, pointless idea that a DM ''can't'' ever change anything. If the DM writes down that the orc Clarg has a sword +1 of fire, then they will say the DM can never, ever, ever, ever, change that.

And really, if you ''demand'' the game be played that way...it's fine. After all, to get around that, all the DM needs to do is not write anything down. So they make the character Clarg, but non of the mechanics. Then the DM can ''improv" Clarg to have anything, on a whim.

1.In general, I never save a player's character. That goblin archer gets a critical and huge amount of damage, then the poor character dies. Really, I'd only do it for a new player or a special player.

2.In general, I would never bother. No NPC is ''so" important that they can't die. And any NPC that was that ''important" would have a way to save themselves/come back/such. And it's never so hard to replace a bad guy anyway.

[kyoryu]

I prefer not to fudge rolls. As Koo points out, fudging is generally a symptom of the outcomes the game produces not being compatible with the outcomes your group actually wants.

I think fudging is the "least good" way to handle that. Like, sure, it's better than dealing with the bad outcome, but for overall health of the table and game, I think that using another system, houseruling the system, or even just saying before the roll "here's how I'm going to treat results like this" are better than fudging.

The only case where fudging is a positive thing is the situation where the players want to feel like they're in very dangerous situations, but don't actually want to be in very dangerous situations. That's an odd kind of game that I have no interest in, however.

[Nifft]

My preference is to roll out in the open, and instead give players tools to fudge the rolls themselves -- (rarely) giving out a player-resource like Plot Points which allow a character to survive when doom would otherwise be certain.

When I roll a die, I want to be comfortable with every possible outcome of that die roll.

[LudicSavant]

In videogame development circles, there's an ongoing debate about the moral issue of fudging probabilities (like how some of the more recent Fire Emblem games outright lie to you about the %chance of hitting), since it basically feeds cognitive biases in your players which carries over to things beyond the game experience itself. Pretty much all of the arguments in that debate can also be applied to D&D.

[Tanarii]

I won't play with cheaters. That includes DMs that cheat. I don't care if it's in my favor or not. I can't trust a DM that cheats to not rob me of consequences for my chosen actions.

[Kyrell1978]

What is everyone else's thoughts on fudging rolls (changing the result of the roll) as a game master? In particular what are your thoughts on the following situations:
1) fudges attack/damage to save a player
2) fudging hit points or something similar to save a villain or enemy

I do not believe in fudging rolls at all, because if the DM/GM is allowed to fudge rolls then the players might as well be allowed to fudge their rolls as well. There are exceptions for example fudging the hit dice (if applicable) or not even rolling and giving them a predetermined number of hit points, fudging a roll on something like a teleport to make for a better story etc. Obviously this should be done beforehand and not changing hit points in the middle of a combat.

So what are your opinions? What about other similar scenarios of game masters "fudging" things such as regenerating spell slots mid battles or changing prepared spells (assuming a Dungeons & Dragons type game)?

Sorry if there is already a thread about this topic.
I do both as a DM frequently. In my opinion my job as a DM is to provide dramatic tension for my players. They are the stars, but that doesn't mean that everything should be easy. It also doesn't mean that they can't die, but they probably shouldn't die just because of a bad roll. I save those player deaths for when they do something pretty stupid like insult the Unholy Knight of Killing Players who Insulted Him or some such. I do not ever do this as a player, and expect the same from my players. It is just a tool for story.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I do both as a DM frequently. In my opinion my job as a DM is to provide dramatic tension for my players. They are the stars, but that doesn't mean that everything should be easy. It also doesn't mean that they can't die, but they probably shouldn't die just because of a bad roll. I save those player deaths for when they do something pretty stupid like insult the Unholy Knight of Killing Players who Insulted Him or some such. I do not ever do this as a player, and expect the same from my players. It is just a tool for story.

So... basically players die when you feel like it.

[GrayDeath]

I have retroactively added hit points to a boss on a couple of occasions to make a boss fight last a bit longer and end in what I perceived as a more satisfying way, but it never altered anything important. no character lived or died as a result of the fudges, at most the fight was prolonged for another round. Which was the intended result in the first place.

I've been tempted to do so several times, though, so in the end I homebrewed the "avatar of DM frustration (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22501962&postcount=14)" monster: a monster whose specific power was calling on the DM to fudge its dice rolls.
My players found it most frustrating to fight, as its "immunity to this and that" and "not quite defeated yet" powers made it completely unvulnerable until the completely random "DM rage check" failed.
No, I did not fudge the roll to determine if I was allowed to fudge the rolls :smallbiggrin:

Love it, probably going to use it some time, if thats ok?



@ OP: Depends heavily on both System and Style.

Lets say we play any type of Fate or a similar Game, that delivers Fudging Mechanics, then of course.

Lets say we are playing a hard core D&D Dungeon Crawl, then of course not.

For the rest of Games, its mostly a Gentlemens agreement stated beforehand (meaning usually I give myself a Pool of 3 Fudges to save PCs and 3 Fudges to save very important NPC`s....but most of the time I dont use them^^). But NEVER without making clear ahead of Game that everyone is fine with it.

[Kaptin Keen]

So... basically players die when you feel like it.

He's clearly saying the opposite.

[Actana]

While games might say that the GM is allowed to fudge, in practice when discovered it erodes confidence in the systems used, reduces the legitimacy of the GM and normalizes arbitrary practices from the GM, which leads to unsatisfying resolutions for the players. Fudging means that the dice don't matter; only what the GM wants matters. Why roll dice if the outcome is going to be changed to what the GM wants?

If undiscovered it's just a case of railroading and tricking players into thinking their contributions (or failures) matter. Which is hardly good either.

Yet sometimes, fudging is a necessity. It's among the worst solutions to any given problem, but it is a solution when all else fails. Whenever fudging happens, a retrospective analysis should be performed. Why were the dice fudged, what could have been done to not fudge them? Is there a specific mechanic that could prevent fudging? And go from there to use a system and houserules where fudging isn't necessary.

In the end, if fudging is commonplace, it's typically either a sign that the GM is entirely arbitrary or that the system played is unsatisfactory for what the GM wants. Neither are good, but the latter can be worked on. The former, on the other hand, is just a bunch of red flags.

[hymer]

So... basically players die when you feel like it.

He's clearly saying the opposite.
Here's what I think he's saying:

1: A PC is mechanically going to live, and the GM feels it should live - it lives.
2: A PC is mechanically going to live, and the GM feels it should die - it lives.
3: A PC is mechanically going to die, and the GM feels it should live - it lives.
4: A PC is mechanicallt going to die, and the GM feels it should die - it dies.

Only die + die results in death.

[Aneurin]

1) fudges attack/damage to save a player

I will do this every, single time. Letting your players die is never a good thing, regardless of how tempting it may occasionally be to let it happen. Letting their characters die is acceptable; letting the players die really, really isn't (and will likely result in police visits). Though, personally, I suspect calling an ambulance is a better way to save someone than throwing dice at them - could just be me, though.



Anyway. I don't have a particular problem with fudging die. I don't do it personally, and doubt I will because that suits my group's play style and chosen system much better, but for other groups and other play styles I don't see that it's a problem in and of itself - it lends itself well to a game where the PCs are expected to succeed, or a strongly narrative game.

[Kaptin Keen]

Here's what I think he's saying:

1: A PC is mechanically going to live, and the GM feels it should live - it lives.
2: A PC is mechanically going to live, and the GM feels it should die - it lives.
3: A PC is mechanically going to die, and the GM feels it should live - it lives.
4: A PC is mechanicallt going to die, and the GM feels it should die - it dies.

Only die + die results in death.

I think it can be paraphrased as: If you go out of your way to tempt fate - then fate will have her way with you. Good luck.

[Minty]

I take issue with the notion that fudging is somehow "cheating". I don't really think cheating is even possible in a true roleplaying game (maybe stuff like declaring actions and motivations for another player's character, although I'm not sure I'd consider even that a gamist thing like cheating - more likely just rudeness), because the rules are only there as guidelines to facilitate conflict resolution; they aren't the game itself. It's not like chess where someone sneaks a piece off the board or moves a pawn backwards or something. That matters in chess. I don't think it matters in roleplaying, since the fundamental point of the game is storytelling and not achieving a mechanically-defined victory condition.

[hymer]

I take issue with the notion that fudging is somehow "cheating". I don't really think cheating is even possible in a true roleplaying game (maybe stuff like declaring actions and motivations for another player's character, although I'm not sure I'd consider even that a gamist thing like cheating - more likely just rudeness), because the rules are only there as guidelines to facilitate conflict resolution; they aren't the game itself. It's not like chess where someone sneaks a piece off the board or moves a pawn backwards or something. That matters in chess. I don't think it matters in roleplaying, since the fundamental point of the game is storytelling and not achieving a mechanically-defined victory condition.
That depends on the rules. If the rules say you can fudge (and just who is that - because DMs and players fudging will often have very different implications), then it obviously isn't cheating according to those rules. But if they don't...
There's some middle ground, obviously, and what the table agrees on is going to be the most important part.

[Minty]

That depends on the rules. If the rules say you can fudge (and just who is that - because DMs and players fudging will often have very different implications), then it obviously isn't cheating according to those rules. But if they don't...

I tend to be of the opinion that the only good systems are ones where the rules are no more than tools and guidelines for conflict resolution, not absolute restrictions on what you may or may not do.

If a player fudges occasionally (and there have been times when my group has been aware of players doing this), I don't really see that as a big deal, since we aren't playing chess and nobody is "winning" mechanically. If a player is constantly fudging so that their character never fails at anything, then that's an issue that needs to be addressed with the player, not the system.

[Tanarii]

So... basically players die when you feel like it.


He's clearly saying the opposite.
Not at all. It was pretty clearly: PCs only die if I feel like it, for reasons.

[Kyrell1978]

So... basically players die when you feel like it.


He's clearly saying the opposite.


Not at all. It was pretty clearly: PCs only die if I feel like it, for reasons.


Firstly, I have never in my life "felt like" killing off a player. The vast majority of the times that I have fudged dice rolls have been to save players lives due to them rolling poorly and my belief that a dice roll should not end a well role-played, well though out character that the individual is having fun playing. Sometimes I have fudged hp and dice rolls for the bad guys as well to create dramatic tension (i.e. some fights should be hard, even if the PCs optimize they should feel in danger, it's part of what makes it fun to win). I believe that character death should be reserved for stupid actions such as "I'm first level and attack the ancient red dragon" (perhaps my sarcasm was misinterpreted last time but I doubt it). If you take issue with that or consider it cheating, that's fantastic, don't play at my table. But it's really hard to "cheat" at a game where it says that the DM (me in this case) is the final arbiter in all cases.

[zlefin]

I'm generally against fudging rolls, but haven't had a lot of empirical testing on what I'd actually do. It ofc depends in part on table standards/expectations, hopefully we've talked about fudging rules beforehand.

Fudging to save a player I'd consider at least, depending on how random the roll is and how appropriate a death it is (and how the player would take to char death).
But if the reason the players at risk is because I made a miscalculation as a DM on how dangerous something is, I'd be far more inclined to.

I don't think I'd fudge to save a villian; I'd rather just let hte villian die and rework the plot.

ofc one of the far trickier cases is when it's not clear whether or not you'd even be fudging, because there's some ambiguity in the rules/situation so it's not even clear what the result should be, and you could reasonably rule in multiple ways.

[Kyrell1978]

Here's what I think he's saying:

1: A PC is mechanically going to live, and the GM feels it should live - it lives.
2: A PC is mechanically going to live, and the GM feels it should die - it lives.
3: A PC is mechanically going to die, and the GM feels it should live - it lives.
4: A PC is mechanicallt going to die, and the GM feels it should die - it dies.

Only die + die results in death.


I think it can be paraphrased as: If you go out of your way to tempt fate - then fate will have her way with you. Good luck.
Pretty much exactly this.

[Xuc Xac]

I have a simple rule :
"If you don't want a random result, don't roll the dice."

I don't see the point in rolling the dice then ignoring the results, especially if there are only two possible results like "pass/fail" skill checks.

[Keltest]

I have a simple rule :
"If you don't want a random result, don't roll the dice."

I don't see the point in rolling the dice then ignoring the results, especially if there are only two possible results like "pass/fail" skill checks.

from a DM perspective, it can help cut down on metagaming. The go to example would be perception checks of various flavors. If you only roll dice when something is there, players will pick up on that and adjust their behavior accordingly. If you roll even when there isn't anything to detect, then players will learn to ignore the sounds of dice from behind your screen.

[Yuki Akuma]

When I GM I sometimes just fudge things openly. Like, if I roll a critical hit against the same guy three times in a row (this happened) I will just say 'no, screw that' and turn the die over to a 10 or something. I also generally only play monsters tactically if they're meant to be smart - like, a Mind Flayer will go for the squishies in the back but most orcs will pile on the big guy in armour.

Generally though I usually stick to the rules - erring slightly to the side of 'make the PCs awesome'.

[Thrudd]

from a DM perspective, it can help cut down on metagaming. The go to example would be perception checks of various flavors. If you only roll dice when something is there, players will pick up on that and adjust their behavior accordingly. If you roll even when there isn't anything to detect, then players will learn to ignore the sounds of dice from behind your screen.

That's not the same thing as ignoring or changing the results of the dice. That is rolling dice to make noise, there was never anything you were rolling for- you aren't actually checking their perception all those times, you're just fidgeting to keep them on their toes. But when there is actually a chance to find something and you roll the dice, you keep the result- if you were going to have them find the hidden thing no matter what, you wouldn't have to roll at all. If perception is always a matter of GM fiat, and you choose what they see or don't see based on how you want the story to go, then you never need to roll anything, or to pretend that you're rolling anything. But if the game has rules that say the characters might notice things with die rolls, and you aren't using those rules, the players might question why.

[Keltest]

That's not the same thing as ignoring or changing the results of the dice. That is rolling dice to make noise, there was never anything you were rolling for- you aren't actually checking their perception all those times, you're just fidgeting to keep them on their toes. But when there is actually a chance to find something and you roll the dice, you keep the result- if you were going to have them find the hidden thing no matter what, you wouldn't have to roll at all. If perception is always a matter of GM fiat, and you choose what they see or don't see based on how you want the story to go, then you never need to roll anything, or to pretend that you're rolling anything. But if the game has rules that say the characters might notice things with die rolls, and you aren't using those rules, the players might question why.

I fail to see the difference between "im rolling the dice for the sake of rolling dice, they don't actually have meaning" and "I already know the outcome I want, and I will ignore the dice if they don't agree with me."

[Kyrell1978]

I fail to see the difference between "im rolling the dice for the sake of rolling dice, they don't actually have meaning" and "I already know the outcome I want, and I will ignore the dice if they don't agree with me."
There is certainly a difference in making the players ignore the DM rolls and the changing of the number on the die and I think Thrudd pointed all of that out fairly well. What I'm confused about is why we are all getting bogged down on skill checks in general and perception checks in particular when the question was originally about life or death situations.

In particular what are your thoughts on the following situations:
1) fudges attack/damage to save a player
2) fudging hit points or something similar to save a villain or enemy

[Keltest]

There is certainly a difference in making the players ignore the DM rolls and the changing of the number on the die and I think Thrudd pointed all of that out fairly well. What I'm confused about is why we are all getting bogged down on skill checks in general and perception checks in particular when the question was originally about life or death situations.

Obviously I disagree, since I specifically said as much. :smallannoyed:

[Thrudd]

I fail to see the difference between "im rolling the dice for the sake of rolling dice, they don't actually have meaning" and "I already know the outcome I want, and I will ignore the dice if they don't agree with me."

It is a difference of intent on the part of the GM, and a matter of integrity.

One is an attempt to mitigate metagaming on the part of the players, because rolling dice matter and sometimes the act of doing so gives information to the players they shouldn't have. The implication is that sometimes you are rolling the dice for a reason, and you don't want the players to know when that is. You decide before the dice are rolled that it is going to be a "real" roll, and you accept the result (because there is actually a reason at that point in the game for dice to be rolled).

The other is a completely pointless exercise, because there was never any reason to roll the dice. You don't need to fool the players with false die rolls, because every die roll is a false die roll if you already know the outcome. You can just tell them what happens. Why would you decide "this is the real perception check", roll the dice, when you have decided that you want them to pass the perception check no matter what?

I don't particularly agree that doing fake die rolls behind the screen to stop metagaming of perception checks is good or necessary, but it is understandable in a certain game environment. Rolling to see what happens even though you have decided to ignore the dice is not understandable. It makes no sense - is there some strange force compelling you to roll dice when you don't want to?

The only time I can see this as understandable in some way is if there is a range of possible results, and there is only one result out of many you don't want to accept. In this case, just take that result off the table - like you will accept all the wandering monsters except the 00 result of a wandering adult green dragon on a level three dungeon. The best thing to do is just change that 00 to something you're willing to accept, but maybe you're using a module and you didn't notice that beforehand- so you just roll it again or choose to use the next result down the list.

But making a pass/fail type check (like perception), there's no reason to roll if you don't want a chance of either outcome. What's the rationale for rolling if you will only accept one result?

[LudicSavant]

Here's what I think he's saying:

1: A PC is mechanically going to live, and the GM feels it should live - it lives.
2: A PC is mechanically going to live, and the GM feels it should die - it lives.
3: A PC is mechanically going to die, and the GM feels it should live - it lives.
4: A PC is mechanicallt going to die, and the GM feels it should die - it dies.

Only die + die results in death.

Pretty much exactly this.

This logic table makes the statement "players can only die if the DM feels like it" return true, because there are no situations where the players die where the DM doesn't also feel like it. So if this is, as you say, pretty much exactly what you meant, that would make Tanarii and Koo Rehtorb's statements entirely accurate.

:vaarsuvius:

[Nifft]

This logic table makes the statement "players can only die if the GM feels like it" return true

Yet it applies a very different connotation, which means that whatever mathematical truth you've brute-forced into the conversation is irrelevant since you've lost the other poster's meaning.

[LudicSavant]

Yet it applies a very different connotation, which means that whatever mathematical truth you've brute-forced into the conversation is irrelevant since you've lost the other poster's meaning.

I have no idea what in the Nine Hells you're talking about.

The poster has very clearly stated that their meaning is that PCs only die when they would both mechanically die, and he feels like it. That meaning wasn't lost, it was repeatedly explicitly stated, and clarified.

[Kyrell1978]

This logic table makes the statement "players can only die if the GM feels like it" return true.

"feels like it" and "thinks that it is a sound reason" are two separate things. The table should really read "thinks it is an acceptable reason to die" to be accurate, but I wasn't trying to quibble. That was summed up well by the quote that followed concerning tempting fate and whatnot.

[Nifft]

{Scrubbed}

[LudicSavant]

"feels like it" and "thinks that it is a sound reason" are two separate things. The table should really read "thinks it is an acceptable reason to die" to be accurate, but I wasn't trying to quibble. That was summed up well by the quote that followed concerning tempting fate and whatnot.

Depends which definition you're using.

"Feels like it" can mean "is your opinion, for any reason." Which may be the source of the miscommunication you guys seem to be experiencing.

[Black Jester]

I think that changing the outcome of the dice results feels very patronizing in a "I definitively know best" kind of way. This is not a character trait I like to cultivate for myself, so I almost always roll in the open and keep the results as they are. Because even though I am the best (and most modest) gamemaster you could ever realistically hope to play with, I shockingly don't always know what the best outcome is.
I am not particularly offended if other gamemasters cheat, though. I don't particularly like it, but it is not that big of a deal for me.

[Kyrell1978]

Depends which definition you're using.

"Feels like it" can mean "is your opinion, for any reason." Which may be the source of the miscommunication you guys seem to be experiencing.

I'm not having a miscommunication with anyone really. Tanarii thinks I'm a cheater and I think that statement is laughable in a game where I am (as the DM) the arbiter of all rules. Everyone is more than welcome to their own opinion on the matter.

[Nifft]

Depends which definition you're using.

"Feels like it" can mean "is your opinion, for any reason." Which may be the source of the miscommunication you guys seem to be experiencing.

Actually it means "to have an urge or desire" (for an action or object), or "to have a desire or inclination", all which are irrational motivations.

The issue which you're failing to understand is that you're trying to imply that the basis for the action was irrational, when there may be perfectly well-thought-out motivations.

Here are some places you might feel like visiting, if you feel like correcting your misunderstanding about what "feels like" means:
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/feel+like
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/feel-like
http://www.yourdictionary.com/feel-like

[Kyrell1978]

Actually it means "to have an urge or desire" (for an action or object), or "to have a desire or inclination", all which are irrational motivations.

The issue which you're failing to understand is that you're trying to imply that the basis for the action was irrational, when there may be perfectly well-thought-out motivations.

Here are some places you might feel like visiting, if you feel like correcting your misunderstanding about what "feels like" means:
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/feel+like
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/feel-like
http://www.yourdictionary.com/feel-like

This, on the other hand, is awesome.

[LudicSavant]

Actually it means "to have an urge or desire" (for an action or object), or "to have a desire or inclination", all which are irrational motivations.

The issue which you're failing to understand is that you're trying to imply that the basis for the action was irrational, when there may be perfectly well-thought-out motivations.

Here are some places you might feel like visiting, if you feel like correcting your misunderstanding about what "feels like" means:
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/feel+like
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/feel-like
http://www.yourdictionary.com/feel-like

:smallsigh:


feel
fēl/
verb

3. hold an opinion.
"I felt I could make a useful contribution"
synonyms: think, consider (it right), be of the opinion, hold, maintain, judge

[Nifft]

{Scrubbed}

[Kyrell1978]

:smallsigh:

I believe Nifft's point was that the term "feels like it" is a commonly used idiom that fits the definition that he provided much better than the definition of the verb to feel.

[LudicSavant]

I believe Nifft's point was that the term "feels like it" is a commonly used idiom that fits the definition that he provided much better than the definition of the verb to feel.


The table should really read "thinks it is an acceptable reason to die" to be accurate, but I wasn't trying to quibble. That was summed up well by the quote that followed concerning tempting fate and whatnot.

Okay, first of all, the table you reference here actually reads:


A PC is mechanically going to die, and the GM feels it should die - it dies.

The word like is not in there, and we have already clarified that "feels it" can mean "holds the opinion that." But even if the world like was in there...

Niffft is mistaken on several levels. The first is that the phrase has more definitions than his post acknowledges, and the speaker is the one who chooses which definition they mean. The second is that even the idiom definition he is pointing to has a broader definition than he is claiming (because of the multiple definitions of desire and inclination). The third is that desires and inclinations don't necessarily have the implications that he claims they do. In fact, the idea that inclinations and desires are irrational is a misconception that is so frustrating to rationalists that they give public speeches and presentations on why it's a misconception. Fourth, he is building on this misconception to falsely claim that I am "trying to imply that the basis for the action was irrational." I am not. I am claiming that it is your opinion that a PC should die when you think that they ought to for the reasons that you stated.

Edit: Some of the posts I was addressing here got scrubbed, so it's no longer relevant

That said, I do not feel like further arguing semantics is productive. What would be productive is everyone understanding each other's concerns, and I suspect that Tanarii's concern is not about whether you "emotionally" felt like they should die or not. I think that Tanarii's concern is that case 2 of hymer's table robs him of the consequences of his mechanical failures.

[Ronnocius]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I am not going to pretend I am unbiased, I am vehemently against fudging. There were some specific posts I wanted to respond to.


I'm not having a miscommunication with anyone really. Tanarii thinks I'm a cheater and I think that statement is laughable in a game where I am (as the DM) the arbiter of all rules. Everyone is more than welcome to their own opinion on the matter.

This is where I take issues. I really hope your players are aware you are fudging rolls. I do not really understand the point about the DM being 'arbiter of the rules'. Just because you are the arbiter of the rules doesn't mean the rules do not apply to you. Is there a rule that everyone at your table is aware of where the DM is allowed to change the result of any die roll if they so choose?


The only time I can see this as understandable in some way is if there is a range of possible results, and there is only one result out of many you don't want to accept. In this case, just take that result off the table - like you will accept all the wandering monsters except the 00 result of a wandering adult green dragon on a level three dungeon. The best thing to do is just change that 00 to something you're willing to accept, but maybe you're using a module and you didn't notice that beforehand- so you just roll it again or choose to use the next result down the list.

I am perfectly fine with fudging rolls in cases such as these, or picking a random encounter rather than rolling. I am leaning towards the second, because if I do roll I would be fine with any outcome. Also in agreement with most of the other points you make in your post.

[Nifft]

I do not really understand the point about the DM being 'arbiter of the rules'. Just because you are the arbiter of the rules doesn't mean the rules do not apply to you. Is there a rule that everyone at your table is aware of where the DM is allowed to change the result of any die roll if they so choose?

In most editions of D&D, the player rolls when the DM calls for a roll.

Rolls and checks and other dice-related activities don't even happen without the DM first giving explicit permission.

Instead of calling for a roll, the DM can declare that any activity simply succeeds or fails -- in fact this is how ye olde schoole D&D handled "skill check" situations, and from memory we usually just got to do the thing we wanted to do because we were a Fighting Man and thus we were awesome.


Furthermore, the DM isn't merely the arbiter of the rules: the DM also is the arbiter of the world. If you try to hide behind a curtain, the DM can just flat-out fail that -- perhaps because the curtain was an illusion effect and the person you're trying to hide from can see through her own illusions, or perhaps because the person you're trying to hide from has Tremorsense and curtains just ain't gonna hide you. Or it might be that the curtains are sufficiently transparent that your silhouette would be visible. Or, the DM could just flat-out grant success: maybe the curtain is thick velvet and hiding is particularly easy, and the person you're hiding from isn't particularly paying attention to her surroundings.


DMs are not bound by any rules. Players also aren't bound by rules, since a player can ask to perform an action for which there are no rules. The game's rules exist to help set expectations, and thus serve as a foundation for the conversation through which the group plays together. There's no correct balance of power between the DM and players -- the DM has most of the power, period. There is no fair way to handle a conflict or competition between the DM and players, since the DM would always win.

It sounds like you've had bad experiences with DMs abusing authority in some way or another, but trying to bind your DM to the rules won't actually help you win against any DM, since the DM can arbitrarily alter the world and then "legally by-the-rules" railroad you, which will be equally un-fun for you.

The only viable solution is to play with a DM you trust, preferably in a group with people you like.

[Tanarii]

The only viable solution is to play with a DM you trust,
Which is a DM that doesn't cheat the dice.

[Nifft]

Which is a DM that doesn't cheat the dice.

What if the DM rolls behind the screen, but never intended to use the roll to determine the result?

That would deny the players meta-game information, but would be exactly as fair as not rolling in the first place.

So, are you interested in fairness, or do you want to try to force meta-game information from the DM?

[Psikerlord]

I think if you're playing the kind of game where PCs shouldn't randomly die due to bad dice rolls or unexpectedly lethal encounters, then you should probably be playing the kind of system where fudging dice rolls isn't necessary to keep the PCs alive.

I 100% agree. Choose a system that suits your style and you wont feel like you have to fudge.

[Thrudd]

The issue is when does GM ruling come into play. Some people say -Always. The default is that the GM decides what happens, and the rules and dice provide suggestions that they may or may not accept. The players can't use the rules as a reliable guide to know how things will work out, they need to know the GM and the GM's perception of what is going on. Even though my character only has 4 HP, and by the book almost any attack of any kind could kill them, I know my GM wants us to be daring and heroic, and they won't let our characters die unless there's some kind of dramatic reason for it - so I swing from chandeliers and don't hesitate to fight when bad guys clearly meant to be inferior henchmen appear. Of course, since the criteria for what is appropriate or not are completely in the GM's head, I can never be totally sure in any given situation whether the rules are going to be applied to me or not.

Others say the GM makes rulings only when the rules don't cover something or are unclear about what should happen. When there are clear rules and mechanical resolution methods, the rules and mechanics decide what happens. It's stepping over the line for the GM to impose decisions in areas where the rules clearly apply. This allows players to make decent predictions about how things will work based on the rules. They can deduce what the characters' reality is like from the model created by the rules. If my character has 4 HP and any sort of attack or weapon can potentially do enough damage to kill the character, then I know I need to be really careful. I can't be reckless with the character and I want them to avoid dangerous situations as much as possible.

Whether the GM's decisions have an emotional component or not is irrelevant. Whatever criteria the GM is using to make their rulings, they are internal to the GM and essentially unpredictable to everyone else. If the criteria by which rulings were made were objective and available for everyone to see, you'd call that "rules being followed", and what the GM decided would never really be in question. "Rule of cool", "dramatic tension", "narrative flow" "does the player deserve to lose their character" are all subjective things which the players can't really predict.

I might have thought I was being epically heroic and cool, charging up to the dragon - since charging up to bad guys heroically has been a thing I have been doing and getting away with successfully throughout the game up until now against orcs and bandits and spiders. But the GM thinks I ought to know the dragon is way too strong for me - even though technically, so was the gang of orcs we killed earlier. In fact, he probably saved my character by fudging rolls or making the orcs choose different targets, because five orcs would have killed me, too, with a few decent hits from their axes. But they were mooks and meant to be killed, so I was successful. But now its a dragon, an enemy I'm not supposed to be able to kill yet, and I should know better, and my character gets eaten for foolhardy behavior.

[Psikerlord]

I do both as a DM frequently. In my opinion my job as a DM is to provide dramatic tension for my players. They are the stars, but that doesn't mean that everything should be easy. It also doesn't mean that they can't die, but they probably shouldn't die just because of a bad roll. I save those player deaths for when they do something pretty stupid like insult the Unholy Knight of Killing Players who Insulted Him or some such. I do not ever do this as a player, and expect the same from my players. It is just a tool for story.

That might be your job in some systems, or at some tables, but not all.

I prefer my GM as an neutral arbiter. Not a fan of the PCs, nor the monsters. All combat dice in the open, the chips fall where they may. Random tables that help the GM decide how things unfold (including random encounters). The only story I care about is emergent story - as a result of what happens at the table that session. I am not interested in pre-plotted stories at all, which includes all 1-20 adventure paths.

A critical enabler of #NoFudging is having a formal, transparent party retreat rule in place, so that the players know they can escape very bad situations, and the GM knows they don't have to "help" the party when things go south.

[Darth Ultron]

This is where I take issues. I really hope your players are aware you are fudging rolls. I do not really understand the point about the DM being 'arbiter of the rules'. Just because you are the arbiter of the rules doesn't mean the rules do not apply to you. Is there a rule that everyone at your table is aware of where the DM is allowed to change the result of any die roll if they so choose?

Well, if you 'arbitrate' the rules, then you can say whatever you want. And the rules don't apply to the DM in the same way they do to the players. For example, a player can't just say ''my character has a sword +1" , but a DM can create anything on a whim. The Dm can have any event they want to happen, happen. Players can only act out what a single character can do. And so on.

[LudicSavant]

Some forms of entertainment include deception as part of the fun. That said, there is an important difference between a magician who lets you know that they'll trick you, and a magician who doesn't.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't generally fudge rolls (by which I mean alter the actual result suggested by the dice). I have fudged HP, save DCs, and AC, but mainly to let people who are having a rotten dice day succeed or to speed things up (letting something die when it really had 1 HP and wasn't a threat anymore). And when I do, it's permanent for that creature (so if someone hit on a 11 instead of a 12, everybody will hit on an 11 from then on). I have made on-the-fly modifications to damage numbers (so it deals 3d6 instead of 5d6 or whatever), but that's usually when I misread the ability and it was way out of bounds for what I had intended.

The big thing I play with is tactics--I'll find an excuse for the creatures to do something unoptimal. Possibly suffer a morale failure and flee, get distracted by shinies, attack the tank instead of going for the squishies, not focus-fire a downed character, not use spells optimally, etc.

I rarely have to do any of this because my dice like my players more than they do me. When rolling for hostiles, I roll crap for saves and attacks. When rolling for allies, I roll like a boss. Oh, and I tend to forget abilities (especially complex ones) when trying to run a bunch of creatures + answer questions + keep the game going fast, so my games aren't the highest challenge ones.

I also tend to do morale checks (straight DC 10, no modifiers unless there's something special) at about 50% of the monsters remaining (or if a big boss is killed). Some things will fight to the death, but many will break and try to run.

[Jarawara]

The only viable solution is to play with a DM you trust


Which is a DM that doesn't cheat the dice.

Which is true for you, I'm sure. But I would not trust a DM that is unwilling to fudge the die roll.

------

Myself, I am willing to fudge die rolls. It's often just a case of me not being up to date with the latest editions so that I'm not good at balancing out a scenario - so I'll fudge the die roll to prevent a character from dying due to my negligence. If the players start acting stupid, and yes, that's my personal judgment there, then the protections come off and the dice will fall where they may. Spit on the king is not a death sentence... but those guards that are going all stabbity on your character can roll whatever crit they rightfully earn.

Another key point. I fudge dice rolls. I make that very clear at the beginning of the game. You will never have to "begin to suspect that I may be fudging", I will tell you before you join the group. That's one of those DM-player communication things that needs to be covered up front.

[Ronnocius]

In most editions of D&D, the player rolls when the DM calls for a roll.

Rolls and checks and other dice-related activities don't even happen without the DM first giving explicit permission.

Instead of calling for a roll, the DM can declare that any activity simply succeeds or fails -- in fact this is how ye olde schoole D&D handled "skill check" situations, and from memory we usually just got to do the thing we wanted to do because we were a Fighting Man and thus we were awesome.


Furthermore, the DM isn't merely the arbiter of the rules: the DM also is the arbiter of the world. If you try to hide behind a curtain, the DM can just flat-out fail that -- perhaps because the curtain was an illusion effect and the person you're trying to hide from can see through her own illusions, or perhaps because the person you're trying to hide from has Tremorsense and curtains just ain't gonna hide you. Or it might be that the curtains are sufficiently transparent that your silhouette would be visible. Or, the DM could just flat-out grant success: maybe the curtain is thick velvet and hiding is particularly easy, and the person you're hiding from isn't particularly paying attention to her surroundings.


DMs are not bound by any rules. Players also aren't bound by rules, since a player can ask to perform an action for which there are no rules. The game's rules exist to help set expectations, and thus serve as a foundation for the conversation through which the group plays together. There's no correct balance of power between the DM and players -- the DM has most of the power, period. There is no fair way to handle a conflict or competition between the DM and players, since the DM would always win.

It sounds like you've had bad experiences with DMs abusing authority in some way or another, but trying to bind your DM to the rules won't actually help you win against any DM, since the DM can arbitrarily alter the world and then "legally by-the-rules" railroad you, which will be equally un-fun for you.

The only viable solution is to play with a DM you trust, preferably in a group with people you like.

In my games (Dungeons & Dragons might not apply to every system) a Dungeon Master is generally supposed to abide by the same rules as player characters when running monsters or nonplayer characters. For example they still need to make attack and damage rolls (or take average damage), they have to use Armor Class and hit points, they have to make saving throws. If a DM can just say 'The goblin succeeds on a save' or 'The goblin hits you' after rolling a 1, it is cheating in my opinion and makes the game his own puppet show where he manipulates the results of everything. The same would apply if the DM fudges in favor of the players. For example if the DM wants the players to recruit a mercenary, but they fail their Persuasion check and he decides the mercenary joins them anyway just as if they succeeded on the check, why not just have the mercenary join the party and not even have them roll.
Just my 2 cents of course.

[Metahuman1]

It depends. Are you using critical fumble rules? If so, then no, no, it's never, ever ok to fudge it. You made the messy bed, now you have to sleep in the messy bed.



If your NOT using critical fumble rules, you can do it in small amounts.

[Kyrell1978]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I am not going to pretend I am unbiased, I am vehemently against fudging. There were some specific posts I wanted to respond to.

This is where I take issues. I really hope your players are aware you are fudging rolls. I do not really understand the point about the DM being 'arbiter of the rules'. Just because you are the arbiter of the rules doesn't mean the rules do not apply to you. Is there a rule that everyone at your table is aware of where the DM is allowed to change the result of any die roll if they so choose.

I am perfectly fine with fudging rolls in cases such as these, or picking a random encounter rather than rolling. I am leaning towards the second, because if I do roll I would be fine with any outcome. Also in agreement with most of the other points you make in your post.

You say that you are against fudging the rolls, then list specific cases in which you are fine with fudging the rolls. Of course my players know my DMing style. In fact, I talked to them tonight when we got together to play and we all had a bit of a laugh about this exact thread. I would never tell them the exact moment that the rules were bent, how often they were (because that would take away from the story), or any other such thing but they know, and accept that I am the decision maker in those cases.

That might be your job in some systems, or at some tables, but not all.
I prefer my GM as an neutral arbiter. Not a fan of the PCs, nor the monsters. All combat dice in the open, the chips fall where they may. Random tables that help the GM decide how things unfold (including random encounters). The only story I care about is emergent story - as a result of what happens at the table that session. I am not interested in pre-plotted stories at all, which includes all 1-20 adventure paths.
A critical enabler of #NoFudging is having a formal, transparent party retreat rule in place, so that the players know they can escape very bad situations, and the GM knows they don't have to "help" the party when things go south.
That's your preference, not "the right way." That's fine, don't play at my table and we're all good. Also in the 3.5 DMG on page 5 it states "Your primary role in the game is to present adventures in which the other players can role-play their characters." Then it goes on to tell you different ways to accomplish that goal. This sentiment is echoed in almost every game that I have ever played.


Well, if you 'arbitrate' the rules, then you can say whatever you want. And the rules don't apply to the DM in the same way they do to the players. For example, a player can't just say ''my character has a sword +1" , but a DM can create anything on a whim. The Dm can have any event they want to happen, happen. Players can only act out what a single character can do. And so on.

This is certainly correct. On page 18 of the 3.5 DMG it states "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 or another to keep people happy or keep things running smoothly. It's no fun losing a long-term character from getting run over by a cart. A good rule of thumb is that a character shouldn't die in a trivial way because of some fluke of the dice unless he or she was doing something really stupid at the time." It also addresses that you may not feel that is fair, but regardless it is okay. So, really I'm not sure why this is such a controversial topic. It's literally written into the rules of the game that the DM is allowed to change the course of the game and it specifically mentions this method of doing so. Again, this is echoed in nearly every game that I have ever played.

[Metahuman1]

This is certainly correct. On page 18 of the 3.5 DMG it states "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 or another to keep people happy or keep things running smoothly. It's no fun losing a long-term character from getting run over by a cart. A good rule of thumb is that a character shouldn't die in a trivial way because of some fluke of the dice unless he or she was doing something really stupid at the time." It also addresses that you may not feel that is fair, but regardless it is okay. So, really I'm not sure why this is such a controversial topic. It's literally written into the rules of the game that the DM is allowed to change the course of the game and it specifically mentions this method of doing so. Again, this is echoed in nearly every game that I have ever played.

Because most DM's in my and I'd expect a whole lot of other people on this threads experience here that first part, and ignore the "not trivially killing characters" part whole sale?

Have you ever had a character roll a search check, have it come up as a 2 on the dice and a +14 modifier and STILL have the mimic bite there head off, no save just die, cause it was a "Special" mimic according to the DM?

It's not fun. Particularly not when I spend better than an hour writing the required several pages of backstory for the DM to be in that game, and more building the character mechanically.

And then had to go do it all over again.

Just for the characters to go into this room were all the walls and floor and ceiling were Riverine, and then once we got in a group of water orcs who could breath under water naturally for some reason pulled a lever hidden behind a column and sealed the room and flooded it, killing the whole party.

[Kyrell1978]

Because most DM's in my and I'd expect a whole lot of other people on this threads experience here that first part, and ignore the "not trivially killing characters" part whole sale?

Have you ever had a character roll a search check, have it come up as a 2 on the dice and a +14 modifier and STILL have the mimic bite there head off, no save just die, cause it was a "Special" mimic according to the DM?

It's not fun. Particularly not when I spend better than an hour writing the required several pages of backstory for the DM to be in that game, and more building the character mechanically.

And then had to go do it all over again.

Just for the characters to go into this room were all the walls and floor and ceiling were Riverine, and then once we got in a group of water orcs who could breath under water naturally for some reason pulled a lever hidden behind a column and sealed the room and flooded it, killing the whole party.

If you read the whole thread then you would certainly know that these situations don't apply to what I am talking about. They wrote out a fairly accurate logic table (there was some quibbling over terminology) that describes the issue being discussed.

[Koo Rehtorb]

This is certainly correct. On page 18 of the 3.5 DMG it states "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 or another to keep people happy or keep things running smoothly. It's no fun losing a long-term character from getting run over by a cart. A good rule of thumb is that a character shouldn't die in a trivial way because of some fluke of the dice unless he or she was doing something really stupid at the time." It also addresses that you may not feel that is fair, but regardless it is okay. So, really I'm not sure why this is such a controversial topic. It's literally written into the rules of the game that the DM is allowed to change the course of the game and it specifically mentions this method of doing so. Again, this is echoed in nearly every game that I have ever played.

The fact that certain badly written games gave some bad advice at some point doesn't make it a good practice.

[Thrudd]

The fact that certain badly written games gave some bad advice at some point doesn't make it a good practice.

That's my position. Ever since 2e, writers have been giving bad advice about their own game. They started describing it differently, but never changed the game enough to match what they said it was about. A game where they need to include "ignore all the rules whenever you feel like it" in order to make it work has a real conceptual problem.

[Ronnocius]

Snip

Glad to hear your group is having fun with your approach. I do not play 3.5, but in 5th edition as far as I recall there is no mention of fudging rolls (again might be mistaken) which I find interesting. At any rate there is a lot more support for fudging rolls than I expected (the reason I made this thread was after one a different website someone asked for advice for a new DM and there was a response telling them to fudge rolls). I still do not believe in it, and am also curious why you will not save a character if they act in a way you perceive as stupid (e.g. fighting dragon at low level) but you are fine with it in other situations.

[oxybe]

i never fudge. i openly roll in my dice box and play 8t where it lands.

my last one shot ended in a tpk, probably the only one i could say was satisfying from a narrative standpoint, due to all the right pieces falling into place by happenstance.

had i held back and saved the PCs they would have saved the land, but in true ravenloft fashion they've now become it's blight by becoming the monster they were hunting.

if things are going wrong because I, the GM, seriously messed up i don't fudge. i apologize and ask the PCs if they're ok with a do-over. I'd rather be open and transparent in my GMing then get caught mucking things up behind the scenes and lose their trust.

[Kyrell1978]

The fact that certain badly written games gave some bad advice at some point doesn't make it a good practice.

AD&D 1st ed DMG pg. 7 Mentions twice tailoring rules and a campaign to personal tastes. Then warns of some of the dangers. Probably the least strong advocate of this but still mentioned.

AD&D 2nd ed DMG pg. 7. "The DM has primary responsibilit or the success of his campaign and he must take an active hand in guiding it......The DM's 'active hand' extends to even the rules." Again, it states some dangers and asks that one consider carefully.

Vampire the Masquerade pg. 60. "One of the biggest decisions a Storyteller ever makes is when she first decides to ignore the rules. This is completely legitimate, provided it's done for the right reasons and in the right way."

Aberrant pg. 272 referencing "cheating" for the bad guys "-you should cheat only if it would greatly improve the story." and for the good guys "Bear in mind that it's also okay to cheat for the players."

Pathfinder Core Rulebook pg. 402 "...sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in a situation where cheating might improve the game. We prefer to call this "fudging" rather than cheating, and while you should avoid it when you can, you are the law in your world, and you shouldn't feel bound by the dice."

Shadowrun 3rd ed. pg 252. "Sometimes, the gamemaster has to cheat to keep characters alive. If a player makes an unlucky roll or an NPC gets off a lucky shot, the character doesn't have to die. Instead, the gamemaster can fudge the dice roll to keep the character alive." It later says the same thing about NPCs.

Palladium Fantasy pg. 38 "When things go really bad, don't necessarily kill our heroes (although acts of stupidity or foolhardy bravery may lead to death)....." he goes on to give several ways to let the heroes out of dying.

Earthdawn pg 87 "At the end of the day death should have meaning. Earthdawn is a game about heroes. Tales are not generally told about how characters drown in a river-unless it was while saving the life of a child. The main characters in your game probably should not die at the hand of a random thug in an alley, but facing down a Horror that is threatening a village."

I could go on. The only games that I have in my collection that do not state specifically that the GM is allowed to fudge rules and/or rolls to allow characters to succeed are Cyberpunk and Top Secret, both of which are specifically designed to be extraordinarily lethal. Do you consider all of these others poorly written?


Glad to hear your group is having fun with your approach. I do not play 3.5, but in 5th edition as far as I recall there is no mention of fudging rolls (again might be mistaken) which I find interesting. At any rate there is a lot more support for fudging rolls than I expected (the reason I made this thread was after one a different website someone asked for advice for a new DM and there was a response telling them to fudge rolls). I still do not believe in it, and am also curious why you will not save a character if they act in a way you perceive as stupid (e.g. fighting dragon at low level) but you are fine with it in other situations.

There should be some stakes. I believe that characters should be able to die, just not for silly reasons. If the character is behaving in a manner in which it would make sense for them to suffer the consequence of death, then by all means let it happen. If the character is just unlucky, then we have some decisions to make.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Do you consider all of these others poorly written?

Yes. You're not contradicting me here. Though in fairness to them, all of those were written at a point in time when RPGs were still being figured out. The hobby has come a long way since then.

[Kyrell1978]

Yes. You're not contradicting me here. Though in fairness to them, all of those were written at a point in time when RPGs were still being figured out. The hobby has come a long way since then.

I know you left the extraordinarily vague "some" in your statement to give yourself an indefinite number of outs and I could find just as many games written in the last couple of years that stated the same thing. But have fun with your confirmation bias.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I know you left the extraordinarily vague "some" in your statement to give yourself an indefinite number of outs and I could find just as many games written in the last couple of years that stated the same thing. But have fun with your confirmation bias.

What do you want from me? You literally posted a list of games that I'd never touch (again, in some cases) in a million years. I personally dislike 7/8 of those games.

[ZenAmakiir]

Yes. You're not contradicting me here. Though in fairness to them, all of those were written at a point in time when RPGs were still being figured out. The hobby has come a long way since then.
How long have they been figured out/were being figured out? Pathfinder was released in 2009, d20 Star Wars has a similar rule (pg. 253), and was released in 2002. Starfinder (pg. 392) is copyrighted 2017, D&D 5e (pg. 237 & 237) in 2014...

What do you want from me? You literally posted a list of games that I'd never touch (again, in some cases) in a million years.
The case against your argument has several sources, but you have provided no explanations to what you consider a well written game. You’ve used poorly written games as an “out”, without explaining why you consider them so, and games released in 2017 don’t exactly fit the “... in a time when RPGs were still being figured out.” A list of games you play, and a well thought out explanation would alleviate the need for “... a list of games I’d never touch...”

[Metahuman1]

How long have they been figured out/were being figured out? Pathfinder was released in 2009, d20 Star Wars has a similar rule (pg. 253), and was released in 2002. Starfinder (pg. 392) is copyrighted 2017, D&D 5e (pg. 237 & 237) in 2014...

The case against your argument has several sources, but you have provided no explanations to what you consider a well written game. You’ve used poorly written games as an “out”, without explaining why you consider them so, and games released in 2017 don’t exactly fit the “... in a time when RPGs were still being figured out.” A list of games you play, and a well thought out explanation would alleviate the need for “... a list of games I’d never touch...”

I don't seem to recall Fudging being all that encouraged in FATE or Mutants and Masterminds 3rd edition or in more recent Shadow Run Editions, though I'll grant my familiarity with the latter one is fairly limited.


Beyond that, I do so love how the people that want to encouraged rampant fudging always come across as having the same confirmation bias they'll accuse everyone who disagrees with them of having.

Indeed, the camp outright dismisses the problem of "You've just given crap DM's carte blance (Or however it's spelled, never took French.) to be crap DM's with impunity.".




And again, remember, this is for someone that thinks a DM that know's what there doing CAN fudge rolls now and then. But it's a tool to be used in VERY small doses and not maliciously, and as a tool, it has serious limits. Incompatibility with certain other things that were either popular or outright encouraged in a lot of those older games like AD&D for examples. Like, as I've already mentioned, Critical Failure rules.

[Tanarii]

What if the DM rolls behind the screen, but never intended to use the roll to determine the result?I won't play with a DM like that. There's no reason to do that. Edit: to be clear "that" is "insists on rolling behind a screen". Roll in the open.


That would deny the players meta-game information, but would be exactly as fair as not rolling in the first place.

So, are you interested in fairness, or do you want to try to force meta-game information from the DM?Meta-game information isn't a problem unless it's a poorly designed game, or you make it a problem.

[ZenAmakiir]

I don't seem to recall Fudging being all that encouraged in FATE or Mutants and Masterminds 3rd edition or in more recent Shadow Run Editions, though I'll grant my familiarity with the latter one is fairly limited.


Beyond that, I do so love how the people that want to encouraged rampant fudging always come across as having the same confirmation bias they'll accuse everyone who disagrees with them of having.

Indeed, the camp outright dismisses the problem of "You've just given crap DM's carte blance (Or however it's spelled, never took French.) to be crap DM's with impunity.".




And again, remember, this is for someone that thinks a DM that know's what there doing CAN fudge rolls now and then. But it's a tool to be used in VERY small doses and not maliciously, and as a tool, it has serious limits. Incompatibility with certain other things that were either popular or outright encouraged in a lot of those older games like AD&D for examples. Like, as I've already mentioned, Critical Failure rules.

Thank you for providing games, I truly appreciate that. I am unfamiliar with FATE, or Mutants and Masterminds; however Shadowrun 5e does still allow DM die fudging (pg. 330). That being said, a greater number of games have a “DM can fudge” rule, and of the original two debating, one did not provide a single source, leading to the belief of confirmation bias to be justified, and for you last point “...in a lot of those older games...” is true, but new games also include those rules.

[Koo Rehtorb]

How long have they been figured out/were being figured out? Pathfinder was released in 2009, d20 Star Wars has a similar rule (pg. 253), and was released in 2002. Starfinder (pg. 392) is copyrighted 2017, D&D 5e (pg. 237 & 237) in 2014...

It's notable that these are all games heavily built off the old framework of previous problematic games. Pathfinder, for example, is just 3e with a fresh coat of paint to cover up all the rust.


The case against your argument has several sources, but you have provided no explanations to what you consider a well written game. You’ve used poorly written games as an “out”, without explaining why you consider them so, and games released in 2017 don’t exactly fit the “... in a time when RPGs were still being figured out.” A list of games you play, and a well thought out explanation would alleviate the need for “... a list of games I’d never touch...”

Apocalypse World (and many of the dozens of systems built off its framework). - "There are a million ways to GM games; Apocalypse World calls for one way in particular. This chapter is it. Follow these as rules. The whole rest of the game is built upon this." On every roll you roll 2d6+ your mod, 10+ is a success, 7-9 is a partial success, 6- is a failure and something bad happens. The GM does not roll dice. Ever.

Burning Wheel - Establish what the PC is trying to accomplish and then set a difficulty for it, based on the extensive list of difficulties for each skill in the book. Tell them the difficulty, and tell them what will happen if they fail. If they succeed then they get their intent, if they fail then they get the failure consequence previously established. No exceptions.

I could go on, but I don't particularly want to. The point is, well written games don't give vague advice to the GM and then tell them to go do whatever they feel like doing. Well written games give clear rules and expect you to follow them. Because if you're not playing by the rules then the game is meaningless and you might as well just sit down and listen to the GM tell you a story about what happens instead.

[Knaight]

How long have they been figured out/were being figured out? Pathfinder was released in 2009, d20 Star Wars has a similar rule (pg. 253), and was released in 2002. Starfinder (pg. 392) is copyrighted 2017, D&D 5e (pg. 237 & 237) in 2014...

These are all D&D family - mechanically what D&D currently looks like is usually a decent window into the state of RPGs 20 years ago, though that number is generally slowly growing and thus shrinks a bit when pulled back in time.

As for fudging, I'm generally not fond of it. A formalized forced reroll mechanic (often powered by the players) fills the same niche in a much less squishy way, and while I'm unusually comfortable with squishy rules by the standards of this forum that particular thing is one I like to have formalized.

That said, "fudging" is a broad term. Quietly pretending to follow the standard rules while ignoring them is a totally different case than realizing that the rules come to an unacceptable result and publicly ignoring them. I've got nothing against a GM saying something to the effect of "The rules say what happens? That's [preferred expletive] stupid. We're not doing that." I will however hold that against the system, provided that it's not some ridiculous niche thing in the system that has to be deliberately invoked by a user, a la drown-healing.

[Tanarii]

That said, "fudging" is a broad term. Quietly pretending to follow the standard rules while ignoring them is a totally different case than realizing that the rules come to an unacceptable result and publicly ignoring them. I've got nothing against a GM saying something to the effect of "The rules say what happens? That's [preferred expletive] stupid. We're not doing that." I will however hold that against the system, provided that it's not some ridiculous niche thing in the system that has to be deliberately invoked by a user, a la drown-healing.
The problem is GMs just love to say that about core rules that are there for a specific reason, and screwing up changing the entire game. (Edit: sometimes it's fine, a changed game is ultimately what more players want. But more often they don't even realize they are changing the fundamental nature of the game.)

For example, that's how D&D went from originally being a game primarily about exploration and survival and getting rich in the process, with time and logistical management mattering, and archery & casting being fairly balanced ... to none of that.
"XP for GP? That's unrealistic. Axe that rule."
"Wandering monsters? Waste of time. Only fixed place encounters that advance the story from now on."
"Screw this tracking arrows and weight business. That's just a pain."
"Why should archers be penalized for firing into melee?"
"Why should casters have to waste all this time preparing, it's not like time even matters."
"Casting in melee is too hard. Casters should have fun too!"

[Pelle]

Should you fudge your rolls?

You should ask your players what they prefer. Some of my players love that I roll in the open and tell them the DC in advance before they roll. I suspect at least one of my players would have liked me to be fudging instead, when his character that he was quite attached to was killed. IMO, fudging removes the tension from the game. In the same combat where this PC was killed, the BBEG rolled a 1 on his save to resist a confusion spell. If that had been rolled behind a screen, the players could never be 100% sure that I didn't give them the win without deserving it.

What is problematic about fudging, is doing it without telling the players, or worse, lying that you don't. The DM knows better, that's just patronizing. If you ask, I think most players would say that they don't want the DM to fudge. Then again, I suspect some players will be the most happy if the DM is fudging without them noticing... Is it ok to be decieving them if you think that is what they want?

[detritus]

I've routinely fudged rolls as a DM almost since my first stand alone module that warped into a long running campaign. If my NPCs or villains mess up or are low on health, they suffer the consequences, but if a player has had a series of appalling rolls and is clearly not having fun, yes I will fudge the damage I do to them. If a player does something stupid that they have been warned about (in-game) then I wont.
For me it's more about keeping the enjoyment going for all than being 100% rigid on dice rolls. That being said, at high level I'm much less likely to do so - they have enough healing and other resources to sort themselves out.

[Aneurin]

On page 18 of the 3.5 DMG it states "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 or another to keep people happy or keep things running smoothly. It's no fun losing a long-term character from getting run over by a cart. A good rule of thumb is that a character shouldn't die in a trivial way because of some fluke of the dice unless he or she was doing something really stupid at the time."

Speaking as someone who had a PC trampled to death by horses not two days ago, I have to disagree with this. It fit in very well with the game, and the unfortunate player whose character it happened to was quite happy with that outcome.

This, really, is the problem with encouraging fudging die in a rule set - it's hard to explain it well, and falls prey to some basic conceits. Such as, primarily, character survival = fun which is not always true; sometimes character death, pain and suffering make for a more enjoyable game (if you can't fail, where's the pleasure in succeeding?)... but, then, sometimes it is true. This advice should not be talking about anything relating to characters; it should be talking about player enjoyment. The player and their feelings matters; the characters do not, they are fictional constructs and everything about them, and what happens to them, exists solely


The quote above is a particularly stupid example to use since if the GM doesn't want a PC to die from being run over by a cart, it should never have been possible to die by being run over by a cart. Either there should have been no sequence of events in which the PC ends up going under the cart's wheels, there should never have been any rolls, or, ultimately, the cart should not have been capable of killing a PC in the first place if you wish to have (painful) consequences but not death.

This is why I don't fudge rolls; a universally undesirable outcome should never have been possible in the first place. If failure isn't possible, then there's no reason to be making a test.

The better solution to fudging is fail-forward rolls. You fail the test, but instead of failing the action you succeed, but with consequences. Your climbing a sheer cliff, pursued by your enemies, and your fail your Athletics test to climb further? Rather than plunge to your death, you just slip a dozen feet and take all the skin off your hands. Or maybe you break your ascender or pull your safety rope loose, and your next tests will be that much harder.

Trying to dodge getting run over by a lorry? Okay, you make it, but instead of making it to perfect safety you collide with a little old lady on the pavement who starts screaming about thieves and murderers. Or you nut yourself on a lamppost.

[Psikerlord]

Yes. You're not contradicting me here. Though in fairness to them, all of those were written at a point in time when RPGs were still being figured out. The hobby has come a long way since then.

I agree. Any advice promoting fudging dice is bad advice, no matter the good intentions. It's simply detrimental to long term play for short term gain. No genuine risk, no fun. If you absolutely feel you must fudge (and with a decent party retreat rule, there's no need) you can do it other ways than dice fudging.

[Psikerlord]

Should you fudge your rolls?

You should ask your players what they prefer. Some of my players love that I roll in the open and tell them the DC in advance before they roll. I suspect at least one of my players would have liked me to be fudging instead, when his character that he was quite attached to was killed. IMO, fudging removes the tension from the game. In the same combat where this PC was killed, the BBEG rolled a 1 on his save to resist a confusion spell. If that had been rolled behind a screen, the players could never be 100% sure that I didn't give them the win without deserving it.

What is problematic about fudging, is doing it without telling the players, or worse, lying that you don't. The DM knows better, that's just patronizing. If you ask, I think most players would say that they don't want the DM to fudge. Then again, I suspect some players will be the most happy if the DM is fudging without them noticing... Is it ok to be decieving them if you think that is what they want?
No, players always know if you're fudging, because you're rolling behind a screen. Or they know that you are willing to fudge if necessary, which is equally bad.

There's simply no need to do that except to fudge. All combat dice in the open is to way to go.

[Pelle]

No, players always know if you're fudging, because you're rolling behind a screen. Or they know that you are willing to fudge if necessary, which is equally bad.

There's simply no need to do that except to fudge. All combat dice in the open is to way to go.

What if the players implicitly or explicitly wants the DM to have the possibility to fudge, likely with the expectation to save their characters?

Ethically, it doesn't really matter if the players know you are fudging if that's what they want, though I personally agree it makes for a worse game.

[Kyrell1978]

I don't seem to recall Fudging being all that encouraged in FATE or Mutants and Masterminds 3rd edition or in more recent Shadow Run Editions, though I'll grant my familiarity with the latter one is fairly limited. Beyond that, I do so love how the people that want to encouraged rampant fudging always come across as having the same confirmation bias they'll accuse everyone who disagrees with them of having.

That's funny since I actually listed the games that I could find that didn't support my argument as well. That doesn't really fit the confirmation bias "bill"

Also, Shadowrun 5e mentions it on pg 330 concerning character death specifically as well as twice on pg 348. Once concerning combat and not letting rules effect story and once concerning skills in an investigation scene where it literally says make everything the pcs do work. Mutants and Masterminds 3e pg 202-203 has several paragraphs on it. Fate not only has an entire mechanic called "succeed at a cost" which allow failed rolls to succeed, it also states that "intent takes precedence over mechanics" in its Golden Rule.

Again, I could go on for days with the games that have this embedded into their very rule sets. They are not all just knock off D&D clones despite whatever anyone may say. I don't care if you all fudge your dice or not, but to tell me I'm cheating when I'm doing it is fatuous.

[Pelle]

I don't care if you all fudge your dice or not, but to tell me I'm cheating when I'm doing it is fatuous.

What if a player told you he prefers that you don't fudge (to save his character etc), would you still do it? I think that would be what most opponents of fudging has a problem with. Not if players have consented to or requested it.

[Kyrell1978]

What if a player told you he prefers that you don't fudge (to save his character etc), would you still do it? I think that would be what most opponents of fudging has a problem with. Not if players have consented to or requested it.

It honestly depends on how the thing happened. I've let players die before. I've killed a player who asked me to kill him off before. If that same person is having fun in the game, has a well thought out and well role played character, and will never know whether or not the roll was fudged to let the character live (again you never tell the person which rolls were fudged as opposed to which were legitimate), there is no harm to that person or that character in keeping it alive. But ultimately, I'm honest about how I play, and I'm not going to change my style for one player. No one has ever been forced to sit down at my table and play under duress.

[Pelle]

It honestly depends on how the thing happened. I've let players die before. I've killed a player who asked me to kill him off before. If that same person is having fun in the game, has a well thought out and well role played character, and will never know whether or not the roll was fudged to let the character live (again you never tell the person which rolls were fudged as opposed to which were legitimate), there is no harm to that person or that character in keeping it alive. But ultimately, I'm honest about how I play, and I'm not going to change my style for one player. No one has ever been forced to sit down at my table and play under duress.

There can be harm to that person if you have promised not to do it, because then it's deceitful. But as long as you are open about it, I'm fine. If a player asks for no fudging, it's ok to say you wont accomodate that. IMO, it is not ok to agree to not fudge, yet still continue do it secretly, under the notion that the player doesn't know his best interest. That's the heart of the resistance to fudging, anyways.

[Keltest]

There can be harm to that person if you have promised not to do it, because then it's deceitful. But as long as you are open about it, I'm fine. If a player asks for no fudging, it's ok to say you wont accomodate that. IMO, it is not ok to agree to not fudge, yet still continue do it secretly, under the notion that the player doesn't know his best interest. That's the heart of the resistance to fudging, anyways.

In my view, the dice are there to facilitate the game, not the other way around. If they fail to serve that purpose for whatever reason, they should be ignored. The idea that players and especially the DM should be slaves to the whims of the dice is offensive to me. "oh, sorry, the dice rolled up a meteor shower on my random encounter table. Since none of you are high enough level to make your saves yet, I guess you all died. Sorry, I cant change it, the dice told me to do it." Hyperbolic, perhaps, but only slightly. Sometimes people trip into dumb circumstances they didn't foresee. The correct solution is to make it less dumb, not to suck it up and have your fun interrupted.

[Pelle]

In my view, the dice are there to facilitate the game, not the other way around. If they fail to serve that purpose for whatever reason, they should be ignored. The idea that players and especially the DM should be slaves to the whims of the dice is offensive to me. "oh, sorry, the dice rolled up a meteor shower on my random encounter table. Since none of you are high enough level to make your saves yet, I guess you all died. Sorry, I cant change it, the dice told me to do it." Hyperbolic, perhaps, but only slightly. Sometimes people trip into dumb circumstances they didn't foresee. The correct solution is to make it less dumb, not to suck it up and have your fun interrupted.

The problem is that you seem to be ignoring the wishes of the players by saying this. Why not be open about it, and check that the players are on board with it?

[Tanarii]

The idea that players and especially the DM should be slaves to the whims of the dice is offensive to me. "oh, sorry, the dice rolled up a meteor shower on my random encounter table. Since none of you are high enough level to make your saves yet, I guess you all died. Sorry, I cant change it, the dice told me to do it." Hyperbolic, perhaps, but only slightly.
If you choose to roll on that table in the first place, stick with the results.

If a game "forces" rolls on tables that the DM and Players find objectionable, house-rule them in advance, so everyone knows what is going on and has the same expectations.

If you change the dice after you've rolled and seen a result, you're changing expectations on the fly. Then you're not even telling them you've changed expectations and results. Theses no reason for players to trust you once they realize that's what you're doing.

It's really that simple.

Also, the most common use-case for fudging is to change hits into misses, crits into misses or normal hits, or damage rolls into not enough to kill a player.

[Kyrell1978]

The problem is that you seem to be ignoring the wishes of the players by saying this. Why not be open about it, and check that the players are on board with it?

This is how I run the game. It is supported in the rules of dozens of games if not hundreds, I could list like twenty or thirty more games or editions of games just in the ones that are on my bookshelf. If the player doesn't wish to play that way, they are more than free to go play somewhere else. They do not owe me a player and I do not owe them a game.


In my view, the dice are there to facilitate the game, not the other way around. If they fail to serve that purpose for whatever reason, they should be ignored. The idea that players and especially the DM should be slaves to the whims of the dice is offensive to me. "oh, sorry, the dice rolled up a meteor shower on my random encounter table. Since none of you are high enough level to make your saves yet, I guess you all died. Sorry, I cant change it, the dice told me to do it." Hyperbolic, perhaps, but only slightly. Sometimes people trip into dumb circumstances they didn't foresee. The correct solution is to make it less dumb, not to suck it up and have your fun interrupted.
Yep.

[Keltest]

If you choose to roll on that table in the first place, stick with the results.

If a game "forces" rolls on tables that the DM and Players find objectionable, house-rule them in advance, so everyone knows what is going on and has the same expectations.

If you change the dice after you've rolled and seen a result, you're changing expectations on the fly. Then you're not even telling them you've changed expectations and results. Theses no reason for players to trust you once they realize that's what you're doing.

It's really that simple.

Also, the most common use-case for fudging is to change hits into misses, crits into misses or normal hits, or damage rolls into not enough to kill a player.

Im sorry, they have no reason to trust me? To do what, continue to provide them with an enjoyable experience the same way ive been doing since the campaign started? This isn't a tournament between players on nominally equal footing, the DM and the players are doing entirely different things. If I roll on an encounter table and it gets me the one unusable result, im going to roll again until I get one that I can use. If after five or six rolls I still don't get one, im just going to pick an encounter and make a note to revise my encounter table. Im definitely not going to force the players to go up against this inappropriate encounter just because I didn't prepare adequately.

As I said, dice are a tool. If they aren't doing the job correctly, use a different tool. Using a screwdriver to drive a nail is needlessly frustrating and has more potential for things to go poorly even if you do manage to get the desired result in the end.

[Drascin]

Not only am I in favor, I expect my GMs to fudge occassionally and tend to consider "all rolls in the open!" absolutism a warning sign and kind of a red flag. I trust my GM's judgement for what would be a fun result a lot more than I trust some stupid plastic polihedrons.

[Kyrell1978]

Im sorry, they have no reason to trust me? To do what, continue to provide them with an enjoyable experience the same way ive been doing since the campaign started? This isn't a tournament between players on nominally equal footing, the DM and the players are doing entirely different things. If I roll on an encounter table and it gets me the one unusable result, im going to roll again until I get one that I can use. If after five or six rolls I still don't get one, im just going to pick an encounter and make a note to revise my encounter table. Im definitely not going to force the players to go up against this inappropriate encounter just because I didn't prepare adequately.

As I said, dice are a tool. If they aren't doing the job correctly, use a different tool. Using a screwdriver to drive a nail is needlessly frustrating and has more potential for things to go poorly even if you do manage to get the desired result in the end.
Agreed, with the caveat that I would just select one after the first role if it were not appropriate for two reasons. 1) It saves time and prevents the game from bogging down. 2) It still allows the suspension of disbelief of the player to think that the crazy inappropriate encounter was on the table and thus creates dramatic tension.


Not only am I in favor, I expect my GMs to fudge occassionally and tend to consider "all rolls in the open!" absolutism a warning sign. I trust my GM's judgement a lot more than I trust some stupid plastic polihedrons.

This is just awesome.

[Tanarii]

Im sorry, they have no reason to trust me? To do what, continue to provide them with an enjoyable experience the same way ive been doing since the campaign started? This isn't a tournament between players on nominally equal footing, the DM and the players are doing entirely different things. If I roll on an encounter table and it gets me the one unusable result, im going to roll again until I get one that I can use. If after five or six rolls I still don't get one, im just going to pick an encounter and make a note to revise my encounter table. Im definitely not going to force the players to go up against this inappropriate encounter just because I didn't prepare adequately.
Ah. I thought you meant a predesigned encounter table, not a homemade one. So your position is you made a gross mistake in the first place when designing something, didn't catch it until after the fact, and in that case / because of that you're fine with secretly fudging results?

Again,results on encounter tables, especially home made ones, is a fairly non-standard case for what people mean when they say "fudging".

[oxybe]

Not only am I in favor, I expect my GMs to fudge occassionally and tend to consider "all rolls in the open!" absolutism a warning sign and kind of a red flag. I trust my GM's judgement for what would be a fun result a lot more than I trust some stupid plastic polihedrons.

I trust my gm to make decisions when it matters. When ti leave things up to chance is one of them. If you're going to roll a dice/ask for one to be rolled that litterally means you are trusting the polyhedron over your own judgement in that situation. If you're going to go "nah, i don't like that result" anyways...

First off: why ask for a dice roll?
Second: why include results you don't want as part of the roll results?

If the gm is doubleguessing his own initial call to roll a dice to decide the outcome, why shouldn't I be doubleguessing his other calls?

[Keltest]

Ah. I thought you meant a predesigned encounter table, not a homemade one. So your position is you made a gross mistake in the first place when designing something, didn't catch it until after the fact, and in that case / because of that you're fine with secretly fudging results?

Again,results on encounter tables, especially home made ones, is a fairly non-standard case for what people mean when they say "fudging".

I mean, I would do it on a predesigned one too, if it had an encounter that was wildly incompatible with the situation. Poorly thought out tables are not exclusive to homebrew. But that's mostly where I fudge my rolls. Active mid-combat fudging is pretty much limited to breaking statistically improbable streaks of crits and fumbles, although I will adjust encounters on the fly if I grossly misjudged their strength.

Edit: to be clear, if I tell a player that a target needs X to hit, im not going to change that. That's not fair to the players. But I might give an enemy more HP, or reduce their damage dice if they aren't meeting the buildup.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The only time it's acceptable to fudge die rolls is if you've sat down with your players and said to them "Okay. I'm telling you here and now so it's all out in the open. Sometimes during this game I'm going to cheat." and if they're really okay with that then you have consent. I'd certainly leave immediately, and I wouldn't want to play with any of the players who were okay with it either. But if you somehow stumble into a group of people who are fine with it, then more power to you, I guess.

Cheating without telling them is actively a bad thing to be doing.

[Pelle]

This is how I run the game. It is supported in the rules of dozens of games if not hundreds, I could list like twenty or thirty more games or editions of games just in the ones that are on my bookshelf. If the player doesn't wish to play that way, they are more than free to go play somewhere else. They do not owe me a player and I do not owe them a game.


Again, this is fine. It is promising the players that you will not fudge, but still doing it because you think you know better than them what they want that is problematic. Which seems to be the position of many proponents of fudging.

Bring it up that you fudge in session zero, at the start of the session, combat, before or after rolling the die, and no problem. I still prefer open rolls for the tension, though.

[MrSandman]

Fate not only has an entire mechanic called "succeed at a cost" which allow failed rolls to succeed, it also states that "intent takes precedence over mechanics" in its Golden Rule.


Succeed at a cost is far from fudging rolls. It means that on a fail a character can still succeed but there'll be a minor or major cost involved. It is especially intended to let the story move forward when simply failing at something would stall it. But more importantly, it is to be decided in the open and negotiated between the game master and the player. It is not simply the game master deciding that something should happen, so it happens regardless of the dice roll. The dice roll still impacts the outcome of the action.

Let's look at the golden rule, here's what the srd (https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/what-do-during-play) states:

Decide what you’re trying to accomplish first, then consult the rules to help you do it.

Then it explains that this means that you shouldn't see the rules as the limit of what you can do, but rather as a tool for doing things. For this reason, you should first decide what you want to do, and then figure out how to do it by using the rules.

Even the silver rule, which is "never let the rules get in the way of what makes narrative sense" isn't an encouragement to fudge rolls. If you read the explanation, it is about using rules outside of their normal place to do things that make sense. But then again, it isn't about ignoring the rules but about using them. And it also tells you to make sure that everyone is alright with it.

So the idea is not: "forget about the rules if you think it makes sense," but rather "find ways to do what makes sense using the rules."

[Thrudd]

Succeed at a cost is far from fudging rolls. It means that on a fail a character can still succeed but there'll be a minor or major cost involved. It is especially intended to let the story move forward when simply failing at something would stall it. But more importantly, it is to be decided in the open and negotiated between the game master and the player. It is not simply the game master deciding that something should happen, so it happens regardless of the dice roll. The dice roll still impacts the outcome of the action.

Let's look at the golden rule, here's what the srd (https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/what-do-during-play) states:


Then it explains that this means that you shouldn't see the rules as the limit of what you can do, but rather as a tool for doing things. For this reason, you should first decide what you want to do, and then figure out how to do it by using the rules.

Even the silver rule, which is "never let the rules get in the way of what makes narrative sense" isn't an encouragement to fudge rolls. If you read the explanation, it is about using rules outside of their normal place to do things that make sense. But then again, it isn't about ignoring the rules but about using them. And it also tells you to make sure that everyone is alright with it.

So the idea is not: "forget about the rules if you think it makes sense," but rather "find ways to do what makes sense using the rules."

Exactly. If the goal of your game is simulating some sort of narrative, "what makes narrative sense", etc., then the game's rules should support that.

"ignore the rules when they don't do what you want" isn't a part of a game. It's a ploy by game designers/writers to trick you into continuing to use their game (or to say you are using their game) even though another product would be better for you.

The answer to rules/mechanics that don't give acceptable results is different rules.

Most game designers now like to say their games are about "telling stories", "collaborative story telling", "narratives" or something similar- but most of their games actually are not primarily focused on that and don't facilitate it well. They think the "ignore the rules to make it work" proviso is the solution to resolving the conflict between the environment the rules actually create and the environment they say the game is supposed to be portraying. This is just lazy, or delusional. Use the right tool for the job!

[BWR]

Exactly. If the goal of your game is simulating some sort of narrative, "what makes narrative sense", etc., then the game's rules should support that.

"ignore the rules when they don't do what you want" isn't a part of a game. It's a ploy by game designers/writers to trick you into continuing to use their game (or to say you are using their game) even though another product would be better for you.


...or it's an acknowledgement that no set of rules will fit any given group 100% of the time and no set of rules is 100% perfect.

[Kyrell1978]

Succeed at a cost is far from fudging rolls. It means that on a fail a character can still succeed but there'll be a minor or major cost involved. It is especially intended to let the story move forward when simply failing at something would stall it. But more importantly, it is to be decided in the open and negotiated between the game master and the player. It is not simply the game master deciding that something should happen, so it happens regardless of the dice roll. The dice roll still impacts the outcome of the action.

Let's look at the golden rule, here's what the srd (https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/what-do-during-play) states:


Then it explains that this means that you shouldn't see the rules as the limit of what you can do, but rather as a tool for doing things. For this reason, you should first decide what you want to do, and then figure out how to do it by using the rules.

Even the silver rule, which is "never let the rules get in the way of what makes narrative sense" isn't an encouragement to fudge rolls. If you read the explanation, it is about using rules outside of their normal place to do things that make sense. But then again, it isn't about ignoring the rules but about using them. And it also tells you to make sure that everyone is alright with it.

So the idea is not: "forget about the rules if you think it makes sense," but rather "find ways to do what makes sense using the rules."

"Far from" is a matter of opinion. It is a mechanic that allows for a failed roll to succeed which is, in essence, what all of the other games are saying. Don't let the dice have complete rule over the world with impunity.

Also, " In other words, don’t look at the rules as a straitjacket or a hard limit on an action. Instead, use them as a variety of potential tools to model whatever you’re trying to do. Your intent, whatever it is, always takes precedence over the mechanics." Is about half of the explanation given for the golden rule, yes it tries to get you to go to the mechanics first but this flat out says that the rules are just tools.

The silver rule amounts to the "rule of cool" used in many other systems which completely ignores the games normal mechanics ("Never let the rules get in the way of what makes narrative sense. if you or the players narrate something in the game and it makes sense to apply a certain rule outside of the normal circumstances where you would do so, go ahead and do it") as long as everyone is in agreement.

Just because you take the essence of a thing and reword it to make it slightly different, does not mean that the essence is changed. The game is saying (as most games do) that the rules are guidelines to help you, but are not set in stone, and only the absolute strictest reading of them (ignoring context) allows for the absolutist stance on them.

[Nifft]

Not only am I in favor, I expect my GMs to fudge occassionally and tend to consider "all rolls in the open!" absolutism a warning sign and kind of a red flag. I trust my GM's judgement for what would be a fun result a lot more than I trust some stupid plastic polihedrons.

One way to distinguish rolls which can be open vs. rolls which should be secret is to look at the difference between known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.

Known unknowns are stuff like: "The orc attacks. Does he hit?" -> roll in the open

Unknown unknowns are stuff like: "Do I hear anything behind the door?" -> roll behind screen


Mostly I prefer to roll the former in the open, but for the latter it seems significantly better to roll in secret.

[MrSandman]

"Far from" is a matter of opinion. It is a mechanic that allows for a failed roll to succeed which is, in essence, what all of the other games are saying. Don't let the dice have complete rule over the world with impunity.

Fudge: Player tries to gather information about stolen artifact. Rolls badly. Gets information. Dice roll is inconsequential and ignored.

Succeed at a cost: Player tries to gather information about stolen artifact. Rolls badly. Gets information but attracts shady guy's attention, whose thugs will duly show up next scene. Dice roll is important for the story's advancement and respected.

Spot the difference?


Also, " In other words, don’t look at the rules as a straitjacket or a hard limit on an action. Instead, use them as a variety of potential tools to model whatever you’re trying to do. Your intent, whatever it is, always takes precedence over the mechanics." Is about half of the explanation given for the golden rule, yes it tries to get you to go to the mechanics first but this flat out says that the rules are just tools.

It doesn't just "try to get you to go to the mechanics." It flatly tells you that going to the mechanics is the second step after you've figured out what you want to do. It never tells you to ignore them.


The silver rule amounts to the "rule of cool" used in many other systems which completely ignores the games normal mechanics ("Never let the rules get in the way of what makes narrative sense. if you or the players narrate something in the game and it makes sense to apply a certain rule outside of the normal circumstances where you would do so, go ahead and do it") as long as everyone is in agreement.

Except that the silver rule is not expressed in terms of ignoring rules but in terms of applying them outside of their normal context.


Just because you take the essence of a thing and reword it to make it slightly different, does not mean that the essence is changed. The game is saying (as most games do) that the rules are guidelines to help you, but are not set in stone, and only the absolute strictest reading of them (ignoring context) allows for the absolutist stance on them.

Yes, but the game rules never say "it's okay to ignore the rules," they say "the rules are here to help you tell a cool story, use them."

[Kyrell1978]

Fudge: Player tries to gather information about stolen artifact. Rolls badly. Gets information. Dice roll is inconsequential and ignored.

Succeed at a cost: Player tries to gather information about stolen artifact. Rolls badly. Gets information but attracts shady guy's attention, whose thugs will duly show up next scene. Dice roll is important for the story's advancement and respected.

Spot the difference?



It doesn't just "try to get you to go to the mechanics." It flatly tells you that going to the mechanics is the second step after you've figured out what you want to do. It never tells you to ignore them.



Except that the silver rule is not expressed in terms of ignoring rules but in terms of applying them outside of their normal context.



Yes, but the game rules never say "it's okay to ignore the rules," they say "the rules are here to help you tell a cool story, use them."

I see you arguing semantics and completely ignoring the intent of all of that certainly.

[Louro]

So... basically players die when you feel like it.

Players die when THEY feel like it.
It's their story, not the DM's simulation game.

I'm totally against fudging.
I rather give myself the same Hero points I give to the players, so I can reroll stuff. Reroll following my OWN interests. As me, not as the DM or the fiery orc.

Voilà!

[Kyrell1978]

Players die when THEY feel like it.
It's their story, not the DM's simulation game.

I honestly hope the Players don't die. How would I explain that? :smallwink: Sorry, couldn't help it.

[Thrudd]

...or it's an acknowledgement that no set of rules will fit any given group 100% of the time and no set of rules is 100% perfect.

That's when you make house rules. Also "perfect" is relative. A game can be almost perfect at doing what it is designed to do. If a group doesn't want what the game does well, it's probably not the right game for them. Acknowledging the game might not be perfect for every group is to say that they know the game isn't right for everyone and every sort of role playing desire, but they still want you to play it. At a certain point, the reasonable thing to do is get a better game.

Recommendations for how to amend the rules to work for different sorts of styles is a useful thing to include. Variations, alternatives for helping keep a narrative flowing or for simulating an environment more rigorously or whatever. Ideas for how to make new rules for the game, suggestions about what can be taken out while still preserving the game's functionality. Saying "just ignore stuff you don't like" is not useful- as though giving you permission to not like their game will fool you into thinking you actually do like the game. It's self evident that something designed for a specific purpose won't be right for other purposes it was not designed for.

[Louro]

Of course you don't!
No DM want their players dead. You want them to suffer and struggle, but you want them to succeed.
It just happens that the struggle is real, and Death is a thing. No pain, no gain.

Most players don't feel right being killed by an inferior enemy or by the outcome of a social interaction. You use your "DM Hero points" to avoid those scenarios (and the opposite ones too if needed). Also to avoid miscalculations or the ludicrously difficult random encounter.

Edit: if you wanna stick to RAW call it inspiration. It would work like this:
- You roll something you don't feel appropriate.
- You think of any other possibility which would be better right now.
- You feel inspired.
- You give inspiration to yourself.
- Use it and roll again.

Just don't abuse it.
In combat use only if players deserve merci.

[MrSandman]

I see you arguing semantics and completely ignoring the intent of all of that certainly.

I see you tired of providing reasonable arguments and saying something that sounds cool to avoid responding to what I said.

[Kyrell1978]

Of course you don't!
No DM want their players dead. You want them to suffer and struggle, but you want them to succeed.
It just happens that the struggle is real, and Death is a thing. No pain, no gain.

Most players don't feel right being killed by an inferior enemy or by the outcome of a social interaction. You use your "DM Hero points" to avoid those scenarios (and the opposite ones too if needed). Also to avoid miscalculations or the ludicrously difficult random encounter.

I was actually making a joke concerning the difference between the players (real life people), and the characters. That's why I was apologizing in the post as well. :smallwink:

[Louro]

I was actually making a joke concerning the difference between the players (real life people), and the characters. That's why I was apologizing in the post as well. :smallwink:
Oooh! Oh! I see. Lol.

...

Actually... Haven't you ever wished they all... well not dead obviously, but... like, constipated or something?

[Kyrell1978]

I see you tired of providing reasonable arguments and saying something that sounds cool to avoid responding to what I said.

You didn't point our anything that I hadn't already explained, I don't feel the need to do so further. You are obviously taking the strictest possible interpretation of that reading, and ignoring the stated intent of "narrative story telling." There is no point in wasting any more time beating that dead horse. I couldn't care less whether you or anyone else thinks I sound "cool" or not. I stopped caring about that particular ignorance a few decades ago.

[Psikerlord]

Not only am I in favor, I expect my GMs to fudge occassionally and tend to consider "all rolls in the open!" absolutism a warning sign and kind of a red flag. I trust my GM's judgement for what would be a fun result a lot more than I trust some stupid plastic polihedrons.

The opposite is true for me. Sigh of relief at open combat dice table. Red flag if combat dice are hidden.

I guess ultimately it's a preference thing. I'm big on the "game" part of RPGs, and low on the "story" part (or at least, preplotted story). I want the player to know they earnt their victories.

ACtually, this reminds me, of one of the things I like very much about new fangled "player facing" mechanics in some games where the players roll all the dice and the GM doesnt roll anything. Or at least in combat. By making the players roll attacks against their own PCs (or more accurately make defence rolls), the players can't "fudge" themselves. Everything is on the table for all to see.

[Psikerlord]

One way to distinguish rolls which can be open vs. rolls which should be secret is to look at the difference between known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.

Known unknowns are stuff like: "The orc attacks. Does he hit?" -> roll in the open

Unknown unknowns are stuff like: "Do I hear anything behind the door?" -> roll behind screen


Mostly I prefer to roll the former in the open, but for the latter it seems significantly better to roll in secret.

Non-combat dice behind the screen, no issues. In many cases it's preferable.

[Kaptin Keen]

This entire medium is about telling stories.

Clearly some disagree with that. To those I can only say, if simulated combat is what you crave, maybe you're in the wrong business.

For the rest - those who play a role, in a story - it should be reasonable to expect agreement that the ultimate goal of the game is an entertaining story. And one of the ways in which the story becomes entertaining is by creating the illusion of overcoming adversity. Of beating the odds. Of being clever, and cooking up a water tight plan, of essentially outsmarting the GM.

Fudging isn't cheating. If you fail a roll, death isn't your just reward, and the GM isn't taking that away from you. He's keeping in mind the ultimate goal of the game, keeping it entertaining. Possibly it's more entertaining if your character dies to a random crit - 'weee, everything was going great, but them I died to a nat20 and 200 points of True Damage, hooray' - but in all likelyhood it isn't.

And maybe it isn't even just about you. Maybe the other people around the table also need to be having fun, and your selfish desire for death by randomness isn't entertaining to anyone but you? Not only do you risk a TPK by insisting on dying to bad luck - you also insist on time to reroll, time in which the fun is at best reduced while you cook up a new guy.

[Koo Rehtorb]

This entire medium is about telling stories.

Clearly some disagree with that. To those I can only say, if simulated combat is what you crave, maybe you're in the wrong business.

For the rest - those who play a role, in a story - it should be reasonable to expect agreement that the ultimate goal of the game is an entertaining story. And one of the ways in which the story becomes entertaining is by creating the illusion of overcoming adversity. Of beating the odds. Of being clever, and cooking up a water tight plan, of essentially outsmarting the GM.

Fudging isn't cheating. If you fail a roll, death isn't your just reward, and the GM isn't taking that away from you. He's keeping in mind the ultimate goal of the game, keeping it entertaining. Possibly it's more entertaining if your character dies to a random crit - 'weee, everything was going great, but them I died to a nat20 and 200 points of True Damage, hooray' - but in all likelyhood it isn't.

And maybe it isn't even just about you. Maybe the other people around the table also need to be having fun, and your selfish desire for death by randomness isn't entertaining to anyone but you? Not only do you risk a TPK by insisting on dying to bad luck - you also insist on time to reroll, time in which the fun is at best reduced while you cook up a new guy.

If your group can't handle the possibility of randomly dying fair and square based on the rules of the game you're playing then play a different game. I would be happy to recommend many fine RPGs in which death is not mechanically on the table regardless of how badly you roll or what stupid things you do. It's totally fine. I just finished GMing a three month campaign of Masks, a system in which it is 100% impossible to die unless you've specifically picked the one playbook that allows it in one niche case.

If you do sign up to play a game in which death is a realistic possibility then, yes, fudging the dice to save you from dying is, in fact, "****ing cheating". And the only time this is acceptable is when everyone at the table has explicitly agreed that people are allowed to cheat. You have a responsibility to make it clear in advance that you plan on cheating, so people can find somewhere else to play and aren't wasting their time on your game. It's essentially the difference between agreeing with your spouse that you can have an open relationship, and just having an affair in secret.

[Mordaedil]

I disagree.

I think fudging the rolls is the norm and you should instead warn your players if you are planning to run the game with no fudged rolls.

Also, concealing your dice is sometimes necessary as a DM, such as when making opposed spot checks for monsters against your players stealth. Are you really advocating those be rolled openly too? Because if so, I'm pretty sure you are just a metagamer.

That said, I will never bother fudging rolls for a villain to save them. The way I see it, I should not be married to my NPCs and be willing to plan around the PC's killing them even on their first encounter. If my entire campaign falls to pieces because my players decide they don't trust the mayor and kills him, I have to plan around that and not interrupt their hand at it.

On the other hand, if I have my villain cast a spell and roll a natural 20, I want to be able to call it just a hit instead of a critical hit, since spell attack rolls can be really devastating if you allow it to crit. I'll usually plan the encounters to already be deadly as it is, without critical hits turning the tables on the players. But I won't save them from just pure damage or anything either, or from falling from the rooftop during a speedy-rooftop chase. I'll roll the dice, ask for how many hit points they have left and inform them that they have 1 hit point remaining (or 0 in 3.5 as it counts as disabled and they have to give up pursuit that way).

[Koo Rehtorb]

Also, concealing your dice is sometimes necessary as a DM, such as when making opposed spot checks for monsters against your players stealth. Are you really advocating those be rolled openly too? Because if so, I'm pretty sure you are just a metagamer.

I never find myself in this situation in the first place. If people are sneaking somewhere, I don't roll to spot them until the moment when the bad thing will happen if they fail. However, I will grant the possibility that there may be an occasional reason to conceal a roll from a player, in a certain sort of game, in a certain niche situation. It is still totally unacceptable to use that as an excuse to cheat on that roll though.


I'll roll the dice, ask for how many hit points they have left and inform them that they have 1 hit point remaining (or 0 in 3.5 as it counts as disabled and they have to give up pursuit that way).

There's no bigger siren you could possibly set off that you just fudged damage, you know. If you're going to fudge things on the sly then at least try not to be nakedly transparent about it. Jeeze.

[oxybe]

This entire medium is about telling stories.

Clearly some disagree with that. To those I can only say, if simulated combat is what you crave, maybe you're in the wrong business.

For the rest - those who play a role, in a story - it should be reasonable to expect agreement that the ultimate goal of the game is an entertaining story. And one of the ways in which the story becomes entertaining is by creating the illusion of overcoming adversity. Of beating the odds. Of being clever, and cooking up a water tight plan, of essentially outsmarting the GM.

Fudging isn't cheating. If you fail a roll, death isn't your just reward, and the GM isn't taking that away from you. He's keeping in mind the ultimate goal of the game, keeping it entertaining. Possibly it's more entertaining if your character dies to a random crit - 'weee, everything was going great, but them I died to a nat20 and 200 points of True Damage, hooray' - but in all likelyhood it isn't.

And maybe it isn't even just about you. Maybe the other people around the table also need to be having fun, and your selfish desire for death by randomness isn't entertaining to anyone but you? Not only do you risk a TPK by insisting on dying to bad luck - you also insist on time to reroll, time in which the fun is at best reduced while you cook up a new guy.

I prefer stories that emerge from play. Sometimes it's a grand story. Sometimes it's a mundane one. Sometimes it's tragic comedy. But the "story" is what is told around the hearth after the adventure is done, or sung about in town squares, or written out as a cautionary tale.

Your goal when playing a TTRPG isn't to tell a story. Your goal is to play your character. To roleplay. If you get a good story out of it, all the better. And the stories, IMO, are much better when they evolve naturally out of play instead of being selfishly forced upon you by someone who thinks they know better.

I am also a firm believer that the GM shouldn't have investment in how the story plays out.

A GM that fudges because they think they know what's better for the game because of the story they want to tell is the antithesis to the style I like.

To me a GM sets up NPCs, situations, and lets the players loose. He adjudicates when necessary, but in the end it's about the PCs and the story their PCs will tell when the adventure is done. Not the story I want to tell. The players know I will have them live or die by their choices and actions. I will not pull punches and fudge things in their favour. This gives their actions and choices weight. It gives the choices meaning.

Failure is a possibility. Death is a possibility.

But it's up to you to grasp victory from failure from your actions. It's up to you to be aware of death and plan accordingly.

I could have stopped the TPK (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?566696-Oxybe-attempts-to-run-2nd-ed-after-like-16-years). I was GMing. I could easily have held back and rolled behind a screen, and had the boss miss when he hit. But the TPK occurred as the PCs jumped the gun and entered the fight largely unprepared. They pushed on though, they struggled, and though in a sense they prevailed, they still lost in the end.

I'd like to think we have a good story to tell now that the play is over.

[Mordaedil]

I never find myself in this situation in the first place. If people are sneaking somewhere, I don't roll to spot them until the moment when the bad thing will happen if they fail. However, I will grant the possibility that there may be an occasional reason to conceal a roll from a player, in a certain sort of game, in a certain niche situation. It is still totally unacceptable to use that as an excuse to cheat on that roll though.
Well, I wouldn't normally cheat concealed rolls, because they aren't always critical.



There's no bigger siren you could possibly set off that you just fudged damage, you know. If you're going to fudge things on the sly then at least try not to be nakedly transparent about it. Jeeze.
Well, how about you don't tell me how to run my games for me, kthx.

Seriously, I get where you come from, but generally it is far less of a problem than you make it out to be. Generally it isn't a thing that comes up in my games, but just a (perhaps a bit weak, context-less) scenario where I might fudge things to not outright kill the players, but still have them fail their task. If they die from a fall from the rooftops, I reckon I'd have to factor in other things, but I don't think my players think "David the cleric ran across the roof, slid on a lose tile, fell from the roof and cracked his neck and now he is dead" is a good epitaph either. Sometimes, you just have to make the fall damage believably lethal, while other times it doesn't really serve the story or the game at large to kill a player over a bad roll.

Maybe it'd be better if I just deemed all fall damage nonlethal damage?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Seriously, I get where you come from, but generally it is far less of a problem than you make it out to be. Generally it isn't a thing that comes up in my games, but just a (perhaps a bit weak, context-less) scenario where I might fudge things to not outright kill the players, but still have them fail their task. If they die from a fall from the rooftops, I reckon I'd have to factor in other things, but I don't think my players think "David the cleric ran across the roof, slid on a lose tile, fell from the roof and cracked his neck and now he is dead" is a good epitaph either. Sometimes, you just have to make the fall damage believably lethal, while other times it doesn't really serve the story or the game at large to kill a player over a bad roll.

Maybe it'd be better if I just deemed all fall damage nonlethal damage?

I think the decision point comes a step back from where you're taking it. So there's a daring rooftop chase sequence. Opposed athletics rolls or something, whatever's fitting in whatever game you're playing. Failure doesn't have to mean "you plummet off the roof and take falling damage (and I'll fudge falling damage if it kills you)". Failure could just as easily mean "Baron von Evilstein leads you on a chase through the rooftops and makes a death defying leap between two buildings. You know you can't match that jump, you just don't have the goat blood in your veins like he does. If you try you'll fall to your death."

And then if they really want to push it anyway, you either follow through and they fall to their death, or maybe you give them one last ditch roll to try to make the jump anyway at a very high DC, and if they fail they fall to their death, or you roll falling damage honestly and let the dice fall where they may. There's so many options that don't involve cheating dice rolls, but also don't involve killing a PC without warning on a random skill check out of nowhere.

The key point here is, always follow through on the stakes as established honestly. But there's nothing forcing you to set lethal stakes, most of the time.

[Pelle]

This entire medium is about telling stories.

Clearly some disagree with that. To those I can only say, if simulated combat is what you crave, maybe you're in the wrong business.


For your information, this is completly misunderstanding the other side. It's not about combat at all. It could be about a jump check or a stealth roll or whatever. Situations with tension.



For the rest - those who play a role, in a story - it should be reasonable to expect agreement that the ultimate goal of the game is an entertaining story. And one of the ways in which the story becomes entertaining is by creating the illusion of overcoming adversity. Of beating the odds. Of being clever, and cooking up a water tight plan, of essentially outsmarting the GM.


Bolded, the other side don't want the adversity to be an illusion only. I guess the difference here is that you want the uncertainty to be on how the PCs overcome challenge, while the others want the uncertainty to be on do the PCs overcome the challenge?



Fudging isn't cheating. If you fail a roll, death isn't your just reward, and the GM isn't taking that away from you. He's keeping in mind the ultimate goal of the game, keeping it entertaining. Possibly it's more entertaining if your character dies to a random crit - 'weee, everything was going great, but them I died to a nat20 and 200 points of True Damage, hooray' - but in all likelyhood it isn't.


Failure and PC death is rarely very entertaining (though it can be, and if so you might agree as well). It's the possibility of PC death that many people prefer, not when it actually happens.



And maybe it isn't even just about you. Maybe the other people around the table also need to be having fun, and your selfish desire for death by randomness isn't entertaining to anyone but you? Not only do you risk a TPK by insisting on dying to bad luck - you also insist on time to reroll, time in which the fun is at best reduced while you cook up a new guy.

Here you are assuming this isn't agreed upon by everyone at the table, like many of the anti-fudgers do as well. Be open about it, and don't lie to your players about your style.



And the only time this is acceptable is when everyone at the table has explicitly agreed that people are allowed to cheat.

If it's condoned and encouraged by everyone, I wouldn't call it cheating.



I disagree.

I think fudging the rolls is the norm and you should instead warn your players if you are planning to run the game with no fudged rolls.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on your group. And when someone has the wrong expectations, whose responsibility is it to clear it up? Just be open about it.



Maybe it'd be better if I just deemed all fall damage nonlethal damage?

Or you could just tell the players "it would kind of suck if your character died by falling off this roof, so let's just ignore the rules here and go with this instead", instead of pretending to apply the rules as normal.




Your goal when playing a TTRPG isn't to tell a story. Your goal is to play your character. To roleplay. If you get a good story out of it, all the better. And the stories, IMO, are much better when they evolve naturally out of play instead of being selfishly forced upon you by someone who thinks they know better.


To be fair, "your" should be "my" here. I agree with the rest of your post, though!

[Mordaedil]

To be honest, the rooftop thing was kinda just a bad example, because if I had to do it now, I'd probably formulate it as a skill challenge as seen in 4th edition and usually I wouldn't have it be that dramatic way of flipping the dice to save someone. It would mostly just be to avoid having them bleed out in the streets from a fall that would just put them a little bit into negative hit points. I am a firm believer of -10 is death no matter what.

Heck, I could just tell the player that someone saw him fall and rushed over and helped stabilize him, but basically speed it up a bit.

[Kaptin Keen]

If your group can't handle the possibility of randomly dying fair and square based on the rules of the game you're playing then play a different game.

Oh but they can. You need in no way concern yourself with my group, they're consenting adults and all that. And thank you but no, we'll keep playing this game.

See, being able to handle dying randomly is not the same as considering that the best or most entertaining outcome. I've played with these guys since I was 16, that makes it just over 31 years. In all that time, I've lost ... maybe 2?! ... characters to 'death by diceroll'. That's me, as a player. Across all of us, it could be as high as a staggering 10 characters dead, grand total!

More have died to other things than ... say, a random crit. Electing to make a last stand against unbeatable odds happens more often than 'dying because the rules say so'. I think we (that is, my group) all agree that the rules can go die in a ditch if they get in the way of us having fun. We're not playing this game in some sort of ritualistic service to the rules - we're playing for fun.

Mileage varies. Other people play for other things, or define 'fun' differently.


For your information, this is completly misunderstanding the other side. It's not about combat at all. It could be about a jump check or a stealth roll or whatever. Situations with tension.

To roleplay is to tell a story. The story of the role you play. That's what the game is. What happens to Winfried the Merciful on his travels through the world - that is a story. Without a story, it's a strategy game.


For your information, this is completly misunderstanding the other side. It's not about combat at all. It could be about a jump check or a stealth roll or whatever. Situations with tension.

I'm not addressing the other side.

[Psikerlord]

I prefer stories that emerge from play. Sometimes it's a grand story. Sometimes it's a mundane one. Sometimes it's tragic comedy. But the "story" is what is told around the hearth after the adventure is done, or sung about in town squares, or written out as a cautionary tale.

Your goal when playing a TTRPG isn't to tell a story. Your goal is to play your character. To roleplay. If you get a good story out of it, all the better. And the stories, IMO, are much better when they evolve naturally out of play instead of being selfishly forced upon you by someone who thinks they know better.

I am also a firm believer that the GM shouldn't have investment in how the story plays out.

A GM that fudges because they think they know what's better for the game because of the story they want to tell is the antithesis to the style I like.

To me a GM sets up NPCs, situations, and lets the players loose. He adjudicates when necessary, but in the end it's about the PCs and the story their PCs will tell when the adventure is done. Not the story I want to tell. The players know I will have them live or die by their choices and actions. I will not pull punches and fudge things in their favour. This gives their actions and choices weight. It gives the choices meaning.

Failure is a possibility. Death is a possibility.

But it's up to you to grasp victory from failure from your actions. It's up to you to be aware of death and plan accordingly.

I could have stopped the TPK (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?566696-Oxybe-attempts-to-run-2nd-ed-after-like-16-years). I was GMing. I could easily have held back and rolled behind a screen, and had the boss miss when he hit. But the TPK occurred as the PCs jumped the gun and entered the fight largely unprepared. They pushed on though, they struggled, and though in a sense they prevailed, they still lost in the end.

I'd like to think we have a good story to tell now that the play is over.
Emergent stories are the only stories worth coming together to make in a Roleplaying G-A-M-E. Playing out a pre-plotted story, where GMs abhor random encounters and side treks, or are scared to kill off PCs or critical NPCs, pale in comparison.

[Pelle]

To roleplay is to tell a story. The story of the role you play. That's what the game is. What happens to Winfried the Merciful on his travels through the world - that is a story. Without a story, it's a strategy game.


You know that's contentious, just see oxybe's post above. In my current game, the PCs try to stop the evil cult and the conspiracy against the Duke. We don't know if they will succeed, and that's exciting. If they succeed we will have a story to tell of how they prevailed, and if they fail yet another story. The story itself is not the goal of our game though, the goal is to experience it, whatever it turns out to be.



I'm not addressing the other side.

Well, you seemed to be equating anyone who don't like fudging with combat simulators, maybe I'm interpreting you wrong. Anyways, it doesn't seem like you understand the reason for why people object to fudging. It's not about adhering to rules for rules sake. Personally I don't care much about RAW, and will often deviate if necessary. It's about clearly setting the stakes, which ironically makes for more dramatic story moments in my opinion. If I don't want stakes, I'll rather not roll at all and just narrate the intended outcome. Fudging is pretending there are stakes, when in fact there are none. Your group might prefer that and that's fine, but at least try to understand why some people prefer otherwise.

[Kyrell1978]

I love all of the "everyone who doesn't play like me is having badwrongfun going on here."

[Kaptin Keen]

The story itself is not the goal of our game though, the goal is to experience it, whatever it turns out to be.

That's semantics - and I'm not discussing semantics with you. Or anyone, for that matter.


maybe I'm interpreting you wrong.

Yes you are. Which you should know, cause I cover that in my post. But maybe I'm expressing myself unclearly.

[Koo Rehtorb]

If people insist on playing soccer with a big rock instead of a ball I'm certainly going to judge them for it. I'm not going to try to stop you, you have every right to kick a rock around a field if you really want to, but it's still dumb and bad. And I reserve the right to gently suggest that you use this nice ball over here that was specifically designed for the thing you're trying to do instead.

[Kyrell1978]

If people insist on playing soccer with a big rock instead of a ball I'm certainly going to judge them for it. I'm not going to try to stop you, you have every right to kick a rock around a field if you really want to, but it's still dumb and bad. And I reserve the right to gently suggest that you use this nice ball over here that was specifically designed for the thing you're trying to do instead.

This is a giant strawman argument (no one is trying to use the wrong tools, the tools being discussed are supported in the rule books as previously cited) to back up your ad hominem of calling the opposing viewpoint cheaters. I've already cited around a dozen games that support this in the rules of the game. For fun (and my own personal curiosity) I checked every game I own. There are still only two that do not specifically state in the rule book that this is okay. That's a hair over 96% of the games on my shelf, they cover a wide range of systems, worlds, and editions. To continue to state that it is "cheating" and "not following the rules" in the face of all of the evidence that has been presented is just silly. Again, it's perfectly fine if you don't want to play that way, because at your table you can make that rule.....because it says that in all of those books. To take this stance is akin to saying that all house rules are cheating, period. It is the same logical chain and falls just as flat when actually examined because the game designers gave permission to DMs to do so. It's okay to think that those are badly written games, the apocalypse game that you mentioned is extraordinarily poorly written in my opinion. (Anything that utilizes the term "barf forth....", or justifies playing its characters, even jokingly, "because they're hot" isn't going to make my list of well written material). It is, however, pretty ridiculous to "judge" anyone else (especially for having fun playing a game they enjoy according to the specifically stated allowances by the game designers) by your arbitrary standards.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I don't fudge, and to that end, I roll openly when running a game. I think it's important not just to trust the game but also to be open to the chaos of the dice. This may be related to the fact that I heavily avoid railroad situations.

If I fudge the dice, we slowly stop playing a game, and we slowly start playing my story, and the idea of being the one who makes the players into an audience is anathema to my idea of a GM.

[Kaptin Keen]

If people insist on playing soccer with a big rock instead of a ball I'm certainly going to judge them for it. I'm not going to try to stop you, you have every right to kick a rock around a field if you really want to, but it's still dumb and bad. And I reserve the right to gently suggest that you use this nice ball over here that was specifically designed for the thing you're trying to do instead.

Fishing for a rise. Not getting one.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I stand by the analogy. I feel that it is a fair one.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It's okay to think that those are badly written games, the apocalypse game that you mentioned is extraordinarily poorly written in my opinion. (Anything that utilizes the term "barf forth....", or justifies playing its characters, even jokingly, "because they're hot" isn't going to make my list of well written material).

I will address this further, though. What you're objecting to here is the game's tone, not its quality. AW is written to be evocative of the genre it's presenting, and it does an extraordinarily good job of that. It's perfectly fine not to like the game's tone. Plenty of people don't. Plenty of people don't like what AW is selling. And that's fine. People have every right not to like things about the game, like there being a distinct mechanical effect for each different playbook when it has sex. This is entirely distinct from the game trying to push bad habits on you.

AW's GM section is one of the best, if not the very best, in the entire hobby and I fully suggest that everyone reads it even if they have no intention of ever playing the game. It will make you a better GM by doing so.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is a giant strawman argument (no one is trying to use the wrong tools, the tools being discussed are supported in the rule books as previously cited) to back up your ad hominem of calling the opposing viewpoint cheaters. I've already cited around a dozen games that support this in the rules of the game. For fun (and my own personal curiosity) I checked every game I own. There are still only two that do not specifically state in the rule book that this is okay. That's a hair over 96% of the games on my shelf, they cover a wide range of systems, worlds, and editions. To continue to state that it is "cheating" and "not following the rules" in the face of all of the evidence that has been presented is just silly. Again, it's perfectly fine if you don't want to play that way, because at your table you can make that rule.....because it says that in all of those books. To take this stance is akin to saying that all house rules are cheating, period. It is the same logical chain and falls just as flat when actually examined because the game designers gave permission to DMs to do so. It's okay to think that those are badly written games, the apocalypse game that you mentioned is extraordinarily poorly written in my opinion. (Anything that utilizes the term "barf forth....", or justifies playing its characters, even jokingly, "because they're hot" isn't going to make my list of well written material). It is, however, pretty ridiculous to "judge" anyone else (especially for having fun playing a game they enjoy according to the specifically stated allowances by the game designers) by your arbitrary standards.

Additionally--if the rules say to do something, then following that is definitionally not cheating. Nor is it "bad advice", it's the rules. If the rules say "the referee decides X and the referee's decision is final", then whatever the referee decides is following the rules. Some people might not like those rules, but they are rules just the same as "roll a d20 + modifier, if greater than AC it's a hit."

So it's not using the wrong tools, it's using tools that are explicitly specified in the rules ("a soccer ball shall consist of X, Y, or Z).

Yet additionally, it's an inherent part of any open-ended system. The term for a game that defines all possible events exhaustively is "board-game". Even PbtA (where the GM doesn't roll dice and has strict rules) still has significant GM discretion required. The list of GM moves is (and cannot be) exhaustive--it's too fiction dependent.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Looking at AW's basic rulebook (http://apocalypse-world.com/ApocalypseWorldBasicRefbook2ndEd.pdf), I see the following relevant statements in the (very abbreviated and elliptical) MC section:

(Principles)

Sometimes, disclaim decision-making

(Decision-making)

Whenever something comes up that you’d prefer not to decide by personal whim and will, don’t.

The fact that it says "sometimes" and "that you'd prefer not to decide by ..." tells me that the default for AW is that the MC makes the decisions by personal whim and will. That's rather on the "fudge the dice" side of things, not the "be a neutral referee and let the dice decide" side. Now maybe the full rules (which are not freely available?) say otherwise, but those basic rules are

a) not that good or broadly applicable outside of AW's very peculiar setting/conceit.
b) incredibly elliptical and unspecific
c) pretty firmly on the "GM makes things up as they go" end of the spectrum.

[flond]

Looking at AW's basic rulebook (http://apocalypse-world.com/ApocalypseWorldBasicRefbook2ndEd.pdf), I see the following relevant statements in the (very abbreviated and elliptical) MC section:

(Principles)


(Decision-making)


The fact that it says "sometimes" and "that you'd prefer not to decide by ..." tells me that the default for AW is that the MC makes the decisions by personal whim and will. That's rather on the "fudge the dice" side of things, not the "be a neutral referee and let the dice decide" side. Now maybe the full rules (which are not freely available?) say otherwise, but those basic rules are

a) not that good or broadly applicable outside of AW's very peculiar setting/conceit.
b) incredibly elliptical and unspecific
c) pretty firmly on the "GM makes things up as they go" end of the spectrum.

To be clear that's a basic reference book, not a rulebook. (The file name is refbook)

And, the big thing about apocolypse world that makes anti fudging partisans like it is that the rules bits are clear and unavoidable. That is, there are clear fictional triggers for when the dice are rolled, it's clear when you succeed and when you fail, and the target number is always the same, and the results, while requiring arbitration are always known.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I don't especially want to make this into a thread where I explain AW to everyone, but in short:

1) Players describe what they do.

2) If what they're describing doing would trigger a move from then, then call for it. Running screaming at a 500 man army shooting your gun doesn't trigger any move because you can't fight an army. The GM just narrates until something you do would trigger a move.

3) Player rolls the move. On a 10+ they accomplish what they're trying to do. On a 7-9 they accomplish what they're trying to do but there's an additional complication according to the move's rules. On a 6- the GM gets to do whatever they want, so long as they're staying within the game's agenda and principles.

Eliminating GM discretion has never been a goal, or a desirable thing. The point is having a ruleset that facilitates passing narrative authority back and forth between everyone present. A GM fudging dice rolls is essentially stealing that narrative authority and saying "What you want only matter when I want it to".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't especially want to make this into a thread where I explain AW to everyone, but in short:

1) Players describe what they do.

2) If what they're describing doing would trigger a move from then, then call for it. Running screaming at a 500 man army shooting your gun doesn't trigger any move because you can't fight an army. The GM just narrates until something you do would trigger a move.

3) Player rolls the move. On a 10+ they accomplish what they're trying to do. On a 7-9 they accomplish what they're trying to do but there's an additional complication according to the move's rules. On a 6- the GM gets to do whatever they want, so long as they're staying within the game's agenda and principles.

Eliminating GM discretion has never been a goal, or a desirable thing. The point is having a ruleset that facilitates passing narrative authority back and forth between everyone present. A GM fudging dice rolls is essentially stealing that narrative authority and saying "What you want only matter when I want it to".

And that (passing narrative authority) is something that is

a) taste-based, not objectively superior (or inferior)
b) not broadly applicable to other systems.

You're confusing "I like X" with "X is good." As are others, to be clear.

But either way, I was highly not impressed by the supposedly "great" MC guidance I found in AW. It was vague, had a very strong slant to "this is the correct way" that doesn't apply to many (or most) games, and was written in a super compressed fashion. But I recognize all of those as being subjective things. If you like it, great. But it's not objectively great, or at least that superiority has yet to be convincingly demonstrated.
-------------

More generally, I think there's a fundamental divide among commenters on the essential nature of RPG rules. I, for one, wish that we didn't use the word "rules." "Guidelines" or "framework" or "mechanics" would set a better tone--one in which the "ruleset" is a toolbox of resolution mechanics and pre-fab pieces that the creators believe work well to facilitate play in a particular niche. Acceptance that the rules serve the players, not the other way around.

Rules, in my eyes, are one tool among many that are used by the table's designated authority figure(s) (DAFs) to adjudicate the success/failure of actions within the fiction. Others include the judgement of the DAFs, player votes, bribery, etc. Using non-"rule" mechanics (or overriding "rule" mechanics in the best judgement of the DAFs) is a good thing to the degree that you can trust the DAF's judgement. And if you can't trust them, don't play with them (or don't designate them as AFs).

[Kyrell1978]

I will address this further, though. What you're objecting to here is the game's tone, not its quality. AW is written to be evocative of the genre it's presenting, and it does an extraordinarily good job of that. It's perfectly fine not to like the game's tone. Plenty of people don't. Plenty of people don't like what AW is selling. And that's fine. People have every right not to like things about the game, like there being a distinct mechanical effect for each different playbook when it has sex. This is entirely distinct from the game trying to push bad habits on you.

AW's GM section is one of the best, if not the very best, in the entire hobby and I fully suggest that everyone reads it even if they have no intention of ever playing the game. It will make you a better GM by doing so.

That is entirely your opinion with no factual basis. I read the GM section, along with some of the basic mechanics. I disagree with your position that it is well written. There is some good advice in the GM section, and, in my opinion some, terrible advice. The specific instance I remember without looking it back up is the "whole GM randomly deciding that a fire fight suddenly shifts to each side having the other pinned down for two hours," this is pointless and is terrible advice, in my opinion, and goes directly against the purpose stated earlier in the same section that everything you say should "make stuff not boring" and "feel real." Like I said, in my opinion it's poorly written...including mechanically. The other game was better written, but a little generic in its approach. Also, it has language that supports the DM holding sway. It doesn't come out and say it's okay to fudge die rolls, but it does say on pg. 551 that it is the GMs job to "make sure the mechanics run smoothly, make sense, and gel with the story," "to challenge and engage the players," and "to make sure...everyone is involved and enjoys themselves." It also has a section about picking out which mechanics are going to be used and which will be set aside, as well as allowing for the GM to manipulate events "so that the two pieces intersect dramatically."

While these statements are not a shining endorsement, they are certainly not a rebuke either.


Koo Rehtorb

Re: Thoughts on fudging rolls
I stand by the analogy. I feel that it is a fair one.

Again this is an unsupported opinion and quite honestly factual wrong. Unfortunately facts don't care about your feelings.

[Koo Rehtorb]

And that (passing narrative authority) is something that is

a) taste-based, not objectively superior (or inferior)
b) not broadly applicable to other systems.

I think this is a bizarre thing to say. I would think that shared narrative authority is something that all but the most hardcore of railroaders would agree to. If you're just there to listen to the GM tell you a story about what happens then there's probably better formats for it.

[Thrudd]

I don't especially want to make this into a thread where I explain AW to everyone, but in short:

1) Players describe what they do.

2) If what they're describing doing would trigger a move from then, then call for it. Running screaming at a 500 man army shooting your gun doesn't trigger any move because you can't fight an army. The GM just narrates until something you do would trigger a move.

3) Player rolls the move. On a 10+ they accomplish what they're trying to do. On a 7-9 they accomplish what they're trying to do but there's an additional complication according to the move's rules. On a 6- the GM gets to do whatever they want, so long as they're staying within the game's agenda and principles.

Eliminating GM discretion has never been a goal, or a desirable thing. The point is having a ruleset that facilitates passing narrative authority back and forth between everyone present. A GM fudging dice rolls is essentially stealing that narrative authority and saying "What you want only matter when I want it to".

Right. To translate that into D&D, where fudging happens most often - instead of the rules saying that at 0 HP the character is dead or unconscious, a houserule might say that when a character gets to 0 HP the DM gets to declare what happens to them. Maybe you get to roll a hit die to restore some HP, in return for the DM getting to declare something bad happens to you (like losing a weapon or having to retreat for a turn, or being stunned and unable to act). Or, on a critical hit, the DM can choose the effect of the attack. It doesn't need to be extra damage, it could be a broken weapon or armor, or a disarm, or the character is forced back or knocked down with no extra damage, or even no damage at all. The DM might have a list of possibilities, or just a completely open narrative moment - in any regard, change the rules so that there are codified and defined times when the results of the dice dictate that the DM makes a narrative decision - instead of the DM lying to the players or needing to ignore the dice in order to do so. Then you can roll in the open, and everyone can be clear that, because they failed or the dice rolled the way they did, the DM will choose what happens. Not wondering about how implausible it must be that they've been running around with just 1 HP left for three encounters and have never suffered a hit, or that the bad guys seem to be going down really easily today for some reason.

The point is, make rules so that the game does what you want. It's a much better game to play, that way, rather having to wonder when the game's mechanics will apply and when they won't according to the whim of the GM.

[Louro]

The main argument against fudge I see here is something like:
If you fudge one roll you are stealing everything away from the players, so better play other thing.

I think this is a bold statement.
Story must be over rules and not viceversa.

I can change on the fly any citizen into an assassin, a fight encounter into a riddle, furniture into traps and water into enemies. At will.
But if I change a single attack for the sake of the encounter and the joy them I'm cheating my players.

[flond]

The main argument against fudge I see here is something like:
If you fudge one roll you are stealing everything away from the players, so better play other thing.

I think this is a bold statement.
Story must be over rules and not viceversa.

I can change on the fly any citizen into an assassin, a fight encounter into a riddle, furniture into traps and water into enemies. At will.
But if I change a single attack for the sake of the encounter and the joy them I'm cheating my players.

Can you though?

Leaving aside the extremely old school options where the elements are expected to be static or random, in general an element is variable until established. Once somethings on the table and we are fighting now, then that's what's happening. Why should it not be also so with stats, once there are dice being rolled keep them the same.

(Also, if rules trouble you so have you considered just running freeform)

[Louro]

in general an element is variable until established. Once somethings on the table and we are fighting now, then that's what's happening. Why should it not be also so with stats, once there are dice being rolled keep them the same.
I agree. And a roll "is not happening" until I narrate the outcome. Right?


(Also, if rules trouble you so have you considered just running freeform)
Are rules troubling me?
No way.
I have rule zero.

[kyoryu]

Fudge: Player tries to gather information about stolen artifact. Rolls badly. Gets information. Dice roll is inconsequential and ignored.

Succeed at a cost: Player tries to gather information about stolen artifact. Rolls badly. Gets information but attracts shady guy's attention, whose thugs will duly show up next scene. Dice roll is important for the story's advancement and respected.

Spot the difference?

To expand on this a bit, the stakes should generally be set before you roll.

GM: "Okay, you're at the scene, and you'll definitely be able to get the information you're after. The question is whether you'll be able to do so without leaving information that it was you/taking too long/etc."

If you tell the players "on a success, you get x, on a failure you get y", and then follow through on that, there's no fudging. You're living with the results of the roll. One of the differences is that Fate never says "on a failed roll, this happens." That is always left in the hands of the GM.


I think this is a bizarre thing to say. I would think that shared narrative authority is something that all but the most hardcore of railroaders would agree to. If you're just there to listen to the GM tell you a story about what happens then there's probably better formats for it.

It depends on what people mean by "narrative authority". Do you mean the ability for what your characters do to have an impact on what happens in the game? Or do you mean literally the ability to decide what you find in the box when you open it?

[flond]

I agree. And a roll "is not happening" until I narrate the outcome. Right?


Are rules troubling me?
No way.
I have rule zero.

Depends! To go back to the apocolypse world example, if I'm rolling the dice, we already know what will cause a success (10+ or 7+ for a partial) and depending on the move, we have a pretty good idea of what that means.

Likewise, in burning wheel, we've already established the stakes on a failed roll.

Even in end, if I'm making an attack roll, we've already established much.

While not rare pure " roll the dice and have the dm internet the results with no guide" isn't exactly the only game in town.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think this is a bizarre thing to say. I would think that shared narrative authority is something that all but the most hardcore of railroaders would agree to. If you're just there to listen to the GM tell you a story about what happens then there's probably better formats for it.

Some people don't want certain types of narrative authority. Specifically, they want to describe what their character attempts and leave the resolution (and the "what happens then") to someone else. And that's not wrong, nor is it railroading. And to that matter, willing railroading (signing up to be told a story) isn't wrong either. It's the foundation of most JRPGs. Unwilling railroading is wrong, as an agency violation.

Just listen to some of our fellow posters who don't want the word "story" used anywhere near an RPG.

People are different. Not everyone wants what you want. And that doesn't make them wrong.

[kyoryu]

Just listen to some of our fellow posters who don't want the word "story" used anywhere near an RPG.

Unfortunately, "story" has far too often meant "the GM's story that will be followed no matter what". Leaves a bad taste.

[Mordar]

What is everyone else's thoughts on fudging rolls (changing the result of the roll) as a game master? In particular what are your thoughts on the following situations:
1) fudges attack/damage to save a player
2) fudging hit points or something similar to save a villain or enemy

I do not believe in fudging rolls at all, because if the DM/GM is allowed to fudge rolls then the players might as well be allowed to fudge their rolls as well. There are exceptions for example fudging the hit dice (if applicable) or not even rolling and giving them a predetermined number of hit points, fudging a roll on something like a teleport to make for a better story etc. Obviously this should be done beforehand and not changing hit points in the middle of a combat.

So what are your opinions? What about other similar scenarios of game masters "fudging" things such as regenerating spell slots mid battles or changing prepared spells (assuming a Dungeons & Dragons type game)?

Sorry if there is already a thread about this topic.

I am pro-fudging when I think it is making up for a mistake I made as the GM. I may nerf an adversary if I didn't realize the ramifications of something at the time of creation, either by on-the-fly modifying the adversary, the situation or the story.

I'm not a "protect player agency at all costs" type, but if I have bypassed player agency by unintentionally disguising a unwinnable encounter as a fair fight, then I want to undo that. However that doesn't mean that the Mega Dragon of Demon Mega Dragon Mountain that levels villages is fair game for the level 3 PCs. Just that Moderately Successful Bugbear Bandit of Scary Bugbear Bandit Badlands should be an auto-wipe because I did some poor customization.

I don't like #2 at all. You kill it, you kill it.

- M

[farothel]

I use fudging as a last resort, but sometimes I use it. As others have said before, I feel if a player has a string of bad luck with the dice that shouldn't really kill their characters. They might go unconscious and end up a prisoner, but they should have a chance to get out. Of course, if they decide to do stupid things, they get what's coming.

I've played in games where the GM could fudge (roll behind a screen) and I've been in games where the GM rolls everything in the open. I'm fine with both methods, as long as it's clear up front. Maybe I've been Lucky insofar that I've never had the feeling that the GM only fudges for one person or Always makes it easier for one player.

It also depends on what game and system you're playing. There are systems where character death is almost impossible and there are systems where it's expected.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It depends on what people mean by "narrative authority". Do you mean the ability for what your characters do to have an impact on what happens in the game?

Yes. It's kind of amazing to me that this is apparently a contentious point.

[Nifft]

Yes. It's kind of amazing to me that this is apparently a contentious point.
"Narrative authority" implies authority, and specifically the authority to narrate. Narrators speak facts about the world, not just one character's personal actions.

As an outsider, it looks like you're using ambiguous language in a misleading way, and then trying to paint the natural confusion that people experience when they take you at face-value as "contentious".

If you meant to say "player agency" but you screwed up and said "narrative authority" instead, now would be a fine time to come clean.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think one reason PbtA games are able to get away with disallowing fudging* is that the MC is given the escape valve of varying the hardness of an MC move. It's always "make as hard a move as you like", though you should be respecting the tension of "say what the fiction demands" (i.e., respect the world, respect the fictional situation, don't fluff your punches) and "be a fan of the characters" (i.e., don't set out to screw the players over, give them challenges, consequences, and drama to let them shine). This lets players fail rolls but not be totally screwed for it. Dungeon World even goes so far as to gate permadeath behind one last roll, giving characters a chance to return from the gates of death, often having struck a bargain.

*that's correct, they explicitly do, and I'll cite the facts here and even get pedantic for fun.


DECISION-MAKING
In order to play to find out what happens,
you’ll need to pass decision-making off
sometimes. Whenever something comes
up that you’d prefer not to decide by
personal whim and will, don’t. The game
gives you four key tools you can use to
disclaim responsibility. You can:
• Put it in your NPCs’ hands.
• Put it in the players’ hands.
• Create a countdown.
• Make it a stakes question.


Emphasis noted. "Disclaiming responsibility" is clearly not about dice rolls (how are NPCs supposed to roll dice?), it's about consequences for actions. A player asks how well-armed Dremmer's guards are, you have four options if you don't already have a personal answer, and this principle suggests these tools.

(It's also worth noting that this is an abbreviated version of the MC section. It's a reference sheet to remind you, not a comprehensive MC guide.)

Most importantly, if you fudge dice, you're not playing to find out what happens, you're playing to find out the outcome you already know, the outcome where you shield characters from the consequences.

Also, weird factual question: how does a PbtA fudge dice if they don't roll dice?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Narrative authority includes the ability to make decisions for your character and have them matter in that they have a meaningful influence on the narrative. The ability to say "I shoot the mayor" is meaningless if what happens is the GM says "Okay, but you miss. And everyone ignores your feeble attempt." regardless of what you rolled or what the rules of the game say. If you're sitting down to play an RPG you are making an agreement that everyone at the table has the ability to meaningfully influence the narrative, with input from random chance. (for the most part, there are some RPGs that don't involve dice or whatever). Fudging dice is saying that only one person's input on the narrative is the one that matters. Which is... well, it's like trying to play soccer with a rock.

If there's one thing this thread has shown it's that people are really bad at understanding rules and terminology, apparently. Kyrell1978's take on Fate earlier in the thread was particularly embarrassing.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Also, weird factual question: how does a PbtA fudge dice if they don't roll dice?

I suppose one would fudge dice in PbtA if they were to say. "Well you rolled a 6, but I think it would be more interesting if you hadn't failed here so take a +1 on that roll because I said so."

[Thrudd]

It's not "wrong" to play however you want with your friends. My main point is that games are better when the rules work, and I think that's a fairly objective thing. A game where the rules shift and may or may not apply at the whim of the GM is a worse game (especially for the players) than one where the rules are followed consistently. I understand that the excuse for fudging and invoking "rule 0", etc., are that following the rules don't always give you a result you want, and getting the results in terms of narrative or "cool" or fairness, or whatever it is is more important than following some rules. I agree. But I also don't understand why, if the game's rules are regularly not giving someone what they want, why they aren't fixing the rules or switching to another game that gives them more of what they want in an RPG. Needing to fudge rolls, or otherwise ignore rules or lie to players about what's going on with the dice, on more than very rare and specific occasions is a sign that the game you're using doesn't work for what you want it to do.

I think a good number of players would be rather disturbed if D&D was actually played the way some folks here suggest - only following dice and rules when the DM wants it to be random and is willing to accept the outcome. Most DM's know this, or sense this, I think - which is why they resort to fudging dice and using other tools of illusionism to fool the players into thinking things are being decided randomly, mechanically, and fairly when really something has been determined by the DM for narrative purposes (usually).

Some players are obviously OK with this - I think probably because they don't know anything else, have never played a narrative-focused system with rules that actually work, and think that if there's going to be a "good story" the DM needs to do things this way, and they're willing to be treated to the magic show. They think that the game is about "telling stories" (it doesn't have to be, or rather, that phrase can mean a few different things), and so obviously the DM needs to fudge things a little or a lot in order to get the story right.

If you truly only allowed the dice to be rolled when you were willing to accept all possible outcomes of the roll, I think some of these D&D games would have a lot less rolling happening, and I'm not sure a lot of players would actually be into that. Those who are fine with this are probably fine with free-form role playing in general and don't really want or need an actual game system at all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Narrative authority includes the ability to make decisions for your character and have them matter in that they have a meaningful influence on the narrative. The ability to say "I shoot the mayor" is meaningless if what happens is the GM says "Okay, but you miss. And everyone ignores your feeble attempt." regardless of what you rolled or what the rules of the game say. If you're sitting down to play an RPG you are making an agreement that everyone at the table has the ability to meaningfully influence the narrative, with input from random chance. (for the most part, there are some RPGs that don't involve dice or whatever). Fudging dice is saying that only one person's input on the narrative is the one that matters. Which is... well, it's like trying to play soccer with a rock.

If there's one thing this thread has shown it's that people are really bad at understanding rules and terminology, apparently. Kyrell1978's take on Fate earlier in the thread was particularly embarrassing.

How is "you shoot and miss and everyone ignores you" (because the DM's notes said that there's an invisible barrier and that the crowd doesn't react to things like that because they know, after all it happens weekly) different from "you shoot and miss and everyone ignores you" (because you rolled a 1 on the attack roll and everyone there is level 20 to your level 1) or from "You shoot and miss and everyone ignores you" (because the player is a disruptive jerk and the DM isn't going to let him ruin everyone else's fun):

a) from a perspective of narrative authority (which is very different than player agency in my mind)?
b) from a rules-obedience standpoint?

If the DM doesn't say, there may be many many reasons why a particular action was resolved the way it was. Many of them based on things the character (and the player) can't know about. And what really matters is the resolution, not arm-chair-quarterbacking the DM.

-------

Back on topic, one of the very rare cases in which I'll actually ignore a dice outcome is random treasure tables. If it rolls something that, while it might make sense for a different party in a different area of the setting, doesn't make sense for this party at this time (a water item in a lava pit), I'll ignore that roll and re-roll. Because I'm using those tables as a source of ideas, not a binding "this is what exists." There's only one binding authority on that. Me (as world-builder and DM).

As for combat things, if I have to fudge a die roll to salvage something, I'm into emergency damage control for quite a few mistakes made earlier and I'll be quite honest with the players about that. It's most often (which isn't very often) because I drastically misjudged an ability (or misread it) or an encounter. There are many more politic levers to control things before it reaches that point.

I'll ignore lots of other "rules" in other cases, but that's because they don't apply to the fiction right now. Its exactly the same as a judge deciding which of all the laws and precedent actually applies to the fact pattern at hand. Those rules are useful in other circumstances, just not now. And all systems have that same issue unless they tightly bind the situations that can be presented. Which I don't like.

In the end, my players trust me to consider their fun much more than they trust the game designers. Because I'm there, watching them. The designers aren't. If something's not fun, I'm the one on the firing line, not them. Game designers are speaking to a huge, diverse audience using the game system for many different games. Their pronouncements can't apply equally well to all of them without restricting diversity or abandoning specificity. I'm the last gatekeeper, in concert with my table of players. And the rules serve us, we don't serve the rules or the designers. Men are the masters of the rules, not rules the masters of men.

[Keltest]

I think its also worth pointing out that fudging dice doesn't actually mean you are literally picking up a die and setting it down on the side you want. It CAN mean that, sure, but that's only one scenario. Even in a basic 3.5 attack roll, there are 3 possible outcomes: hit, miss and crit. If you reject a crit from a monster, you can handle it by downgrading it to a regular hit (since they did meet the threshold for one, but you don't want them to have the extra power), arbitrarily declare it to be a miss (deciding on the outcome you want) or just rolling the dice again until it doesn't land on your disfavored outcome (using the dice, but excluding a result). Fudging doesn't require you to completely remove the dice from the equation.

[Nifft]

Narrative authority includes the ability to make decisions for your character

No, that's player agency.

Narrative authority is the authority of a narrator -- and narrators have the power to dictate truth independent of any particular character.

If you want to be understood, it's best to avoid using words that are misleading, for example words that mean something far larger than what you had intended to imply, for example using "narrative authority" when all you meant was "player agency".

[kyoryu]

It's interesting how many conflate "no fudging" with "running the rules exactly as written".

I don't know of any anti-fudging folks that make that assertion. I, and all the ones I know, are perfectly okay with the idea of houserules or "ruling" even up to the moment of rolling the dice.

[Koo Rehtorb]

No, that's player agency.

Narrative authority is the authority of a narrator -- and narrators have the power to dictate truth independent of any particular character.

If you want to be understood, it's best to avoid using words that are misleading, for example words that mean something far larger than what you had intended to imply, for example using "narrative authority" when all you meant was "player agency".

Way to cut off the second half the sentence, I guess.

[Nifft]

Way to cut off the second half the sentence, I guess.

There was once a god who wrote a book. In the book there were many, many sentences.

Do you think that it's reasonable to discuss writing one sentence as a "god-like power"?

Justify why or why not in your own words.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Justify why or why not in your own words.

Nah. I'll just be over here bein' good at roleplaying games instead. ;)

[Nifft]

Nah. I'll just be over here bein' good at roleplaying games instead. ;)

It's praiseworthy that you can have fun by yourself.

IMHO it's more rewarding to interact with others than to mislead them, so I do encourage you to try interacting with others in a more socially positive way, but you do you and have as much fun as you can.

Also, of course, I'd encourage you to start using words in ways that aren't misleading -- if you continue to behave like this, eventually people will decide that you're doing it deliberately.

[Kyrell1978]

Narrative authority includes the ability to make decisions for your character and have them matter in that they have a meaningful influence on the narrative. The ability to say "I shoot the mayor" is meaningless if what happens is the GM says "Okay, but you miss. And everyone ignores your feeble attempt." regardless of what you rolled or what the rules of the game say.

That's not what this says narrative authority means.
https://litreactor.com/columns/writing-with-authority-a-primer

Also your example doesn't apply to what anyone is saying. Everyone who is advocating fudging the dice is saying to only do so when the player is not doing something ignorant. (Shooting at the mayor would qualify as ignorant, thus another strawman).


If you're sitting down to play an RPG you are making an agreement that everyone at the table has the ability to meaningfully influence the narrative, with input from random chance. (for the most part, there are some RPGs that don't involve dice or whatever).

This again is opinion. Nowhere is it written in stone that some agreement has been made etc.


Fudging dice is saying that only one person's input on the narrative is the one that matters.

This is just blatantly false, and yet again unsubstantiated by anything, and does not follow. (Non-sequitur)


Which is... well, it's like trying to play soccer with a rock.
You're like a dog with a bone with this analogy, but professing it over and over again neither makes it more true, nor does it make it less a strawman. You are just not doing well with making logical analogies today.


If there's one thing this thread has shown it's that people are really bad at understanding rules and terminology, apparently. Kyrell1978's take on Fate earlier in the thread was particularly embarrassing

I was unaware that substantiating one's viewpoint with facts and citations was embarrassing. Another individual and I had a difference of opinion on whether or not a particular mechanic constituted fudging (in a game derived from a system coincidentally named FUDGE though that's an acronym and I believe it has more to do with the game's mechanic of boosting natural ability than anything being discussed here). I'm sorry if I embarrassed you, because I am just fine with it. Also, this is just another ad hominem attack on your part.

That's five logical fallacies in one post. It's not the most I've ever seen, but you're getting close.

[Louro]

A game where the rules shift and may or may not apply at the whim of the GM is a worse game (especially for the players) than one where the rules are followed consistently.


I understand that the excuse for fudging and invoking "rule 0", etc., are that following the rules don't always give you a result you want, and getting the results in terms of narrative or "cool" or fairness, or whatever it is is more important than following some rules. I agree.
"You" means "the whole table" there, right?
Fun. Having fun is the thing.
If we are having fun with an encounter, I might extend it just for the laughs. Fudging? Cheating? Breaking the rules?
Whatever if we get some epic moment to remember. If you know your game well, most of the times you can get along with it without breaking anything from the player's perspective.


I think a good number of players would be rather disturbed if D&D was actually played the way some folks here suggest - only following dice and rules when the DM wants it to be random and is willing to accept the outcome.
Yeah, as DM/referee that's part of my job.
When a player's comes with an elaborated lie I don't even get him roll for deception. He put a RP effort in building the lie, fabricating evidences or toying around with words and hidden information. I decide to ignore the rules and grant the player an automatic success if the lie is feasible and not being opposed.
Note that I'm not even fudging but declaring success straightforward. Sometimes players also like their efforts rewarded rather than determined by luck.


Most DM's know this, or sense this, I think - which is why they resort to fudging dice and using other tools of illusionism to fool the players into thinking things are being decided randomly, mechanically, and fairly when really something has been determined by the DM for narrative purposes (usually).
But... isn't it all an illusion?
I mean, governor Tharkad didn't exist until players asked about him.


Some players are obviously OK with this - I think probably because they don't know anything else, have never played a narrative-focused system with rules that actually work, and think that if there's going to be a "good story" the DM needs to do things this way, and they're willing to be treated to the magic show. They think that the game is about "telling stories" (it doesn't have to be, or rather, that phrase can mean a few different things), and so obviously the DM needs to fudge things a little or a lot in order to get the story right.
RPGs are about telling a story.
"Playing D&D is an exercise of collaborative creation. You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama."
- D&D 5e PHB p.4


If you truly only allowed the dice to be rolled when you were willing to accept all possible outcomes of the roll, I think some of these D&D games would have a lot less rolling happening, and I'm not sure a lot of players would actually be into that. Those who are fine with this are probably fine with free-form role playing in general and don't really want or need an actual game system at all.
"All possible outcomes" have a very wide meaning in D&D because of the design flaw (high skilled tests).

I think you missing the whole point.
You decide to fudge one roll because it either increases laughs or drama.

The tactical-dramatical combat system from paranoia showed me the power of editing. It allows/encourages players to go do some minor editing to get advantages in combat. (Well, it encourages you to suggest players to cheat, in creative ways).

It's the best combat system ever. You won't get anything as dramatic as a paranoia fight.
I don't fudge to drive the story in the way I want, I just allow myself to use one "Inspiration" to prevent randomness from cutting of drama or fun.

...

I wish I had a story to drive. Most I have are some important NPCs doing their businesses. Sometimes the outcome is a story, others I fail as DM.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I was unaware that substantiating one's viewpoint with facts and citations was embarrassing. Another individual and I had a difference of opinion on whether or not a particular mechanic constituted fudging (in a game derived from a system coincidentally named FUDGE though that's an acronym and I believe it has more to do with the game's mechanic of boosting natural ability than anything being discussed here). I'm sorry if I embarrassed you, because I am just fine with it. Also, this is just another ad hominem attack on your part.

I'm sure you are fine with it. And that's what makes it so embarrassing, in the manner of watching someone earnestly trying to explain why the Earth is flat. You were objectively wrong in a really blatant way, and it was hard to watch. This is on an entirely different level from talking to someone who believes fudging dice makes roleplaying games better. I disagree strenuously with them and think they're wrong, but it's a legitimate opinion to hold in a way you misunderstanding everything about Fate and vocally rambling on about it certainly wasn't.

[Kyrell1978]

I'm sure you are fine with it. And that's what makes it so embarrassing, in the manner of watching someone earnestly trying to explain why the Earth is flat. You were objectively wrong in a really blatant way, and it was hard to watch. This is on an entirely different level from talking to someone who believes fudging dice makes roleplaying games better. I disagree strenuously with them and think they're wrong, but it's a legitimate opinion to hold in a way you misunderstanding everything about Fate and vocally rambling on about it certainly wasn't.

You have a remarkable way of ignoring the fact that you attempt to debate logically, almost exclusively by using logical fallacies.

[Koo Rehtorb]

You have a remarkable way of ignoring the fact that you attempt to debate logically, almost exclusively by using logical fallacies.

This isn't a debate. You've already been thoroughly debunked with regards to Fate and how it relates to the subject of dice fudging.

[Kyrell1978]

This isn't a debate. You've already been thoroughly debunked with regards to Fate and how it relates to the subject of dice fudging.

Even if you were correct, how is it that this applies to the logical fallacies that you are using in your arguments (not just those with me but with others as well). Oh right, it doesn't. Just another lazy attempt at a deflection.

[Keltest]

Ok guys, I get that the topic is contentious, but can we at least not go out of our way to pick fights with each other?

[Darth Ultron]

I can change on the fly any citizen into an assassin, a fight encounter into a riddle, furniture into traps and water into enemies. At will.
But if I change a single attack for the sake of the encounter and the joy them I'm cheating my players.



Leaving aside the extremely old school options where the elements are expected to be static or random, in general an element is variable until established. Once somethings on the table and we are fighting now, then that's what's happening. Why should it not be also so with stats, once there are dice being rolled keep them the same.


This is the truly ancient issue of ''when can a DM create or change anything". Most agree the DM can create or change anything most of the time. If the DM wants to put an orc thug with a club in an alley they can or if there is an orc thug in the alley, the DM can say the orc is not their at the exact moment the PCs come.

A lot of hostile players will say a DM can only do thing they agree with, but this is a bit of a pointless Game Ender.

And some really hostile players will make a big deal if orc Gud has a club on day 6, but has a spear on day 10, as the players will say it is impossible for the DM to ''change anything once it is in the game".


To expand on this a bit, the stakes should generally be set before you roll.


Right? Though a DM can set the stakes however they want too, so that really makes the stakes a bit odd. The wacky players somehow think the ''stakes'' are like carved into a stone tablet...but even if that was true(and it's not), they forget the DM made the stone tablet.

[flond]

This is the truly ancient issue of ''when can a DM create or change anything". Most agree the DM can create or change anything most of the time. If the DM wants to put an orc thug with a club in an alley they can or if there is an orc thug in the alley, the DM can say the orc is not their at the exact moment the PCs come.

A lot of hostile players will say a DM can only do thing they agree with, but this is a bit of a pointless Game Ender.

And some really hostile players will make a big deal if orc Gud has a club on day 6, but has a spear on day 10, as the players will say it is impossible for the DM to ''change anything once it is in the game".



Right? Though a DM can set the stakes however they want too, so that really makes the stakes a bit odd. The wacky players somehow think the ''stakes'' are like carved into a stone tablet...but even if that was true(and it's not), they forget the DM made the stone tablet.

Nah. Because once the stakes are set, generally the player is allowed to demure (at admittedly the cost of not attempting whatever it was they were attempting.)

[Louro]

I don't have to tell you what the stakes are. Go find yourself.
I don't need to know what the stakes are until you chase them.

In many many situations you just must craft those stakes on the fly.

[Thrudd]

"You" means "the whole table" there, right?
Fun. Having fun is the thing.
If we are having fun with an encounter, I might extend it just for the laughs. Fudging? Cheating? Breaking the rules?
Whatever if we get some epic moment to remember. If you know your game well, most of the times you can get along with it without breaking anything from the player's perspective.

yes, that's a plural "you", as in anyone, not you personally.

All games are fun, that's why people play them. But games work differently, and people think different things are fun. You might think it's fun to fudge the damage to make the fight keep going, or to make something happen that you think is funny, but I might think it's annoying. Of course, everyone does what their own group thinks is fun (hopefully everyone in the group agrees) - I'm talking about generally, not your group specifically. Also breaking things is breaking things, whether or not it is "from the player's perspective". My opinion is it is always worse to break things than to have something that works without needing to be broken.



Yeah, as DM/referee that's part of my job.
When a player's comes with an elaborated lie I don't even get him roll for deception. He put a RP effort in building the lie, fabricating evidences or toying around with words and hidden information. I decide to ignore the rules and grant the player an automatic success if the lie is feasible and not being opposed.
Note that I'm not even fudging but declaring success straightforward. Sometimes players also like their efforts rewarded rather than determined by luck.

yeah, but when you roll, you do it because there's a chance either thing can happen. That's not ignoring the rules. But if you never had anyone roll deception, because you like to decide how things happen yourself, it would seem strange/unfair to players who had put points into learning deception. The more you just decide things and the less you roll the dice (for things that characters spend resources to be good at), the more broken the game is, because those characters could have/should have saved their points for things that actually need to be rolled.



But... isn't it all an illusion?
I mean, governor Tharkad didn't exist until players asked about him.

No. I'm referring to "illusionism", a description of what happens when players think things are being determined by the game mechanics or are determined in a random or fair manner, when really the GM is deciding things regardless of their actions and rolls and lying to the players. If you fudge the dice behind the screen so that the enemies miss or do less damage to let the players win a fight, you are fooling them into thinking they were sufficient to the challenge when really they were not. Or, they would have successfully gone undetected with a good stealth roll, but you decide the enemy should find them, so you fudge the perception roll. You make it seem like they are deciding things and that their choices and abilities affect the outcome, but really you decide the outcome. You let the players think "this is happening because of us!", when really it was going to happen regardless.



RPGs are about telling a story.
"Playing D&D is an exercise of collaborative creation. You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama."
- D&D 5e PHB p.4

"telling a story" implies there is already a story to tell. The passage says "create" stories. That is true. After you've played an adventure, there is a story to tell about it. But not before. Depending on how things go, it might not be a great story, but that's D&D. Also, I think the writers are way overselling this "collaborative creation" and "tension and memorable drama" thing. The rules described don't bear out an emphasis on dramatic tension and collaborative creation. They're basically saying "people nowadays think RPGs are supposed to be about this, so that's what we're going to say D&D is about," without concern for how the system actually works.



"All possible outcomes" have a very wide meaning in D&D because of the design flaw (high skilled tests).

I think you missing the whole point.
You decide to fudge one roll because it either increases laughs or drama.

The tactical-dramatical combat system from paranoia showed me the power of editing. It allows/encourages players to go do some minor editing to get advantages in combat. (Well, it encourages you to suggest players to cheat, in creative ways).

It's the best combat system ever. You won't get anything as dramatic as a paranoia fight.
I don't fudge to drive the story in the way I want, I just allow myself to use one "Inspiration" to prevent randomness from cutting of drama or fun.

If you have recognized that D&D has a design flaw, have you corrected it for your table, with house rules? That's what I'm talking about. Why keep playing a game you think is flawed? When you decide that dice are supposed to be rolled for something in D&D, the rules tell you what the results mean. All the players know what it means when they see the results of the dice, because it says in the book what happens. If you want a certain result, you shouldn't roll the dice. If you want to change what the dice results mean, you need to tell the players before the dice get rolled, not after.

If you're playing Paranoia and following the rules of the game and getting fun results, then that is a sign that the game works. That has nothing at all to do with D&D, or any other game. If you are saying that D&D should be more like Paranoia, have you made house rules for D&D to make it work that way? Also, Paranoia is fun as a one-shot, but I don't think it's the best system ever. Certainly not for every sort of game someone might want to play. Laughs and drama are not the only goal of RPGs, and so you fudging to accomplish those things are not a rule you can apply universally (they are also very subjective). Some games and people want tactical battles and meaningful strategic planning in their RPG. Some want cinematic excitement and narrative tropes from movies and tv shows. Some want slice-of-life and believable simulation of the day-to-day reality of a fictional world. Some want silly humor, some want serious drama, some want over-the-top action. No single system can give you all those things - some systems really only do one thing. If the game system you've got does not do the thing you want it to do, then you should change it or get a better system.

[RazorChain]

I never fudge rolls. What I do is give situational penalties or bonuses after the fact to achieve the results I want.

[flond]

I don't have to tell you what the stakes are. Go find yourself.
I don't need to know what the stakes are until you chase them.

In many many situations you just must craft those stakes on the fly.

Awesome, so houses of the blooded style "on a 10+ I narrate what happens, on a failure you do?"

You did tell me to go craft them myself? :)

(Or, I suppose, you could mean that in the sense of "the best kind of game is the one where the players never have any feeling of agency." But that sounds dumb. :P)

[Darth Ultron]

If you have recognized that D&D has a design flaw,

The flaw is not with the game, system or the rules....it is with the players.

[Psikerlord]

Story must be over rules and not viceversa.



Not for me. For me Gameplay > Plot.

And I would rate Emergent Story = Gameplay.

[Thrudd]

The flaw is not with the game, system or the rules....it is with the players.

In the sense that the players have expectations that don't match what the game is designed to do. From the POV of the players, whose expectations are established, some games and rules will meet their expectations well, and others they will perceive to perform in a flawed way. In any case, they generally would either house rule to make the game do what they think it should do, or they find a game that does what they want. To keep playing a game that is bad at doing what they think it should do is like someone who just accepts that their car needs to be pushed any time they want to get it started (and it stalls at red lights). They could try to fix it or get another car, it would be much easier and better for them if they did- but they just put up with the pushing for some reason.

[Pelle]

I think a good metric for checking if fudging is acceptable, is to reveal it to the players afterwards and ask what they think about it.

"You know that awesome moment with the bad guy, when you were low on health and he missed you, and then you struck him down? I fudged, actually he critted, and your character should have died according to the roll..."

1. "Thanks, great call! I am glad my character survived and we made it."
2. " I don't wanna know, LALALALALALA"
3. "What? So we didn't deserve it then, and now I have no interest in playing my character any more."

If their response is 1 or 2, then fudging is ok. I think 3 is not ok, but I guess the pro-fudgers thinks that it is still acceptable if the players don't notice and have a good time. The risk is always that they realize it, and being dishonest is also bad IMO. But as long as the players are in 1 or 2, then it doesn't matter anyways.

To me, breaking rules and ignoring rolls is ok, but it is lying about it that makes fudging an issue.

[Koo Rehtorb]

If their response is 1 or 2, then fudging is ok. I think 3 is not ok, but I guess the pro-fudgers thinks that it is still acceptable if the players don't notice and have a good time. The risk is always that they realize it, and being dishonest is also bad IMO. But as long as the players are in 1 or 2, then it doesn't matter anyways.

I think lack of consent is, in and of itself, an issue. Smacking someone in the face without asking is still bad, even if it turns out they're a masochist and was totally into getting smacked by strangers. But it's suddenly not an issue any more if you just ask them first and they say it's okay. If nothing else, it's incredibly patronizing to just assume that you know what they'll like and think that you know best for them.

[Pelle]

I think lack of consent is, in and of itself, an issue. Smacking someone in the face without asking is still bad, even if it turns out they're a masochist and was totally into getting smacked by strangers. But it's suddenly not an issue any more if you just ask them first and they say it's okay. If nothing else, it's incredibly patronizing to just assume that you know what they'll like and think that you know best for them.

Agreed, but some would maybe say that the DM fudging is the norm, and part of the social contract. Maybe that's true for some groups, and then consent is implictly given. Strangely though, many here seem to argue that fudging is ok because the players don't know it is happening and still enjoy the game, which implies that consent is actually not given after all.

[Louro]

All games are fun, that's why people play them. But games work differently, and people think different things are fun. You might think it's fun to fudge the damage to make the fight keep going, or to make something happen that you think is funny, but I might think it's annoying. Of course, everyone does what their own group thinks is fun (hopefully everyone in the group agrees) - I'm talking about generally, not your group specifically. Also breaking things is breaking things, whether or not it is "from the player's perspective". My opinion is it is always worse to break things than to have something that works without needing to be broken.
I don't "think" my players are having fun.
I SEE my players are having fun. It's pretty easy to spot.


yeah, but when you roll, you do it because there's a chance either thing can happen. That's not ignoring the rules. But if you never had anyone roll deception, because you like to decide how things happen yourself, it would seem strange/unfair to players who had put points into learning deception. The more you just decide things and the less you roll the dice (for things that characters spend resources to be good at), the more broken the game is, because those characters could have/should have saved their points for things that actually need to be rolled.
So points you put on the sheet are more important/impactful than RP smartly. I don't agree on that.


If you have recognized that D&D has a design flaw, have you corrected it for your table, with house rules? That's what I'm talking about. Why keep playing a game you think is flawed?
I don't think it has a flaw, I know it has.
Why keep playing it? Because there are many other factors into the equation.


When you decide that dice are supposed to be rolled for something in D&D, the rules tell you what the results mean. All the players know what it means when they see the results of the dice, because it says in the book what happens. If you want a certain result, you shouldn't roll the dice. If you want to change what the dice results mean, you need to tell the players before the dice get rolled, not after.
Maybe a missunderstood here. I don't fudge (ONE OCASSIONAL ROLL) because of the result. I do because of the mood of the moment. Or to correct wrong or nonsense situations.


If you're playing Paranoia and following the rules of the game and getting fun results, then that is a sign that the game works.
Hehe, good joke there.


If you are saying that D&D should be more like Paranoia, have you made house rules for D&D to make it work that way? Also, Paranoia is fun as a one-shot, but I don't think it's the best system ever. Certainly not for every sort of game someone might want to play.
Yes, exactly that. Inspiration is a good mechanic in that direction.


Laughs and drama are not the only goal of RPGs, and so you fudging to accomplish those things are not a rule you can apply universally (they are also very subjective).
Stories are all about drama. No drama, no story. No drama, no agency.


Some games and people want tactical battles and meaningful strategic planning in their RPG. Some want cinematic excitement and narrative tropes from movies and tv shows. Some want slice-of-life and believable simulation of the day-to-day reality of a fictional world. Some want silly humor, some want serious drama, some want over-the-top action. No single system can give you all those things - some systems really only do one thing. If the game system you've got does not do the thing you want it to do, then you should change it or get a better system.
Yeah, I like all those things too. Just forget about the day-to-day simulation. I don't care very much about how they cook bread in D&D.
Almost ANY system can give you all that. Good campaigns should have a bit of everything, like a good movie. A good drama plot, action, comic relief, epic scenes and smart characters opposing smart antagonists.

[Louro]

Awesome, so houses of the blooded style "on a 10+ I narrate what happens, on a failure you do?"

You did tell me to go craft them myself? :)

(Or, I suppose, you could mean that in the sense of "the best kind of game is the one where the players never have any feeling of agency." But that sounds dumb. :P)
Mmmm...
I though by "stakes" you meant "consequences if I fail the check".
Go find those consequences, either through research or testing directly.


Not for me. For me Gameplay > Plot.

And I would rate Emergent Story = Gameplay.
I don't understand this. You say gameplay is more important but also that gameplay equals story. This is a contradiction, as all RPGs stories are "emergent".
I guess you mean crafted by DM and players all together.

--
I think you all making a bunch of wrong assumptioms. Fudging one roll (aka using my DM inspiration) does not mean railroad story, stealing agency, ignoring rules, ignoring players...
It's just a minor correction to favour the game goals. Like rerolling nonsense random encounters or rerolling treasure.

[Kaptin Keen]

Half the RPG systems in the world have some sort of 'get out of a bad roll' mechanic for the players.

There's a reason they don't have one for the GM. And before anyone deliberately gets it wrong: It's because the GM is expected to know what's best, and fudge - if it's a case of stupid and random bad luck cutting the PC's to bloody ribbons, and weaving them into a hammock.

[Thinker]

Half the RPG systems in the world have some sort of 'get out of a bad roll' mechanic for the players.

There's a reason they don't have one for the GM. And before anyone deliberately gets it wrong: It's because the GM is expected to know what's best, and fudge - if it's a case of stupid and random bad luck cutting the PC's to bloody ribbons, and weaving them into a hammock.

A long time ago I would fudge dice when it meant something catastrophic would happen to the characters. I didn't want the session to be derailed by making new characters, having to reset objectives, and what-not. At one point I received the comment that everything seemed kind of easy - like they were playing super heroes in Lord of the Rings. I stopped fudging dice and realized that part of my problem was that most things were either total success or total failure with no in between. The rogue fails a move silently roll or a hide roll against a guard's listen or spot roll? Well, that's a rogue cornered by the guards. I played some other systems and discovered partial successes. This was great. Now, instead of the guards identifying where the not-so-stealthy-rogue was, I had a tool to use in those situations - the rogue might have drawn them to the area where s/he was sneaking, but not been detected yet and the player could figure a way out. Was s/he going to try to climb the curtain? Hide in a crate? Surprise the guards when they got close, but hadn't spotted him/her yet? There were a lot more options and it was good. I still fudged rolls, but it was startlingly less common.

Around the same time, I thought that there was too much dice rolling. I experimented with converting some rolls to static numbers (spot and listen is always static while hide and move silently are always rolled). I still rolled some and players still rolled some. Playing other games, I found that there was a trend at the time of reducing the overall number of rolls. Some even eliminated the GM rolling for those skills altogether - the player always rolled hide, move silently, listen, or spot (or equivalents) and the GM always had the static number. This was preferable and made me wonder what other rolls the players could roll while I just refer to a static number. It turns out the answer was a lot. The GM doesn't really need to roll much of anything - a monster swings a club, the player rolls defense (AC-10); the player wants to pick someone's pocket, the player rolls sleight of hand and I refer to the spot value. This took longer for me to realize than the partial success mechanic, but it had a similar effect on my fudged rolls. I could, of course, always fudge the number on the monster's sheet or the trap's mechanic, but that would change the value entirely and not just for that one roll. Combined with partial successes and partial failures, I almost never changed the challenge's numbers unless I found I had greatly misjudged the players' capabilities.

Add in hero points, fudge dice, stunts, action points, and all of the other mechanics that players can invoke to boost their chances on a single roll and I can't remember the last time I had to tweak things in their favor. It's up to them to decide when it is most applicable to save their character and under what circumstances. I don't know best and I don't think I ever did. I'm sure that part of this is experience with gaming and evaluating the player characters' abilities, but it has led to my current outlook that fudging is totally unnecessary. That said, it seems that you have a different outlook based on your own experiences and are perfectly happy with your way of playing. And that's good. That's what it is all about.

[Kaptin Keen]

[shortened for brevity] And that's good. That's what it is all about.

That sounds like you play an awful lot like I do. I very rarely need to fudge, I can't remember the last time I did. But that's neither here nor there.

This isn't about whether you or I or anyone else occasionally needs to fudge. It's about whether anyone should or shouldn't. It's about whether it's cheating, whether anything's lost from the game when you do.

To me, the answer is obvious: Yes, you should fudge for the good of the game.

The more experienced you become, the less you need to. That should hardly be surprising.

But I've made a discovery since becoming a pbp GM: When I play pbp, I cut things much more closely. There are reasons, I suppose they're not particularly interesting. For one, I can't keep track of many enemies without visual aids. For another, I can't keep track of many PC's without knowing them. So to make combat interesting, I need to ... make it much closer, while at the same time having less room for error.

Playing pbp has made me wish I could fudge. Occasionally. What I do now to avoid disaster is that - when it occurs, I take a very close look at all the modifiers, and usually find some minor mistake, which keeps my PC's alive. There's always something, thank god most players are a bit amateurish, and don't calculate things very proficiently. Sorry players, if you're reading this =)

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's important, IMO, to mention that different people get enjoyment from different things in RPGs. Some care about challenge, some care about exploration, some about participation, others about phat lewts, yet others about the narrative. Most have a spread of things they care about.

I make a point of discussing character death in session 0. Some groups (and even people within a group) are totally ok with characters dying. Others are very much not ok with that. And neither one is "right" or "wrong." They're both valid preferences. But those preferences require different approaches to the game.

Knowing your players and matching your style with theirs is the critical skill for a DM. Much more so than rules mastery, narration ability, combat tactics, map drawing, or any other DM skill.

[kyoryu]

I think one reason PbtA games are able to get away with disallowing fudging* is that the MC is given the escape valve of varying the hardness of an MC move. It's always "make as hard a move as you like", though you should be respecting the tension of "say what the fiction demands" (i.e., respect the world, respect the fictional situation, don't fluff your punches) and "be a fan of the characters" (i.e., don't set out to screw the players over, give them challenges, consequences, and drama to let them shine). This lets players fail rolls but not be totally screwed for it. Dungeon World even goes so far as to gate permadeath behind one last roll, giving characters a chance to return from the gates of death, often having struck a bargain.

Fate is similar in this way as well. Since the GM/table get to decide what failure means, and death is always the choice of the entity that did the Taking Out, so you're never really in a position where you have a result that is unacceptable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fate is similar in this way as well. Since the GM/table get to decide what failure means, and death is always the choice of the entity that did the Taking Out, so you're never really in a position where you have a result that is unacceptable.

There are non-death results that are unacceptable as well. But yes, if you mandate (at the mechanical level) both resolution mechanics and the results for each possible outcome, fudging becomes the safety valve. If you're more flexible about deciding the results, you need less of a safety valve (since the strain is taken up elsewhere).

But either way, you need something to relieve the strain when rules and fun are in conflict. What that looks like will vary from system to system and group to group.

[Darth Ultron]

In the sense that the players have expectations that don't match what the game is designed to do.

This is exactly the problem. D&D and Pathfinder are combat Adventure games....that is it. Yet some players want the game to be selfish wish fulfillment, ego boosting and their second life.



From the POV of the players, whose expectations are established, some games and rules will meet their expectations well, and others they will perceive to perform in a flawed way. In any case, they generally would either house rule to make the game do what they think it should do, or they find a game that does what they want. To keep playing a game that is bad at doing what they think it should do is like someone who just accepts that their car needs to be pushed any time they want to get it started (and it stalls at red lights). They could try to fix it or get another car, it would be much easier and better for them if they did- but they just put up with the pushing for some reason.

Yet, few players understand this. They look at the Combat Adventure Game, and then whine and complain until a DM changes it into the Perfect Second Life for the player.



That sounds like you play an awful lot like I do. I very rarely need to fudge, I can't remember the last time I did. But that's neither here nor there.


As the DM has control over the whole game universe, it is easy for the DM to set up everything to just about always work out.



Knowing your players and matching your style with theirs is the critical skill for a DM. Much more so than rules mastery, narration ability, combat tactics, map drawing, or any other DM skill.

Knowing the players is important, but a DM must be ever wary of the ''style'' that players say they are....as they are mostly mistaken. Few people, and even fewer players, know themselves. So they will say ''I'm style X", then a DM gives them that exact style game, and they have no fun.

[Thrudd]

What is wrong with fudging, IMO, is that it is rarely up-front enough. Where it is used, it should be explicitly and blatantly encoded in the rules. If it's clear that it is intended to be a part of the game, the players can't complain about being lied to. If the rule is that the GM may alter or nullify any die roll at his/her discretion, or declare results without using dice that otherwise would be determined by rolling mechanics (such as whether or not an attack hits or how much damage is dealt by an attack), then everyone knows what they're getting into.

I don't think most games go this far in their writing that players would expect this to be the case. I certainly never have.
The rules usually give much attention to how to get results from various mechanics with modifiers and ability scores, and there's usually just a sentence or two somewhere that notes the GM's ultimate authority over the game. When they give play examples, there is never an example of fudging- it's always showing how the mechanics work as-written. I'd think if GM fiat was meant to be such a regular and important part of the game, they'd write some examples of what that would look like- "player A rolls to attack- a miss! GM decides it would be more fun if the attack was successful and declares it a hit, instead. Player A rolls for damage..."

This is different from a system where you don't have binary success and failure, and results almost always require GM to interpret what happens- like PbtA games. That is a game system mechanically designed to help the GM and players craft a narrative and insert dramatic tension. D&D is not that- the tension is mainly whether or not the characters will survive. If you fudge to alter that, you're negating the game's main source of tension and challenge.

[kyoryu]

There are non-death results that are unacceptable as well. But yes, if you mandate (at the mechanical level) both resolution mechanics and the results for each possible outcome, fudging becomes the safety valve. If you're more flexible about deciding the results, you need less of a safety valve (since the strain is taken up elsewhere).

But either way, you need something to relieve the strain when rules and fun are in conflict. What that looks like will vary from system to system and group to group.

From a bigger picture, sometimes "not fun" leads to more "fun". Can't have the highs without the lows.

I don't think it's that hard to really have a system that's aligned with your group expectations overall. The biggest problem is that D&D is a fairly lethal game (crit rules for monsters that can result in 3x damage, save or die, little grey area between alive and dead dead), and most people don't seem to want a game that lethal. Like, at least 90% of the time people talk about fudging it's to not kill of characters. Making the system less lethal isn't really that hard.



Knowing the players is important, but a DM must be ever wary of the ''style'' that players say they are....as they are mostly mistaken. Few people, and even fewer players, know themselves. So they will say ''I'm style X", then a DM gives them that exact style game, and they have no fun.

Labels are bad because they hide lots of things behind a single word, and the people on the two sides of the conversation probably don't agree on what things that single word means.

I prefer to use examples of how things might turn out in a game instead.


That sounds like you play an awful lot like I do. I very rarely need to fudge, I can't remember the last time I did. But that's neither here nor there.

This isn't about whether you or I or anyone else occasionally needs to fudge. It's about whether anyone should or shouldn't. It's about whether it's cheating, whether anything's lost from the game when you do.

To me, the answer is obvious: Yes, you should fudge for the good of the game.

The more experienced you become, the less you need to. That should hardly be surprising.

I've often said that fudging is the "least good" way to solve these kind of undesired-results problems. Almost every other way to resolve them is better, but in a pinch, fudging will still get you out of a jam.

But if you find yourself fudging frequently, you really need to look at either how you're setting things up, or you need to start houseruling, or at least setting explicit, acceptable stakes before the roll.

[Nifft]

From a bigger picture, sometimes "not fun" leads to more "fun". Can't have the highs without the lows.

I don't think it's that hard to really have a system that's aligned with your group expectations overall. The biggest problem is that D&D is a fairly lethal game (crit rules for monsters that can result in 3x damage, save or die, little grey area between alive and dead dead), and most people don't seem to want a game that lethal. Like, at least 90% of the time people talk about fudging it's to not kill of characters. Making the system less lethal isn't really that hard.

(...)

I've often said that fudging is the "least good" way to solve these kind of undesired-results problems. Almost every other way to resolve them is better, but in a pinch, fudging will still get you out of a jam.

But if you find yourself fudging frequently, you really need to look at either how you're setting things up, or you need to start houseruling, or at least setting explicit, acceptable stakes before the roll.

The thing is, most people don't know what needs fixing until they encounter the problem.

When they first encounter the problem, it's often easier to paper it over -- fudge a roll -- than to sit fix the system.

Fixing the system also requires discussion with players, and earning their buy-in. That barrier is not trivial, especially for people with agreeable personalities (who want to minimize confrontation & conflict).

Fudging a roll is socially much less difficult than declaring that the system is broken and you are going to house-rule it -- some players have an irrational aversion for house-rules, perhaps brought on by past traumas, or perhaps based on nothing.


In terms of fixing the system, I think you're saying something accurate and valid -- but the difficulties in doing the fixes can be non-trivial from a social and organizational standpoint, and a new DM would have no reason to believe that the rules need fixing until the game has already started. At that point, players may feel betrayed that the DM wants to change the rules mid-game, or betrayed that the DM is fudging -- it's a lose-lose situation. Fudging is easier to conceal as compared to changing the rules, so that's what some DMs do.

[Kyrell1978]

I don't think most games go this far in their writing that players would expect this to be the case. I certainly never have.

Except that a ton of games state explicitly that it is okay to do so. As I stated before a hair over 96% of the games on my shelf have language in them that states at least something to that effect (52/54 games). Out of those 52 that suggest it well over half mention avoiding character death specifically.
If you are playing D&D, Shadowrun, any Palladium Megaverse game, Any White Wolf game or any version of Star Wars from the d6 West End Games to Saga Edition then you are playing a game that states that specifically. Just in those games you have a non trivial percentage of the hobby.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Except that a ton of games state explicitly that it is okay to do so. As I stated before a hair over 96% of the games on my shelf have language in them that states at least something to that effect (52/54 games). Out of those 52 that suggest it well over half mention avoiding character death specifically.
If you are playing D&D, Shadowrun, any Palladium Megaverse game, Any White Wolf game or any version of Star Wars from the d6 West End Games to Saga Edition then you are playing a game that states that specifically. Just in those games you have a non trivial percentage of the hobby.

One issue is that those are parts of the books that people just don't read as much as they should. What do people do? Flip right to the "crunch". Character creation. Abilities. "Hard" rules. But those "the DM decides what happens and may use the rules if they want (or not if they don't)" don't seem like rules. They're just "advice." Which isn't true. They're just as hard of rules as the definition of a combat hit.

[Knaight]

The thing is, most people don't know what needs fixing until they encounter the problem.

When they first encounter the problem, it's often easier to paper it over -- fudge a roll -- than to sit fix the system.

Fixing the system also requires discussion with players, and earning their buy-in. That barrier is not trivial, especially for people with agreeable personalities (who want to minimize confrontation & conflict).

Fudging a roll is socially much less difficult than declaring that the system is broken and you are going to house-rule it -- some players have an irrational aversion for house-rules, perhaps brought on by past traumas, or perhaps based on nothing.

Large scale fixes, sure - but I'm not convinced that fudging is actually meaningfully easier than the "the system says what? That's stupid, we're not doing that" approach. It's fudging without the secrecy, which removes a significant issue with fudging.

[Kaptin Keen]

As the DM has control over the whole game universe, it is easy for the DM to set up everything to just about always work out.

That might be true for you. It may conceivably be true for most. I stated quite clearly in my post that it's not true for me, and explained why. Also, dice rolls are there to be random, and thus not controlled by the GM. In other words, not everything in the game universe is controlled by the GM.


I've often said that fudging is the "least good" way to solve these kind of undesired-results problems. Almost every other way to resolve them is better, but in a pinch, fudging will still get you out of a jam.

By the time you need to fudge, those other options - which I'll agree are better - are no longer available.


But if you find yourself fudging frequently, you really need to look at either how you're setting things up, or you need to start houseruling, or at least setting explicit, acceptable stakes before the roll.

I think I stated with some clarity in the post to which you're replying that I've not had to fudge in years. Eh, what I said was I can't remember the last time. That translates into years.

[Nifft]

Large scale fixes, sure - but I'm not convinced that fudging is actually meaningfully easier than the "the system says what? That's stupid, we're not doing that" approach. It's fudging without the secrecy, which removes a significant issue with fudging.

A sufficiently large number of small-scale fixes can cause even more frustration among some players, than one big system overhaul. I've experienced that kind of player.

Hell, I've seen players try to fight about applying errata to ongoing games.

Any change means risking conflict.

[kyoryu]

Large scale fixes, sure - but I'm not convinced that fudging is actually meaningfully easier than the "the system says what? That's stupid, we're not doing that" approach. It's fudging without the secrecy, which removes a significant issue with fudging.

I agree. It also has the benefit of being open and transparent.


The thing is, most people don't know what needs fixing until they encounter the problem.

When they first encounter the problem, it's often easier to paper it over -- fudge a roll -- than to sit fix the system.

Well, yes.


Fixing the system also requires discussion with players, and earning their buy-in. That barrier is not trivial, especially for people with agreeable personalities (who want to minimize confrontation & conflict).

And so does fudging, unless you somehow think that you're going to continue fudging long-term and not having it noticed.


In terms of fixing the system, I think you're saying something accurate and valid -- but the difficulties in doing the fixes can be non-trivial from a social and organizational standpoint, and a new DM would have no reason to believe that the rules need fixing until the game has already started. At that point, players may feel betrayed that the DM wants to change the rules mid-game, or betrayed that the DM is fudging -- it's a lose-lose situation. Fudging is easier to conceal as compared to changing the rules, so that's what some DMs do.

Short-term. Long-term, I completely disagree.


A sufficiently large number of small-scale fixes can cause even more frustration among some players, than one big system overhaul. I've experienced that kind of player.

Hell, I've seen players try to fight about applying errata to ongoing games.

Any change means risking conflict.

When the system isn't giving you what you want, that's the conflict that needs to be resolved.


By the time you need to fudge, those other options - which I'll agree are better - are no longer available.

I think I stated with some clarity in the post to which you're replying that I've not had to fudge in years. Eh, what I said was I can't remember the last time. That translates into years.

Yes, I'm agreeing with you and expanding on what you're saying.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Half the RPG systems in the world have some sort of 'get out of a bad roll' mechanic for the players.

There's a reason they don't have one for the GM.
If I follow this correctly, the proper logical conclusion is as follows:

1. Most RPG systems include a mechanic to help players get out of a bad roll
2. They do not include a corresponding mechanic for the GM
3. A corresponding mechanic on the GM's side would enable the GM to get out of a bad roll

QED, the purpose of fudging is to let the GM compensate for rolling poorly, just in case they fail to hit the PCs with attacks.

:thinking:

(In reality, systems which let players compensate for bad rolls make fudging obsolete because they give all of the positives without discarding the rules of the game on a whim.)

[kyoryu]

(In reality, systems which let players compensate for bad rolls make fudging obsolete because they give all of the positives without discarding the rules of the game on a whim.)

Some level of dice-overriding mechanic goes a long way towards removing or reducing the need for fudging. It's one of the easier solutions to the problem.

[Nifft]

Short-term. Long-term, I completely disagree. Agreed, but that's the tragedy of the local-optimization pitfall that I'm describing -- and yes, I'm slightly amused at describing local-optimization hill-climbing as a "pitfall".

-- -- --

One other case I've seen where fudging can happen:
- DM has no particular idea what should happen.
- DM rolls for random inspiration.
- Roll lands on something which isn't inspiring; reacting to the negation of the roll does inspire the DM.
- DM ignores roll, does whatever seems cool.

The effect of this is mechanically identical to not rolling, since it's DM fiat either way -- except the DM did roll (for inspiration), so if a player saw this happen, the player might feel that the DM cheated somehow.

Was this "cheating"?

IMHO it's not, but my reasoning depends entirely on intent, and intent is difficult to prove to any outside observer.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Agreed, but that's the tragedy of the local-optimization pitfall that I'm describing -- and yes, I'm slightly amused at describing local-optimization hill-climbing as a "pitfall".

-- -- --

One other case I've seen where fudging can happen:
- DM has no particular idea what should happen.
- DM rolls for random inspiration.
- Roll lands on something which isn't inspiring; reacting to the negation of the roll does inspire the DM.
- DM ignores roll, does whatever seems cool.

The effect of this is mechanically identical to not rolling, since it's DM fiat either way -- except the DM did roll (for inspiration), so if a player saw this happen, the player might feel that the DM cheated somehow.

Was this "cheating"?

IMHO it's not, but my reasoning depends entirely on intent, and intent is difficult to prove to any outside observer.

I don't think I can even call that fudging. There's no fixed mechanic, no requirement that the roll on the table have any meaning. This, to me, is different than ignoring a player-side mechanic (like an attack roll or damage roll).

Examples:
-- Rolling for random treasure, then deciding that what you rolled (for example, a bag of devouring instead of a bag of holding) wouldn't be a good choice here, so you give something else instead or re-roll.
-- Rolling for random encounters, but not wanting to throw that adult dragon at the party right now (even though it's a perfectly valid result in a similar situation, so changing the table isn't the right thing to do either).
-- Luck rolls for things that really don't have a fixed mechanic. It's different from a coin flip in that it doesn't have to be 50-50, but where's the cutoff? Depends on the situation and isn't quite fixed.

[Thrudd]

One issue is that those are parts of the books that people just don't read as much as they should. What do people do? Flip right to the "crunch". Character creation. Abilities. "Hard" rules. But those "the DM decides what happens and may use the rules if they want (or not if they don't)" don't seem like rules. They're just "advice." Which isn't true. They're just as hard of rules as the definition of a combat hit.

I get that. I'm saying it's poor design. It's a poorly designed game, which in writing suggests certain goals and results but in mechanics creates something else, and expects a minor proviso like "the DM ultimately decides what happens" to make it work. Games need rules, and "do what you want" isn't a rule. Set up alternative mechanics- if you want X to happen, use this rule, if you want Y to happen, use that rule. Suggest that they make their own rules to do other things not thought of. But also suggest that all the players know what the rules are before the game starts and to inform them whenever you intend to change things.

As a player, I want to know the game is being played fairly. I want to know what to expect and how to conduct myself effectively in the game environment. I don't want Calvinball. I don't think it's a good system if I need to ask about every single ability and mechanic that represents a character to see if the GM is going to abide by those rules. Is this going to be a lethal game or is this a game where we'll be kept alive for the story? Should I take social skills, or does the GM just want us to act out social scenes and ignore the dice? Will the GM follow the rules that would make my ability choices useful and effective, or is all of this pointless?
If the GM doesn't explicitly say how and where their way of playing differs from the book, I should be safe assuming it will be played by the book. But the book also says every GM can decide what they want, so I've been warned to expect that not everything will be exactly how the book describes it. A GM might be within their rights to say "it's in the rules! I get to decide what happens, not the dice!" But being surprised with how the game works after the game has already started is not fun.

A game written like this needs to also tell the GM to inform the players before the game about rules they intend to ignore or change, like "I'm not going to use the game's rules for character death. If a PC or important NPC would possibly lose their last hit points, I will decide whether or not to allow the hit or damage based on what I think makes for good drama or the needs of the story. But if a PC does something that I think is obviously lethal, I will not save them - so don't act like you are all invincible."
Ok, I might not like it, but at least I know that this is how your game works. I will pay attention to the narration and drama I'm creating more than worry about tactics, and won't worry too much about getting a couple extra points of defense or HP.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I get that. I'm saying it's poor design. It's a poorly designed game, which in writing suggests certain goals and results but in mechanics creates something else, and expects a minor proviso like "the DM ultimately decides what happens" to make it work. Games need rules, and "do what you want" isn't a rule. Set up alternative mechanics- if you want X to happen, use this rule, if you want Y to happen, use that rule. Suggest that they make their own rules to do other things not thought of. But also suggest that all the players know what the rules are before the game starts and to inform them whenever you intend to change things.

As a player, I want to know the game is being played fairly. I want to know what to expect and how to conduct myself effectively in the game environment. I don't want Calvinball. I don't think it's a good system if I need to ask about every single ability and mechanic that represents a character to see if the GM is going to abide by those rules. Is this going to be a lethal game or is this a game where we'll be kept alive for the story? Should I take social skills, or does the GM just want us to act out social scenes and ignore the dice? Will the GM follow the rules that would make my ability choices useful and effective, or is all of this pointless?
If the GM doesn't explicitly say how and where their way of playing differs from the book, I should be safe assuming it will be played by the book. But the book also says every GM can decide what they want, so I've been warned to expect that not everything will be exactly how the book describes it. A GM might be within their rights to say "it's in the rules! I get to decide what happens, not the dice!" But being surprised with how the game works after the game has already started is not fun.

A game written like this needs to also tell the GM to inform the players before the game about rules they intend to ignore or change, like "I'm not going to use the game's rules for character death. If a PC or important NPC would possibly lose their last hit points, I will decide whether or not to allow the hit or damage based on what I think makes for good drama or the needs of the story. But if a PC does something that I think is obviously lethal, I will not save them - so don't act like you are all invincible."
Ok, I might not like it, but at least I know that this is how your game works. I will pay attention to the narration and drama I'm creating more than worry about tactics, and won't worry too much about getting a couple extra points of defense or HP.

You can't make rules for everything in advance without constraining the set of possible actions. Which I don't like. So that's not an option.

RPGs are fundamentally different from board games because there's someone who has power over the rules. So the rules can be open-ended, which allows the situations to be open-ended. But that requires flexibility from the players.

RPG rules play a different role, in my mind, than do board game or competitive game rules. They're not the primary defining characteristic of the game. They're a tool, a set of pre-fab resolution mechanics that cover the things the designers think are common or important. But they're not supposed to cover every possible interaction, nor is it reasonable to expect that a DM has thought of every possible interaction ahead of time. That's why trust is important. And I trust my DMs much more than I trust designers. If the two are in conflict, I'll go with my DM (who's my friend and who I can punch, figuratively speaking, if needed) over the designers (who I don't know from Adam, and who I can't really influence if they do something stupid).

Players > rules. 100% of the time.

[Kaptin Keen]

QED, the purpose of fudging is to let the GM compensate for rolling poorly, just in case they fail to hit the PCs with attacks.

The GM being allowed to 'adjust' dice rolls is generally even in the rules. It's also the better part of the reason why GM screens exist.

I think I'll bow out of this riveting debate, with thanks - I'm much enlightened =)

[flond]

Mmmm...
I though by "stakes" you meant "consequences if I fail the check".
Go find those consequences, either through research or testing directly.


I don't understand this. You say gameplay is more important but also that gameplay equals story. This is a contradiction, as all RPGs stories are "emergent".
I guess you mean crafted by DM and players all together.

--
I think you all making a bunch of wrong assumptioms. Fudging one roll (aka using my DM inspiration) does not mean railroad story, stealing agency, ignoring rules, ignoring players...
It's just a minor correction to favour the game goals. Like rerolling nonsense random encounters or rerolling treasure.

1. That's a great way to lead to dnd style "do something every 10' feet" I prefer games where the players feel empowered to take risks and make decisions.
(On a slightly more serious note. Stake setting is generally useful because rpgs run under very limited bandwidth. Hiding and shuffling things around are very rarely needed because players usually have a pinhole view of the world as is. Making people poke and prod and test isn't really worth it IMO. (And I was being largely facetious. Though I do love me some joint narrative games. )

2. Why are you using those rules if there's a possibility of "nonsense results" if you want a cohesive result, why do you not just choose?
Also, the reasons people make those assumptions is because people do them. Like, not all stories are emergent. If you want to see an example, go look at the old white wolf adventures where the players follow important NPCs around and listen to canned speeches.

[Thrudd]

You can't make rules for everything in advance without constraining the set of possible actions. Which I don't like. So that's not an option.

RPGs are fundamentally different from board games because there's someone who has power over the rules. So the rules can be open-ended, which allows the situations to be open-ended. But that requires flexibility from the players.

RPG rules play a different role, in my mind, than do board game or competitive game rules. They're not the primary defining characteristic of the game. They're a tool, a set of pre-fab resolution mechanics that cover the things the designers think are common or important. But they're not supposed to cover every possible interaction, nor is it reasonable to expect that a DM has thought of every possible interaction ahead of time. That's why trust is important. And I trust my DMs much more than I trust designers. If the two are in conflict, I'll go with my DM (who's my friend and who I can punch, figuratively speaking, if needed) over the designers (who I don't know from Adam, and who I can't really influence if they do something stupid).

Players > rules. 100% of the time.

Yes, trust in the GM is important. That's why I want to trust them not to lie to me or cheat at a game we're playing together. That's why I want us all to agree on the rules of the game we're going to play together. I want the GM to think about how the game should work, decide on what rules they'll use, even make their own if they want to. The designers can't think of everything, and I know things will get adjusted during play because we can't all think of every possibility. But we want those things to be consistent and predictable. Changes need to make sense, I need to know what the goal of the game is and what I need to do to be successful at it. Do I need to be a good actor? Do I need to come up with quick jokes? Do I need to brush up on my 80's action movie tropes? Do I need to be strategic, tactical, pragmatic, realistic? Do I need to study the different character classes and know their various strengths and weaknesses relative to each other? Do I need to write flowery descriptive prose? If I succeed, I want to know I actually succeeded because I played well and not because somebody let me win. If I fail, I want to know why and what I can do differently so I don't keep failing. I want accomplishments to mean something - like we had great teamwork, or we picked up on the clues and made the right choices, or we even just got really lucky.

IMO RPGs are games just as much as any other game, and their rules have the same role - to define how the game works and give the players a framework within which they can pursue the goals of the game. They differ in the types of goals they have. If the game designers did something that doesn't work for me, I'll alter the rules so it does work for me, I expect any GM to do the same. It's an objectively bad game that has ill-defined objectives and/or rules that don't fit with stated objectives. Like if soccer had a rule that to score a goal, the ball must be thrown into the net. But it is illegal to pick up the ball. Or "if the ref says so, a player may pick up the ball, only so long as the ref allows it." This is going to be a very weird game.

Obviously, there are differences between competitive sports and RPGs, but they are the similar in that there is a goal, there are rules that inform how you can get to that goal. Maybe the goal is "create an epic fantasy story" and the rules dictate how and when the different players get to contribute ideas or declare events that occur. It's a bad game that says "the goal is a story" and the only real rule is "this one person decides everything and the other players listen to them and try to convince them to let various things happen in the story."
By removing the authority of mechanics from an RPG, that is essentially what you are left with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Calling a DM exercising authority over the rules "cheating" is stealing a base (assuming the conclusion).

If, as has been alleged, the rules explicitly grant DMs that authority, then exercising that authority is following the rules, not breaking them. If, as has been alleged, the rules require that the DM exercise that authority when they feel it best fits the table's needs, then not doing so is violating the rules' demands.

And there are fundamental differences between rules for games where the players are in opposition to one another (and need a neutral party as a referee) and those in which the players cooperate to do something (and in which the DM is just another player, albeit one entrusted by the holy rules themselves with a different role).

[Louro]

1. That's a great way to lead to dnd style "do something every 10' feet" I prefer games where the players feel empowered to take risks and make decisions.
(On a slightly more serious note. Stake setting is generally useful because rpgs run under very limited bandwidth. Hiding and shuffling things around are very rarely needed because players usually have a pinhole view of the world as is. Making people poke and prod and test isn't really worth it IMO. (And I was being largely facetious. Though I do love me some joint narrative games. )
I don't know what are you talking about.

- Player: what are the consequences of fooling a priest?
- DM: Make your guess.
- Player: Well, what are my chances of success?
- DM: You don't know, but the priest doesn't look like a person of inmediate action.
Player only know the hints I give. If they wanna asses the risk more precisely they must research/investigate.
(no immediate action = he checks with a trusted person before making any important decision)


2. Why are you using those rules if there's a possibility of "nonsense results" if you want a cohesive result, why do you not just choose?
Also, the reasons people make those assumptions is because people do them.
Because if I get to choose the players die.
People do what? Fudging whole encounters? Never seen that.
If the story isn't collaborative, then your are playing wrong. No matter what. Even if it's a oneshot.

[Koo Rehtorb]

"Do whatever you want when you think you should" is not a rule, even if it's in a rulebook.

[Louro]

"Do whatever you want when you think you should" is not a rule, even if it's in a rulebook.
It's more like:
"Do whatever you think will improve the gameplay, even if you must ignore/change some rules"

And it is on all rulebooks. Are all rulebooks wrong?

[Nifft]

And it is on all rulebooks. Are all rulebooks wrong?

When the socially domineering player wants to tell the DM what to do, and the rulebooks are getting in that guy's way, then obviously the rulebooks all ~must~ be wrong.

[PhoenixPhyre]

When the socially domineering player wants to tell the DM what to do, and the rulebooks are getting in that guy's way, then obviously the rulebooks all ~must~ be wrong.

And the irony is even better when they're saying that the DM following the rules is cheating and that the rules are everything.

I see lots of people who, when they say "the rules", they really mean "what I want the rules to say, regardless of what they actually say." Not just in games, but everywhere.

[Kyrell1978]

Calling a DM exercising authority over the rules "cheating" is stealing a base (assuming the conclusion).

If, as has been alleged, the rules explicitly grant DMs that authority, then exercising that authority is following the rules, not breaking them. If, as has been alleged, the rules require that the DM exercise that authority when they feel it best fits the table's needs, then not doing so is violating the rules' demands.

And there are fundamental differences between rules for games where the players are in opposition to one another (and need a neutral party as a referee) and those in which the players cooperate to do something (and in which the DM is just another player, albeit one entrusted by the holy rules themselves with a different role).


And the irony is even better when they're saying that the DM following the rules is cheating and that the rules are everything.

I see lots of people who, when they say "the rules", they really mean "what I want the rules to say, regardless of what they actually say." Not just in games, but everywhere.

All of this. It cannot be reasonably said that one is cheating by following the rules.

[Calthropstu]

I prefer to butter rolls personally.

[Kyrell1978]

I prefer to butter rolls personally.
The Smiling Bandit........strikes again.......ha.ha.ha.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The fact that some badly written games give some bad advice doesn't make it a good practice. It, however, does make it more understandable that people don't realize it's a bad practice. They're not wicked, just led astray.

[Nifft]

And the irony is even better when they're saying that the DM following the rules is cheating and that the rules are everything.

I see lots of people who, when they say "the rules", they really mean "what I want the rules to say, regardless of what they actually say." Not just in games, but everywhere. Yeah. One example of this that I've seen:

"Oh I don't need any ranks in Gather Information. When I want to do that, I'll just role-play out the evening of investigation using Diplomacy."

Beyond the nerve of telling the DM what the PC will roll, there's the ugly arrogance of assuming that the rest of the group ought to let That Guy waste their time role-playing out an evening of chit-chat in trade for That Guy getting a few free skill ranks.

Game ended with That Guy throwing a tantrum about something else shortly thereafter.

[Thrudd]

Calling a DM exercising authority over the rules "cheating" is stealing a base (assuming the conclusion).

If, as has been alleged, the rules explicitly grant DMs that authority, then exercising that authority is following the rules, not breaking them. If, as has been alleged, the rules require that the DM exercise that authority when they feel it best fits the table's needs, then not doing so is violating the rules' demands.

And there are fundamental differences between rules for games where the players are in opposition to one another (and need a neutral party as a referee) and those in which the players cooperate to do something (and in which the DM is just another player, albeit one entrusted by the holy rules themselves with a different role).

I'm not calling documented GM authority "cheating". Fudging might not be technically cheating, but I would feel cheated, and that's not a feeling I want to give my friends or be given by them.

I'm saying that a game in which the rules let the GM override all other mechanics without any guidelines is not a good game, and I don't believe the caveats included in all the games mentioned are actually suggesting playing that way. They're saying that in those rare, once-in-a-blue-moon edge cases where the rules produce something that just doesn't make sense, the GM should make a ruling that makes sense. If that happens regularly, there's a problem - either with the game's design or how the GM and the players are interpreting what's going on. You fudge one time in a months long campaign? ok. You fudge every session? Something's gone wrong.

GM authority should be controlled in a sensible way, a predictable way. There should be clear lines - where the dice decide things and where the GM does. If the game is written to involve the GM narrating and deciding outcomes without mechanical assistance most of the time, and the mechanics only apply when the GM decides to use them, well ok. But once they get used, can I at least be sure that they work in a consistent way? Or is the outcome still at the whim of the GM? Are the use of mechanics just a ploy to make me think my game choices matter? Do any of my character choices make a difference, when it is all depends on whether the GM will allow the mechanics to be used at all?

I want my players to know their choices matter, and that their decisions have results and consequences. I want them to know that when they roll the dice, the dice stay rolled.

[Thrudd]

Yeah. One example of this that I've seen:

"Oh I don't need any ranks in Gather Information. When I want to do that, I'll just role-play out the evening of investigation using Diplomacy."

Beyond the nerve of telling the DM what the PC will roll, there's the ugly arrogance of assuming that the rest of the group ought to let That Guy waste their time role-playing out an evening of chit-chat in trade for That Guy getting a few free skill ranks.

Game ended with That Guy throwing a tantrum about something else shortly thereafter.
That all implies a DM that is actually using the mechanics and asking for skill rolls, and abiding by the results of the rolls to dictate how the social situation works out.

How about the guy who puts all his points in Gather information and Diplomacy, and then the DM has everyone act out social scenes and rarely bothers to even have them roll for anything? Would you blame him for next time deciding to not put any points into those skills, and rely on his own acting skill to deal with social encounters? Or is he trying to get free skill ranks?

I think the second example is more pertinent to this whole GM-authority/fudging issue. Why would players expend character resources on things that may be made mostly or completely useless by the GM's decision to skip over those rules most of the time? And the GM doesn't even need to warn the players about this, since making decisions about how and when the rules should apply is an ongoing condition in the game.

Players don't tell the GM how the game works. But it is a reasonable expectation for them to be told how the GM will run the game and what the rules of the game are. If the GM's rules are "don't even look in the book, none of that matters, it works how I say it works" - that might not make everyone happy, but at least they know what to expect.

[Pleh]

I don't always fudge GM rolls, but when I do, I'm usually realizing part way through the game that I don't like how I set up the challenge and the implication of the dice seems less fun for the players.

So, from my point of view, I don't fudge rolls. I retcon DCs.

Is it any better? No, but I put in a mental note to avoid the same scenario in the future and construct my game better next time.

[Darth Ultron]

That might be true for you. It may conceivably be true for most. I stated quite clearly in my post that it's not true for me, and explained why. Also, dice rolls are there to be random, and thus not controlled by the GM. In other words, not everything in the game universe is controlled by the GM.


I guess you can pretend the DM does not control the game universe, if that works for you. Though the DM sets up and controls everything about and around the dice roll, and everything else. So....


I don't think I can even call that fudging. There's no fixed mechanic, no requirement that the roll on the table have any meaning. This, to me, is different than ignoring a player-side mechanic (like an attack roll or damage roll).

Examples:
-- Rolling for random treasure, Rolling for random encounters,

This is the big part everyone, even more so players, miss: only the players are forced to use the mechanical rules. Most games don't have a rule that says the DM must do that. If a player wants to have a character attempt to do something, they must make a roll for it. But the DM does not.

Treasure and encounters are two good examples. A DM could randomly roll for them, but they don't have to: they can just have whatever 'pop' in on a whim. And even if the DM did roll and choose to stick with the roll, the DM can still make anything out of that roll. If the DM rolls 'red dragon', the DM can make it a weak dragon, for example.



IMO RPGs are games just as much as any other game, and their rules have the same role - to define how the game works and give the players a framework within which they can pursue the goals of the game.

Except most RPGs don't work like that, as they have something like a DM. You are talking about more of a classic board game with everyone playing by the same rules.



Or "if the ref says so, a player may pick up the ball, only so long as the ref allows it." This is going to be a very weird game.

While it is not true in sports, this type of ''weird'' is exactly how most RPGs are played.




I'm saying that a game in which the rules let the GM override all other mechanics without any guidelines is not a good game, and I don't believe the caveats included in all the games mentioned are actually suggesting playing that way. They're saying that in those rare, once-in-a-blue-moon edge cases where the rules produce something that just doesn't make sense, the GM should make a ruling that makes sense. If that happens regularly, there's a problem - either with the game's design or how the GM and the players are interpreting what's going on. You fudge one time in a months long campaign? ok. You fudge every session? Something's gone wrong.

Except the rules of RPGs that say such things don't say they are ''super rare and should only be done like once in a long, long while". In fact, DMs changing or doing anything is a fundamental part of most RPGs. It's not a problem, it is a design feature.



GM authority should be controlled in a sensible way, a predictable way.


This sounds good, but this is just wishful thinking.

[Nifft]

That all implies a DM that is actually using the mechanics and asking for skill rolls, and abiding by the results of the rolls to dictate how the social situation works out. There's no need to read subtle implications -- you can just ask. This happened IRL, so the easy way to discover the truth would be to just ask someone who was there (for example: me).

In this case, shockingly enough, it was the DM who pointed out that Gather Info ranks would be rewarded, and the player -- who was also the player who demanded open rolls and bullied the DM about "cheating", which is why I was reminded of this -- anyway, then the player said the thing I quoted.

So yeah, the obvious implication would have been correct in this case.


How about the guy who puts all his points in Gather information and Diplomacy, and then the DM has everyone act out social scenes and rarely bothers to even have them roll for anything? Would you blame him for next time deciding to not put any points into those skills, and rely on his own acting skill to deal with social encounters? Or is he trying to get free skill ranks? If there's miscommunication between the players and the DM, then it's quite possible to waste skill ranks. But that's a different topic, irrelevant to my post.


Players don't tell the GM how the game works. But it is a reasonable expectation for them to be told how the GM will run the game and what the rules of the game are. Yep, that's how it ought to be.

Sadly that's not how it always goes.

[RazorChain]

Some level of dice-overriding mechanic goes a long way towards removing or reducing the need for fudging. It's one of the easier solutions to the problem.

I agree, it also empowers the player in his choices. If he wants to be THE ninja and fails his stealth rolls all the time then having some mechanic at hand where he can override bad rolls is good.

My group has used bennies for a couple of decades now, it started with one game and now we don't play without that mechanic.

A large portions of my rolls is in front of my players, I usually tell them the target number as well as it aides in suspense, mostly it's out of practicality as we move to the battle mat during combat.

Now I'm using a bennies system loosely based on Edge of Empire. The players get bennies to help with their rolls, when they used it, it goes to me and the bad guys have access to it.

This means I have no need to fudge rolls, my players use their bennies knowing they can only keep 3 on hand after each session so I usually get enough to "fudge" my rolls if I want to.

[Mr Beer]

I don't always fudge GM rolls, but when I do, I'm usually realizing part way through the game that I don't like how I set up the challenge and the implication of the dice seems less fun for the players.

So, from my point of view, I don't fudge rolls. I retcon DCs.

Is it any better? No, but I put in a mental note to avoid the same scenario in the future and construct my game better next time.

Yeah this. I don't mind TPK-ing the party but if we're playing heroic fantasy, I'm not going to TPK them unless they're doing something stupid or we're at the apocalyptic final battle.

If it's WHFRP or some other grit-fest, yeah well the heroic leader may well die because a trivial goblin arrow wound got infected and blood poisoning set in.

[Kaptin Keen]

I guess you can pretend the DM does not control the game universe, if that works for you. Though the DM sets up and controls everything about and around the dice roll, and everything else. So....

So not the dice rolls. Which are what determines the need to fudge. So ...

[Psikerlord]

The biggest problem is that D&D is a fairly lethal game (crit rules for monsters that can result in 3x damage, save or die, little grey area between alive and dead dead), and most people don't seem to want a game that lethal. Like, at least 90% of the time people talk about fudging it's to not kill of characters. Making the system less lethal isn't really that hard.

OMG no, the problem with dnd is it's way too safe and survivable, a cakewalk, the opposite of lethal/gritty.

[Nifft]

OMG no, the problem with dnd is it's way too safe and survivable, a cakewalk, the opposite of lethal/gritty.

Edition and level can change the expected lethality of D&D.

[flond]

I don't know what are you talking about.

- Player: what are the consequences of fooling a priest?
- DM: Make your guess.
- Player: Well, what are my chances of success?
- DM: You don't know, but the priest doesn't look like a person of inmediate action.
Player only know the hints I give. If they wanna asses the risk more precisely they must research/investigate.
(no immediate action = he checks with a trusted person before making any important decision)


Because if I get to choose the players die.
People do what? Fudging whole encounters? Never seen that.
If the story isn't collaborative, then your are playing wrong. No matter what. Even if it's a oneshot.

Yes. I'm specifically saying that sort of play is often bad.

Let's compare it to two of my favorites:

Apocalypse World:

This game tends to not have actual mechanics for fooling someone. But it sure has mechanics for manipulating them.

First, you need leverage. If you have leverage, you can roll. If you don't have leverage, the dm will tell you outright you can't roll.

If you can roll, you know your exact chances of success. Know if you succeeded. And know, generally what will happen on a success. (And know the pool the GM is drawing on for a failure)

Burning Wheel:
Outright "If you fail to deceive the priest he'll go ask someone else.". Before the roll. It lets you know what's up.

While both of these might be contrivances, I'm happy for the extra information. On both sides of the screen.

(Also, yes. People fudge whole encounters all the time)

[Mordaedil]

That might be true for you. It may conceivably be true for most. I stated quite clearly in my post that it's not true for me, and explained why. Also, dice rolls are there to be random, and thus not controlled by the GM. In other words, not everything in the game universe is controlled by the GM.
A DM can just not ask for rolls too. When I DM I will sometimes ask for rolls just to heighten tension, but I won't have there be any consequences to the roll, at least none that are immediately obvious.

Part of the role of being a DM is that you set the mood, that means you can conclude the players are being spied upon without them having a chance to conceal themselves or that they can't convince the king to turn back the army marching to war. And sometimes failure just isn't very interesting.

The purpose of rolling dice in general is to make a call on an outcome that isn't certain, but it also helps the player feel "maybe this isn't a closed deal" even when it is. I will generally fall on the side of asking the players to make more unnecessary roll, as long as it doesn't waste too much time. (In retrospect, it gets a bit silly when players start rules-lawyering decisions that already have a favorable outcome for them)

The dice rolls might be random and not controlled by the GM, but the GM certainly controls the difficulty of the roll. And just because I set it just out of what the dice can reach doesn't mean it is outside of my perogative to do so.

[Louro]

Yes. I'm specifically saying that sort of play is often bad.

Let's compare it to two of my favorites:

Apocalypse World:

This game tends to not have actual mechanics for fooling someone. But it sure has mechanics for manipulating them.

First, you need leverage. If you have leverage, you can roll. If you don't have leverage, the dm will tell you outright you can't roll.

If you can roll, you know your exact chances of success. Know if you succeeded. And know, generally what will happen on a success. (And know the pool the GM is drawing on for a failure)

Burning Wheel:
Outright "If you fail to deceive the priest he'll go ask someone else.". Before the roll. It lets you know what's up.

While both of these might be contrivances, I'm happy for the extra information. On both sides of the screen.

(Also, yes. People fudge whole encounters all the time)
So you think telling my players what's the priest willpower/wisdom (whatever his defence against fooling is) is better than not.
I do not agree there.
Yeah, we all like extra information, but it ain't free.
Also, telling the player what the NPC will do... looks like a divination power.

This makes most social combats meaningless. It's like telling them the enemy armour and hit points before combat, so they can decide if engage or ignore.

[kyoryu]

Edition and level can change the expected lethality of D&D.

Edition, level, and GM style.

Post-3rd ed, a lot of the things I talk about go away. Before 3rd ed, the game was also far more deadly. The game has moved away from that, but a lot of the DNA remains.

And if D&D wasn't deadly, then why is it that the vast majority of fudging talk still revolves around preventing character death?

D&D is kind of weird in that it's not deadly (or even dangerous) often until it is, especially at higher levels.


Yes. I'm specifically saying that sort of play is often bad.

Let's compare it to two of my favorites:

Apocalypse World:
...

Burning Wheel:
...

While both of these might be contrivances, I'm happy for the extra information. On both sides of the screen.


It's not even that unrealistic, really. People give off a lot of signals and are fairly easy to read, especially since our conversations with NPCs in games tend to be much, much shorter than they would be in real life. People are generally not anywhere near as unknowable as some might think.

[flond]

So you think telling my players what's the priest willpower/wisdom (whatever his defence against fooling is) is better than not.
I do not agree there.
Yeah, we all like extra information, but it ain't free.
Also, telling the player what the NPC will do... looks like a divination power.

This makes most social combats meaningless. It's like telling them the enemy armour and hit points before combat, so they can decide if engage or ignore.

Frankly I don't think that makes combat meaningless at all, just because you know the numbers doesn't make the choice pointless, it makes the choice more meaningful I'd say than "let's open the mystery box"

[Keltest]

Frankly I don't think that makes combat meaningless at all, just because you know the numbers doesn't make the choice pointless, it makes the choice more meaningful I'd say than "let's open the mystery box"

I think its certainly open to exploitation and metagaming if the players know in advance how difficult all their tasks would be.

[flond]

I think its certainly open to exploitation and metagaming if the players know in advance how difficult all their tasks would be.

Eh. I mean as noted it works fine for pbta, and while there's some give due to modifiers, percentile systems are pretty close to always letting you know your odds.

[Louro]

Well, if we were playing D&D I couldn't give you that information even if I wanted to, because I don't know what the priest insight roll will be.
I think its way more interesting to encourage players to search for information than giving it away for free.