PDA

View Full Version : DM fudging good or bad?



Tallis
2008-09-01, 12:04 AM
This comes out of Ken do nim's "Was I right to be upset about this?" thread. Rather than derailing his thread I figured I'd start a new one.

I've played in games that had no fudging, we just let the dice fall as they may. I had a lot of fun with that.
I've also played in games with blatant fudging where the DM would back up the encounter and say something didn't happen or roll out in the open and then tell us he was going to ignore the roll. This bothered me. The storyline was interesting, but there was no suspense since I knew he wouldn't let us die no matter what happened.

When I run a game I use minimal fudging and try not to let the players know when I do it. Most of the time I let the dice roll and just go with it. If a character fails he suffers the consequences. Luck is part of the game and adventuring is a risky business. If a character dies I'm okay with that, it's happened many times in my games.
On the other hand I don't like TPKs. If an encounter is going bad because I made a mistake planning it (hard to believe, I know!) I will fudge things a little bit to make it a more even match. If the players are playing well but are just exceptionally unlucky and they are heading for a TPK in what was supposed to be a minor encounter I might fudge it. If half the party is down I may lower the NPC's BAB or damage bonus a step or 2 to give the PCs a chance. If I have a plausible reason for the bad guys to run they may do that. I might also have them capture the PCs or rob them but leave them alive. There will be consequences, but I will try to avoid a TPK.
In a major battle TPKs are fair, but I don't seek them out and have never had one in one of my games. As a general rule I don't fudge in major battles, these are meant to be dangerous after all. I did finish off one school year of play with a fight that killed 3 out of the 4 PCs and left the last one at 4hp, but that is the closest I've ever gotten to TPK. I pride myself on that fact as I feel it means I create relatively balanced encounters most of the time.

My basic beliefs:
Ultimately the purpose of fudging should be to make the game more fun for everyone and enhance the shared story of the group, not just the DM's idea of what should happen. Fudging should be done secretly to maintain the illusion of risk for the players. Fudging should not entirely eliminate the risk to the players. PC death should still be a possibility, otherwise the game can become boring. Even if the players don't realize the DM is fudging they will eventually recognize the lack of risk.
If the group does not like fudging it should not be used. This is a tough one to judge since asking them will give it away if you do use it, but do your best to get a feel for the players' feelings on the subject.

So what are your opinions? What level of fudging is okay? What level of challenge are you looking for in an adventure? Do you like playing in games where TPKs happen on a regular basis? For purposes of this discussion I include any change made on the fly to the encounter for the pupose of reducing the risk to the PCs. Please explain your reasons for whatever answers you give.

Editted for clarity (I hope)

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-01, 12:06 AM
No fudging. At all. I'm a simulationist. I want the world real. I prefer "realistic" over even plot, let alone survival.

Anxe
2008-09-01, 12:07 AM
I fudge all the time. I might as well not be rolling the dice. I go by the general feel of the roll. I usually try to make my players take enough damage to scare them, but not to kill them. Occasionally I do kill them though.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-01, 12:08 AM
I fudge all the time. I might as well not be rolling the dice. I go by the general feel of the roll. I usually try to make my players take enough damage to scare them, but not to kill them. Occasionally I do kill them though.I would never game with you. No offense, but that makes it a rules-based drama group, not an RPG, IMHO.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-09-01, 12:09 AM
On the other hand I don't like TPKs. If an encounter is going bad because I made a mistake planning it (hard to believe, I know!) I will fudge things to make it a more even match.

I think this is the key. I try to do major fudges only when I feel like I, as a DM, planned the encounter poorly. Sometimes, this means it is too hard, so the bad guy needs to miss with a crucial spell. Sometimes, it means it is too easy, so the bad guy needs to hit with a few attacks to make him feel threatening.

The only other time I fudge stuff is when a player has a niche roll (like a rogue and traps) that I haven't thrown at them for awhile. I might fudge a near miss to be a successful disarm, because someone who pours their heart and sole into filling a specific role doesn't deserve to have his character look stupid over an unlucky roll. (why have him roll then? well, I don't fudge it if it is a frequent occurence, and I try to let all of my players fill their roles in the party, so if they haven't been lately, then it is the same as above and falls under DM mistake)

JMobius
2008-09-01, 12:10 AM
I think DM rolls should be behind a screen, and that fudging is both acceptable and to be encouraged when appropriate for story purposes.

I don't like killing PCs, have never done so, and (I hope they don't read this) I do not intend to ever do so for non-dramatic purposes. This is because, as a player, I find it difficult to make an attachment to a character if I believe his death is all too likely from the outset.

Xenogears
2008-09-01, 12:14 AM
If you like TPK happening on a regular basis you should quit DnD and start playing the Warhammer RolePlaying Game where you are living in a world where everything can and will kill you.

Personally I think that if the entire Party is killed then either the DM screwed up or the Players rolled very badly. Or the DM rolled really good. TPK should be a constant risk but only because of the inherent nature or the dice. Technically a kobold could kill a lvl 20 fighter simply by virtue of natural 20's and natural 1's. So in any fight you could be killed but you shouldn't be assuming both the players and the DM roll averagely and the Players don't act like idiots.

DM fudging should be kept to an absolute minimum. If say a random encounter that was supposed to be easy wound up having the enemy run up and roll a crit and he had a X4 crit weapon then the DM should roll the damage in secret(assuming he does that often) and tell them that it reduced him to -3 or something if it should have killed him. If it wound up not killing them anyway just go with the dice and keep going. If they are about to die because they were acting like an idiot and charged off alone then let them die. If it is a more important fight (say against the final villain or a rival or even a high level henchman) then you should let the dice stand completely to keep the tension alive. If it kills everyone well they will be better prepared next time and since it was against the final villain or atleast a major enemy they won't feel cheated.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-09-01, 12:17 AM
A little fudging unless the game incorporates Action Points is usually nice.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-01, 12:19 AM
A little fudging unless the game incorporates Action Points is usually nice.Why are so many people willing to go easy? I really don't get it.

Tallis
2008-09-01, 12:23 AM
I fudge all the time. I might as well not be rolling the dice. I go by the general feel of the roll. I usually try to make my players take enough damage to scare them, but not to kill them. Occasionally I do kill them though.

Hmmm....
Interesting way of doing thigs, but if the layers catch you they could get pretty upset. Especially if you killed them.

If it works for your group great, but I don't think I'd like it.

Thank you for your input though, it's always interesting to know how other people do things.

Ent
2008-09-01, 12:24 AM
I think it's necessary, sometimes. I mostly do so only to avoid killing a PC, and then only when it's going to be a pointless death, or if it will somehow derail my story.

I've been more likely to roll above average against PCs and I've gotten this habit of lifting the screen to show crits or strings of high rolls.

Tallis
2008-09-01, 12:32 AM
Why are so many people willing to go easy? I really don't get it.

For myself at least telling a good story is more important than an individual roll of the dice. If an encounter is meant to be tough within the story I generally won't fudge things. On the other hand if the PCs are just unlucky in what is meant to be an easy encounter and are losing through no fault of their own then I will push things in a direction that supports the story.
Most of the players I've gamed with have wanted to play heroic (power level, not always morality :smallwink:) games. Dying in a minor encounter is not very heroic so I avoid that in the interest of everyone's fun.

BobVosh
2008-09-01, 12:35 AM
If you like TPK happening on a regular basis you should quit DnD and start playing the Warhammer RolePlaying Game where you are living in a world where everything can and will kill you.


I disagree. Call of Cthulu. Then you have multiple ways of killing.

As a DM if it is a roll I would fudge I don't roll it. I have the power of "story" to do that. If it is an encounter I plan badly then I expect my PCs to have an escape route. I almost never block teleport or anything else, except for anticipate and delay teleport spells.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-01, 12:38 AM
See, for me, I'd think that the story doesn't matter if there's no risk. It's not worth it if there's no chance of failure.

Winged One
2008-09-01, 12:38 AM
Well, I don't GM at all, but I think fudging should be done if it helps everyone present enjoy themselves(the players, I mean. The characters can be completely miserable for all I care). Even then, the GM should take care to hide the fact that it's happening from the players.

Zeta Kai
2008-09-01, 12:41 AM
I would never game with you. No offense, but that makes it a rules-based drama group, not an RPG, IMHO.

You say "rules-based drama group" like it's a bad thing.


Why are so many people willing to go easy? I really don't get it.

You don't get it because you are only considering things from your own perspective, & not considering the possibility of alternative perspectives.

For instance, as a thought exercise, consider DMing a game wherein you did not show your players the dice. Now you, as the DM, now have not only power over the player's gaming experience, but you now also have power over the game itself. You are not bound by the dice, or the social pressure to follow the mandates of random chance. You are free to craft your player's gameplay as you see fit.

You should still roll the dice a lot, of course, but now you can choose to take the pips at face value or to make up a number that better suits your whims/fancies/desires/plans/plots/strategies. If done well, the players will never know that you changed a 3 to an 8, or a natural 20 to a mere 10. They will assume that your rolls are legit, or at least you are rolling for a reason.

I've played with a DM who rolled her die every few seconds, consulting charts & jotting down notes. We always assumed that she was calculating background world events, as her worlds were very immersive & full of rich detail. I found out much later that she was just a masterful railroader, & that all her die rolling was just for show: she knew the results that she was going for before she ever took the die out of her bag.

Now, this may not be the way you would prefer to DM, & by all means, you should follow your heart in that regard. But please tell us that you can at least imagine other DMs out there fudging the results? Surely you can concede that the idea has some appeal, as well as some distinct advantages.

Tallis
2008-09-01, 12:46 AM
See, for me, I'd think that the story doesn't matter if there's no risk. It's not worth it if there's no chance of failure.

It's possible to fail without dying, that's generally what I aim for. I also generally to not completely ignore rolls, I just reduce damage or have their opponents keep them alive for ransom or something like that. It's still possible that the PCs could die, I just give them a better chance of survival. PCs do die due to bad luck in my games, just not very often. So my players know they're at risk and I do my best not to let them know when I protect them a little. From their point of view the risk is always there, and it is, just at a lower level than they think.

Colmarr
2008-09-01, 01:19 AM
See, for me, I'd think that the story doesn't matter if there's no risk. It's not worth it if there's no chance of failure.

It's almost a trope of fantasy that heroic groups have largely uniform membership from the start of the story to the end. There might be the occasional heroic death (Boromir in LotR or Sturm Brightblade in Dragonlance) but the core of the group remains constant the entire time.

If too many characters die, you lose continuity and the story either (1) ceases altogether or (2) becomes about events rather than people.

Ultimately, I believe that stories should be about people, and that entails that there shouldn't be too many casualties. To put a number on it, (and excluding voluntary PC departure) I'd say that you should finish a campaign with at 50% of the original characters present if you want to present some form of cohesive heroic tale.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm talking about permanent death, not the usual D&D "take a nap until your cleric can cast his ritual" death. Permanent death of multiple PCs (especially by TPK) can, in my experience be a campaign killer.

Xenogears
2008-09-01, 01:40 AM
I disagree. Call of Cthulu. Then you have multiple ways of killing.

Both are good. The DM I usually played with let me try out Call of Cthulhu once. At level one I killed about ten zombie's with a sniper rifle before they could even get close enough to see me. He quit right then and there and we never played again. Although he did on occasion take it out in normal DnD in order to find a monster to horribly kill me. It never worked though. The monster was the one who died horribly.

In Warhammer Role Playing you can play a Dwarf with an orange Mohawk though. The orange mohawk is a class feature! That is the single coolest class feature ever! Plus it is incredibly hard if not impossible to powerplay. (especially since starting careers are chosen randomly) so it makes the game more balanced. Also mages aren't that overpowered (especially since they get hunted down AND go insane). Plus my Dwarven Trollslayer wound up as the smartest character of the group.

Lord Herman
2008-09-01, 01:52 AM
I sometimes fudge the dice when the story calls for it. For example, although I do let the PCs get pretty beat up during, say, the penultimate encounter of an adventure, I'd only kill them in the final one. Or when they do something really stupid.

I've tried an approach of not fudging anything, ever, in an earlier campaign, but that just didn't work. One player's characters kept dying and dying and dying, and could never truly get involved in the story. When the character who was the driving force in the plot died in an unimportant encounter, the story was over.

quillbreaker
2008-09-01, 02:06 AM
It's a doubly important issue in 4th, as you can fudge a whole lot more. You couldn't fudge everyone failing a save in 3.5. In 4.0, it's an attack roll against will, and you can fudge that.

Xenogears
2008-09-01, 02:12 AM
Fudging can progress the story and that is good. However if you do it too much and the players begin to feel that they will never die the game is pretty much pointless. Sure dying sucks and might screw up the story but if you can't die then all the tension is gone. At most DM fudging should be used sparingly. Preferably not at all but in the case of a random bout of extreme unluckiness it is okay sometimes.

Behold_the_Void
2008-09-01, 02:38 AM
Paranoia, of all systems, has a rule very dear to my heart: you should only be rolling dice if you don't know what you want to happen.

Of course to me games like this are all about the story and the setting. Screw realism, screw strict adherence to the rules. When I play, I want to make sure my players and I are having fun. If that means fudging some rolls so they don't have some BS death, so much the better for all of us. TPKs are something I absolutely avoid at all cost, too. Or character death in general. I'm more willing to let them survive but have there be repercussions to their failure than to kill them, as someone else mentioned it breaks the flow of the game and forces a player to sit out, which isn't fun for them. Bottom line, if my players are happy, then I'm doing it right. If I have to fudge a roll to do it, hell yes I will.

Dode
2008-09-01, 02:55 AM
Why are so many people willing to go easy? I really don't get it.
Because sometimes a satisfying in-game narrative involving a character or the entire party is worth saying a nameless kobold hit a critical or the BBEG that you've been building up to for months from killing the party in the first round. That's what separates an RPG from a plotless hack-and-slash grinder. And before you ask, pretty much everyone in the campaign I'm currently playing in has died at least once.

BobVosh
2008-09-01, 03:47 AM
Paranoia, of all systems, has a rule very dear to my heart: you should only be rolling dice if you don't know what you want to happen.

That is basically what I was saying. However I don't care if my player lose to a same cr fight, unless I min/maxed the cr. But that is far more annoying to do than not...so I don't.

Saph
2008-09-01, 03:53 AM
I think this is the key. I try to do major fudges only when I feel like I, as a DM, planned the encounter poorly. Sometimes, this means it is too hard, so the bad guy needs to miss with a crucial spell. Sometimes, it means it is too easy, so the bad guy needs to hit with a few attacks to make him feel threatening.

I think this is the number one reason to fudge. Many 3.5 monsters are wrongly-CRed; many 4e monsters don't match their XP value. And that's just monsters taken from the book. Once the DM starts making stuff up from scratch, anything goes.

Often these mistakes will result in an encounter that's way too hard or way too easy. In this case, I think you should fudge. If the PCs are expecting a level-appropriate encounter, and the module states that it's supposed to be a level-appropriate encounter, then having the PCs all die because some nitwit playtester made the Needlefang Drake Swarm twice as tough as it should be is just not fair. No-one wants to have a character die because of badly written rules.

On the other hand, sometimes the PCs lose fair and square. If they make bad decisions and have bad luck, and the monsters play well and have good luck, and the battle's a close-run thing where the PCs run through all their abilities but are finally defeated, well, then you should play it as it rolls. (If you don't, then when are you going to?)

I don't think it's a good idea to fudge just because the results of a combat aren't matching the DM's intended narrative. The whole fun of a RPG is that you have the freedom to succeed (or fail) in your own way. Sure, players don't want to die a pointless death, but that doesn't mean they want the opposite extreme, either. If the entire party is basically invulnerable for all but two or three fights per campaign, they're likely to get bored. Riskless combats get dull fast. The players have to believe that they're in at least some danger when a fight starts, otherwise they'll lose interest.

Even if you do fudge from time to time (and you'll probably have to) it's important not to do it too often. The players will understand if you fudge one encounter out of five, but not two encounters out of three. At some point, you have to either start going by what the dice say, or stop pretending to roll them in the first place.

- Saph

CASTLEMIKE
2008-09-01, 03:54 AM
Why are so many people willing to go easy? I really don't get it.

Lots of reasons which vary from person to person but in the end it is usually more fun.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-09-01, 03:56 AM
Because sometimes a satisfying in-game narrative involving a character or the entire party is worth saying a nameless kobold hit a critical or the BBEG that you've been building up to for months from killing the party in the first round. That's what separates an RPG from a plotless hack-and-slash grinder. And before you ask, pretty much everyone in the campaign I'm currently playing in has died at least once.

Yes. And even stepping outside of the narrative bit for a moment, we can look at players. Of all the types of players, probably the only ones who have a strong urge to die in them are storytellers and people who play barbaric idiot characters. Everyone else would like to see the next session with character sheet in tact.

As far as making it exciting without character death, I have but two words: Rust Monster. This thing shows that players can piss their pants even when they won't have to be rolling new stats in a few minutes. On simpler terms, I've had players thinking they were in mortal danger for an entire combat, and then, when they look afterwards, they realize they are still easily at half capacity. It's more about description and ideas than about the actual probability of risk. You have to make them feel that something is at risk by making them feel it. And that combines the narrative desires of the DM and the players' desires to stay alive!

Edit: And just to add, losing a combat doesn't always have to end in losing one's life. Players should be more okay with running when the chips are down if they don't think they have a good hand. This would actually make things easier on the DM a good number of times.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-01, 04:29 AM
I only fudge dice rolls to keep PCs from dying from poor luck. The key, obviously, is that the players can't know.

In most games, I roll on my little "DM table", but in some games, I roll on the "battle board" table, which makes fudging impossible.

Whether I bother fudging depends on the game. Call of Cthulhu? Definitely - it's easier to scare players when their characters are alive (and characters with history = characters the players are invested in). D&D? Probably not - combat and dice have a bigger role in combat-heavy games.

Backing up encounters and the like is definitely no good - in fact, any fudging that necessitates saying anything is bad fudging.


I really prefer games like Warhammer FRP, where the players have a legitimate way to fudge bad rolls built into the rules (Fate Points, in WFRP). In story-heavy games, failed dice rolls should result in fixable messes and new challenges, not termination of a PC's story. (Of course, in some games - like high-level RuneQuest - death is a fixable mess.)

nagora
2008-09-01, 05:03 AM
No fudging at all.

As a player I find it deeply patronising and turns every victory into a hollow one. As a DM, I feel it makes my world and NPCs into cardboard cutouts.

Fudging is like a drug: the DM starts off doing it just a little because "I don't like to kill people for bad luck" or "This encounter is a little too tough", and ends up with railroads as far as the eye can see.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-01, 05:06 AM
Never let a die roll get in the way of a good story. Karma, Drama and Logic all trump dice.

IMHO.

nagora
2008-09-01, 05:16 AM
Never let a die roll get in the way of a good story. Karma, Drama and Logic all trump dice.

IMHO.
Of those, I would only pick "logic"; I've no interest in manufactured versions of the other two as a player or a DM. Having said that, drama and karma inevitably grow from a good game, but fudging undermines everything.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-01, 05:20 AM
Of those, I would only pick "logic"; I've no interest in manufactured versions of the other two as a player or a DM. Having said that, drama and karma inevitably grow from a good game, but fudging undermines everything.

I disagree. If, for instance, a player makes a compelling speech to convince a local noble, I'm not going to ruin that by ignoring his words and instead using a diplomacy roll.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-01, 05:42 AM
I disagree. If, for instance, a player makes a compelling speech to convince a local noble, I'm not going to ruin that by ignoring his words and instead using a diplomacy roll.

This is why I'd prefer to use skill rolls as a "poor substitute for RP", generally - at least for tasks everyone is theoretically capable of. If you can't be bothered to come up with details of your actions, roll the dice. ('course it's not as simple as that when you're, say, working in sub-optimal conditions, or your action is opposed by someone else).

Like I said, though, systems with built-in player-controlled fudging are way better - fate points, hero points, karma points, whatever you've got.

WFRP's fate points are probably my favorite. You get critted by a Beastman's mace and it's the "face shattered" result. You spend a Fate Point to avoid almost certain death, and you're just knocked out. But when you come to, you're all alone and badly wounded in the middle of a dark forest, lying under the corpses of your allies and enemies, some of who might still linger nearby - or, worse yet, tied up in a cage, hanging over a cooking fire in the Beastmen's camp. So you can fudge a terminal result into a big mess you'll have to play your way out of.

nagora
2008-09-01, 05:43 AM
I disagree. If, for instance, a player makes a compelling speech to convince a local noble, I'm not going to ruin that by ignoring his words and instead using a diplomacy roll.

But that's the "logic" option. A compelling speech is a reason for the noble to be convinced. The dice are not needed at all in that case, let alone needed to fudge it. If the character and the noble have some reason to not like each other, or the character has low charisma, then perhaps roll the dice to see if that is overcome by the character's words, and let them land where they may.

The reason for the roll must make sense, and if it makes sense to roll the dice then it make sense to read the result.

Cainen
2008-09-01, 05:47 AM
Remember, you can be forced to roll the dice by a DM who disagrees or plays differently, and it's really not that pleasant to constantly lose because the dice hate you and the DM is laughing about it. Nothing epic or fun will ever come of that.

It's not black and white.

nagora
2008-09-01, 05:54 AM
Remember, you can be forced to roll the dice by a DM who disagrees or plays differently, and it's really not that pleasant to constantly lose because the dice hate you and the DM is laughing about it. Nothing epic or fun will ever come of that.

It's not black and white.
Sure it is: if the DM's laughing about your bad luck you tell him/her where to stick their dice and leave.

But, such a DM is unlikely to be fudging the dice in your favor anyway.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-01, 05:59 AM
But, such a DM is unlikely to be fudging the dice in your favor anyway.

Non-sequitur? I don't see where Cainen implied they would, or where you inferred it from... he was, rather, positing an alternative: a GM who forces dice rolls, and whose games are ruled by luck and numbers rather than plot and drama.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-01, 05:59 AM
But that's the "logic" option. A compelling speech is a reason for the noble to be convinced.

No, that's drama. Anyway, I do believe we're in agreement that a well-played speech is preferable to just rolling one die.

Conversely, if a low-level mook ambushes the party, he's not going to one-shot a player character just because I happen to roll a crit. That's karma.

And logic would be that if a grenade blast at point-blank range does one hit point of damage because of a lucky soak roll, that also needs fudging.

It's all a matter of taste, of course, and I've tried diceless systems and didn't like them either. Some things need to be random, but some random results need to be ignored.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-01, 06:02 AM
Some things need to be random, but some random results need to be ignored.

The dice are advisory.

nagora
2008-09-01, 06:10 AM
No, that's drama. Anyway, I do believe we're in agreement that a well-played speech is preferable to just rolling one die.

Conversely, if a low-level mook ambushes the party, he's not going to one-shot a player character just because I happen to roll a crit. That's karma.

And logic would be that if a grenade blast at point-blank range does one hit point of damage because of a lucky soak roll, that also needs fudging.

It's all a matter of taste, of course, and I've tried diceless systems and didn't like them either. Some things need to be random, but some random results need to be ignored.
I remember once that our high-level party (five characters all into low doubledigits) encountered a "none shall pass" knight on the road. He was, unknown to us, ninth level and nothing special in the way of magic items while we were, at that point, at the peak of our equipment list (this was before we encountered Fraz Urb'lu) which included a +5 axe, and a couple of +3 swords. This is all 1e.

He knocked seven shades of **** out of us in an astounding run of bad luck for us and good luck for him. We took him down eventually, but the battle was epic and we talked about it for years, long after battles where things had gone "as expected" were forgotten. It became high drama for us because we stuck to the dice.

Similarly, deaths of PCs who got unlucky while trying something brave but dangerous are talked about much more fondly than ones where someone died because they were stupid. And no one ever talks about the odd times when PCs have succeeded because the DM was kind - those times simply don't count in the same way that "dream episodes" in comics don't. They might be sort of fun at the time, but they're meaningless fun.

Once dice are rolled, you can't change them without breaking the characters' reality. So, you need to be sure that you, as the DM, want the dice rolled because that reality is your whole game. IMO.

valadil
2008-09-01, 10:00 AM
As a GM who prefers plot and story to dice and mechanics, I'm in favor of fudging. I still let players die when they earned it. I just don't see the need to punish someone for bad luck. I also inflate enemy hitpoints quite liberally if I feel a fight isn't going long enough.

I do agree with everyone that too much fudge and the battle becomes meaningless. As soon as the players know fudging is going on, the fight is totally pointless. Subtle fudging is a skill that takes practice. If a DM intends to fudge dice, he should learn how without the players noticing.

I'll also point out that while it isn't the type of game I GM, I can enjoy the tactical simulation type of game too, just so long as I know what kind of game it is when I get into it.

only1doug
2008-09-01, 10:02 AM
One of my best GMing sessions involved me fudging the die rolls:

Game: WFRP,
Session: one off adventure,
Plot: Explore the spooky mansion,

Having searched the rest of the house the players have made their way into the top tower where the they see a Pentagram inscribed into the floor, with large golden candleabra's at the five cardinal points, inside the pentagram a robed figure is intoning words from a book held on a lectern. A huge scarred manshaped figure is strapped to a alter in the center of the pentagram.

Attempting to pass the pentagram was blocked by a mysterious invisible wall.
eventually the players figure out to put out the candles which lowered the warding.

the summoner died in the first round but (of course) finished his summoning with his last breath (GM note: although i took notes of number of rounds passing it was irrelevant, Obviously the summoning Must always finish just as the PC's get there... too early and team evil will win, and too late is just dull).

Now comes the fudging: my Big Bad Monster had a ton of wounds and a high toughness... and ran out of wounds in the first round of player attacks... but if he died it would be anti-climatic.
So i dropped his attack % and just kept a note of the wounds and the Players attack descriptions (the guy using a rapier did almost no damage to it as he kept using piercing attacks on a giant zombie) as the fight progressed the players kept slicing bits off but it refused to die until they had chopped it into tiny pieces. (and its attacks got less accurate and weaker throughout the combat).



the players told me later that it was one of the best sessions they had ever had.

Sometimes a GM needs to fudge things for dramatic appropriateness.
your plot arc climax BBEG shouldn't die in the first round, nor should a PC die from a sneak attack from ambush with no warning or chance to react.

Anxe
2008-09-01, 10:05 AM
Off-topic a little bite, but where does the word fudging come from? I think it comes from when a DM made a roll and the die landed in a bowl of fudge. The DM couldn't use the die because it was covered in fudge, so he just decided to "fudge" the roll.

Tallis
2008-09-01, 10:07 AM
If the PCs are expecting a level-appropriate encounter, and the module states that it's supposed to be a level-appropriate encounter, then having the PCs all die because some nitwit playtester made the Needlefang Drake Swarm twice as tough as it should be is just not fair.

LOL, you really hate those needlefang drakes don't you?


I don't think it's a good idea to fudge just because the results of a combat aren't matching the DM's intended narrative. The whole fun of a RPG is that you have the freedom to succeed (or fail) in your own way. Sure, players don't want to die a pointless death, but that doesn't mean they want the opposite extreme, either. If the entire party is basically invulnerable for all but two or three fights per campaign, they're likely to get bored. Riskless combats get dull fast. The players have to believe that they're in at least some danger when a fight starts, otherwise they'll lose interest.

Even if you do fudge from time to time (and you'll probably have to) it's important not to do it too often. The players will understand if you fudge one encounter out of five, but not two encounters out of three. At some point, you have to either start going by what the dice say, or stop pretending to roll them in the first place.

To be clear I'm not opposed to character death here and there, though I prefer it not happen too often, but I will do what it takes to avoid TPK. Also there are risks other than death that can take it's place if the dice go badly. Losing a magic sword is more upsetting to some players than dying, but it allows the story to go on. It may even result in a side quest if it was stolen rather than broken.
On average I'd say I fudge maybe 1 in 10 gaming sessions. I have character death maybe 1 in 20. My players know they can die, even in a pointless fight, but it's not going to happen all the time.
I should note that resurrection is rare and difficult in my games. In most cases dying means rolling up a new character not just a trip to the local temple. Death doesn't happen all the time, but when you're dead you stay dead. This is another reason why I avoid character death in pointless encounters. If the character you've worked on dies I think it's better that the death be memorable and heroic. The newer the character the less important that is.

Erk
2008-09-01, 10:08 AM
I'm amazed people are so virulently against fudging, honestly. I refuse to let dice tell me how to tell my story.

For a minor encounter, I do let the dice fly as they will, most of the time. For plot-critical ones, I sometimes don't even have stats for the monsters. I just let the players tally up their rolls, glance at a sheet of notes that has nothing to do with the fight, and decide more or less based on how they described what they are trying to accomplish on if they succeeded. These kind of encounters tend to orient more on solving a problem than killing creatures, and they tend to be a lot more popular.

In my experience, relying solely on dice doesn't work too well for anything but pure combat games, at least when I am GMing.

nagora
2008-09-01, 10:46 AM
I'm amazed people are so virulently against fudging, honestly. I refuse to let dice tell me how to tell my story.

For a minor encounter, I do let the dice fly as they will, most of the time. For plot-critical ones, I sometimes don't even have stats for the monsters. I just let the players tally up their rolls, glance at a sheet of notes that has nothing to do with the fight, and decide more or less based on how they described what they are trying to accomplish on if they succeeded. These kind of encounters tend to orient more on solving a problem than killing creatures, and they tend to be a lot more popular.

In my experience, relying solely on dice doesn't work too well for anything but pure combat games, at least when I am GMing.

I wonder if this is another edition thing; in 1e there's not much dice rolling outside of combat, really, while in d20 you seem to have to roll to pick your nose.

That's why I said that you should be careful when you ask for a dice roll but stick to it when you do. But, if the DM feels that the system is compelling them to roll dice in inappropriate moments, they will want to overrule much more than I would.

Tallis
2008-09-01, 11:13 AM
I remember once that our high-level party (five characters all into low doubledigits) encountered a "none shall pass" knight on the road. He was, unknown to us, ninth level and nothing special in the way of magic items while we were, at that point, at the peak of our equipment list (this was before we encountered Fraz Urb'lu) which included a +5 axe, and a couple of +3 swords. This is all 1e.

He knocked seven shades of **** out of us in an astounding run of bad luck for us and good luck for him. We took him down eventually, but the battle was epic and we talked about it for years, long after battles where things had gone "as expected" were forgotten. It became high drama for us because we stuck to the dice.

Similarly, deaths of PCs who got unlucky while trying something brave but dangerous are talked about much more fondly than ones where someone died because they were stupid.

These all sound to me like situations that shouldn't have been fudged. In fact One of my favorite recurring villains of all time was a nameless bandit cannon fodder who got extremely lucky in his first encounter with the PCs. He managed to defeat them long enough to get away and showed up a few more times.
I leveled him after the encounter and gave him a little authority next time they met him. They defeated him, but again he got away (I think I fudged a little that time). This happened a few times and when the PCs eventually got the drop on him they took great pleasure in killing him. It started with lucky dice, then a little fudging and ended up just being a lot of fun for everyone. A lot more fun than we would've had if he'd died when he was supposed to in the first or second encounter. It was a matter of recognizing when the NPC became important to the players and living up to their expectations.


And no one ever talks about the odd times when PCs have succeeded because the DM was kind - those times simply don't count in the same way that "dream episodes" in comics don't. They might be sort of fun at the time, but they're meaningless fun.

You should never have known that you succeeded because the DM was being kind. Fudging should always be done secretly, behind the scenes, otherwise it really is pointless.

Raum
2008-09-01, 11:21 AM
So what are your opinions? What level of fudging is okay? What level of challenge are you looking for in an adventure? Do you like playing in games where TPKs happen on a regular basis? Please explain your reasons for whatever answers you give.What do the players want? Do they want the comfort of knowing the GM will fudge to keep them alive? Do they want the GM to fudge for "story reasons" as well? It's going to depend on the group.

Personally (just opinion folks) I dislike fudging. As GM I can have NPCs do something other than attack if they don't want to kill the PCs. If they're attacking, they're trying to take them down.
As a player, I want to play a game not just listen to the GM's story. Games include the risk of failure. Without it, there's no accomplishment in success.
Fudging also opens the door to other issues - here are a couple of questions to provoke thought: If a GM known for fudging kills a character, isn't he simply being vindictive? After all, he could have fudged that roll as well.
How is fudging to protect a story element different from saying the players' input is unimportant? You're fudging to avoid changing the story due to player actions...

Swordguy
2008-09-01, 12:53 PM
If the DM can't fudge rolls, then the players may as well be playing Neverwinter Nights or something. Taking away the DM's ability to adapt on the fly (including in combat) makes it more or less a computer game - that's always been the big difference between CRPGs and tabletop RPGs.

I, for one, would rather play a tabletop RPG then a CRPG.

EDIT: Also, we've really been on a kick lately about the core concepts behind our RPGs lately, haven't we?

nagora
2008-09-01, 01:28 PM
If the DM can't fudge rolls, then the players may as well be playing Neverwinter Nights or something. Taking away the DM's ability to adapt on the fly (including in combat) makes it more or less a computer game - that's always been the big difference between CRPGs and tabletop RPGs.
I agree and disagree. Adapting on the fly has nothing to do with offering/using false odds for risky activities. If it's risky, then it's risky. If the system you're using gives the wrong odds, then change the odds or the system, but do it openly.

TheDarkOne
2008-09-01, 02:05 PM
I don't understand people who like fudging dice rolls because they don't want the random dice rolls to get in the way of their story telling. I think the random elements make story telling more interesting; even you don't know what's going to happen. You have to take what ever random event just happened and make it part of the story. This shouldn't be too much more difficult than taking what ever hair brained plan the PCs have come up with and working that into the story. In all likely hood, it's easier than doing that, at least with the people I've played with.

If you're going to fudge rolls to make sure characters never die except when your story calls for, or fudge DCs so that characters never fail at story important tasks, why don't you just drop the facade play some sort of game that's designed for this kind of game play? One with limited or no random elements in the first place. Why play a game with a large random element when you aren't going to let that random element have any effect on the game?

Tormsskull
2008-09-01, 02:25 PM
Is fudging only the dice themselves, or the number of hit points, Attack bonus, etc, that the monsters have?

I never change the result of rolled dice, because I feel that would be like stringing your players along. However, if I have made a mistake in presenting a challenge to the players, I will sometimes have a monster die to an attack when it would still have 1 or 2 HP in earnest.

only1doug
2008-09-01, 02:25 PM
I don't understand people who like fudging dice rolls because they don't want the random dice rolls to get in the way of their story telling. I think the random elements make story telling more interesting; even you don't know what's going to happen.

I will fudge when the die rolls get in the way of the story. Its fine to have random events twist the story, i just won't let it shatter.


You have to take what ever random event just happened and make it part of the story. This shouldn't be too much more difficult than taking what ever hair brained plan the PCs have come up with and working that into the story. In all likely hood, it's easier than doing that, at least with the people I've played with.

I always have the dice rolls affect the outcome, i just wouldn't let something overwhelm the story.
If the BBEG is destined to get away and the players have a scheme to 1 round kill him.... well their scheme will work, with a good plan they can prevent his escape. But a BBEG should not go out easily, 1 round kill shouldn't happen just because 1 die roll fumbled or criticalled.



If you're going to fudge rolls to make sure characters never die except when your story calls for, or fudge DCs so that characters never fail at story important tasks,

A bit of an overstatement of my preferred playstyle: in DnD PC's shouldn't die from 1 minor event, they can still die if they push their luck without healing up or if they do something blatently stupid (and lets face it they do that a lot).


why don't you just drop the facade play some sort of game that's designed for this kind of game play? One with limited or no random elements in the first place. Why play a game with a large random element when you aren't going to let that random element have any effect on the game?

the random element effects the game, PC's can die if they are already badly injured and don't (or can't) take precautions to reduce further damage.

I "let" the random element effect the game, i just don't let it rule it.

Glyde
2008-09-01, 02:44 PM
No fudging, unless something a player does that's *really* could would end in the wrong way.

For example, one of the characters decided to take on the BBEG. While BBEG was on his flying mount. Flying. So there was a little fight with the PC hanging precariously off a wyvern, and it ended with the PC casting burning hands into the face of the BBEG, who did indeed love his precious hair. That was too awesome so I gave the PC minimum damage for the fall. (The roll I made behind the screen would've taken him to -30something. Splat)

Raum
2008-09-01, 03:11 PM
If the DM can't fudge rolls, then the players may as well be playing Neverwinter Nights or something. Taking away the DM's ability to adapt on the fly (including in combat) makes it more or less a computer game - that's always been the big difference between CRPGs and tabletop RPGs.As nagora mentioned, "adapting on the fly" is not equal to "fudging rolls".


I, for one, would rather play a tabletop RPG then a CRPG.Perhaps it's not that clear a division. Perhaps I can play an RPG without fudging rolls. My question is, can you fudge a roll without forcing a preconceived result? Without scripting the result ahead of time?


EDIT: Also, we've really been on a kick lately about the core concepts behind our RPGs lately, haven't we?Yep!

---------
Many of the arguments for fudging appear to be saying a railroad is better than allowing chance to affect the outcome. If you don't want to leave the outcome to chance, why roll? If your only reason to roll is to lie to the players, is it good for the game?

Behold_the_Void
2008-09-01, 03:39 PM
Why do people seem to think DMs who fudge will fudge every single roll in order to keep players on a strictly linear plot? It's not either or, sometimes the random element is nice for the game but other times it's unnecessary and can be easily done away with. It's not "with it or against it" people. I bet most DMs fall somewhere in the middle. I know I do.

nagora
2008-09-01, 03:51 PM
the random element effects the game, PC's can die if they are already badly injured and don't (or can't) take precautions to reduce further damage.
Sure! And the best precaution is to lay down your sword/holy symbol/spell books etc and take up being an accountant. That way you'll have minimal chances of having to face a random roll of 3d6 damage.

Where do you draw the line? How do you know where the player want to draw the line? Perhaps the player wanted to go out in a blaze of glory but your fudging her to just 1hp has ruined her whole vision of the meaning of the battle and the character.

Raum
2008-09-01, 04:00 PM
Why do people seem to think DMs who fudge will fudge every single roll in order to keep players on a strictly linear plot? It's not either or, sometimes the random element is nice for the game but other times it's unnecessary and can be easily done away with. It's not "with it or against it" people. I bet most DMs fall somewhere in the middle. I know I do.Who said anything about 'plot'? Preventing PCs from dying in combat is scripting a result just as much as forcing then to enter the combat in the first place would have been. Scripting results can be on any scale you want...from a single combat to an entire campaign.

I don't have anything against scripting results either - as long as the players buy into it. Of course that means not trying to hide it from the players. It's when people start saying 'the players shouldn't know' that I start wondering why there's a need to lie. Did the players really buy in to the script or is it being foisted on them?

Thrud
2008-09-01, 04:03 PM
Both are good. The DM I usually played with let me try out Call of Cthulhu once. At level one I killed about ten zombie's with a sniper rifle before they could even get close enough to see me. He quit right then and there and we never played again. Although he did on occasion take it out in normal DnD in order to find a monster to horribly kill me. It never worked though. The monster was the one who died horribly.

In Warhammer Role Playing you can play a Dwarf with an orange Mohawk though. The orange mohawk is a class feature! That is the single coolest class feature ever! Plus it is incredibly hard if not impossible to powerplay. (especially since starting careers are chosen randomly) so it makes the game more balanced. Also mages aren't that overpowered (especially since they get hunted down AND go insane). Plus my Dwarven Trollslayer wound up as the smartest character of the group.

No offense here, but whatever you were playing wasn't actually call of cthulhu if you can kill stuff with a gun. About 90% of the critters in that game are completely immune to gunfire, and I seem to recall that zombies are one of them.

Yeah, I remember the first game I ever ran. One guy managed to get his shotgun skill to 100% as a starting character and felt so badass. First critter they ran into killed him because it was immune to his weapon.

Rule number one in call of cthulhu. Forget about combat skills. Max out your running skill.

Oh yeah, as far as the OP goes, I only fudge if I screwed up and will wind up killing everyone, or something like that, because I made a mistake in judging relative party abilities. However, if they get plenty of warnings about how tough some place is, and go there anyway, then I have no compunction about killing them. Likewise if they find something like a deck of many things, and are idiots enough to draw from it. They get what they deserve.

only1doug
2008-09-01, 04:25 PM
Sure! And the best precaution is to lay down your sword/holy symbol/spell books etc and take up being an accountant. That way you'll have minimal chances of having to face a random roll of 3d6 damage.

Where do you draw the line? How do you know where the player want to draw the line? Perhaps the player wanted to go out in a blaze of glory but your fudging her to just 1hp has ruined her whole vision of the meaning of the battle and the character.

Sure, Quote part of the post and not the rest because it makes a good soundbyte to prove your own point.



A bit of an overstatement of my preferred playstyle: in DnD PC's shouldn't die from 1 minor event, they can still die if they push their luck without healing up or if they do something blatently stupid (and lets face it they do that a lot).

that's where i draw the line.


I'm not alone, I'm not ashamed.
when GMing i'll fudge a bit to make the roll fit the story better, because thats what a GM is for.

nagora
2008-09-01, 05:10 PM
Sure, Quote part of the post and not the rest because it makes a good soundbyte to prove your own point.
I didn't seriously think anyone would fail to see through my ruse.

when GMing i'll fudge a bit to make the roll fit the story better, because thats what a GM is for.
I disagree; if the DM wants events to fit their story better, then they should learn to type and get themselves an agent.

sonofzeal
2008-09-01, 05:30 PM
I fudge in both directions when necessary, in the interest of narrative excitement. If an enemy keeps rolling 1's, I'll fudge it so they get at least one or two successes to show the PCs what they're up against before they beat it into a pulp; similarly, I learned early on that a nat20 for an enemy is rarely "fun" for the players, especially during difficult fights. I'll let average enemies crit occassionally, but if it looks like it's going to OHK someone I usually pass on it. Usually. I have killed players that way, though.

FoE
2008-09-01, 05:47 PM
I guess it comes down whether you view DMing as 1) running a simulation or 2) telling a story.

For me, it's the latter, and I don't see a problem with fudging the occasional roll. For example, I don't want a TPK in the first couple of encounters: it's not fun for the players and it's not fun for me, since it usually flushes my carefully-crafted adventure down the toilet. Likewise, I don't want my Big Bad going down like a chump either.

Zeta Kai
2008-09-01, 05:49 PM
Has anyone noticed that this thread has devolved into a "Forum vs. Nagora" thread?

My voice rings out high above the masses, & my words are clear: What Shall Be, Is, & What Is, Shall Be.

Saph
2008-09-01, 05:55 PM
There's an easy-to-miss but nasty side-effect to fudging that I thought was worth repeating. Suppose you fudge at the beginning of a session to keep character A alive. Later on, character B dies. Isn't this going to seem a bit unfair to the player of character B? (You can say that he won't know, but . . . players aren't stupid. Over time, they can usually figure these things out.)

This is the problem with bending the rules; once it becomes public knowledge, it changes everyone else's perception of them.

- Saph

The Extinguisher
2008-09-01, 06:07 PM
I remember playing in a game, where one character was trying to make a listen check through a wooden door (or he was peeking through the keyhole or something). Anyways, we weren't in combat at the time, and had already made a big mess upstairs, and were trying to keep quiet. Anyways, the person behind the door must have heard us, so he goes to kick the door open. When the other party member's face was near it. The villian rolls a natural 20 on attack, and max damage. Woud have killed the guy, had the DM not fudged it a little, and was brought down to about -1.

So yeah, I think if you are going to be killed by a door to the face, a little fudging is nessicary.

Brauron
2008-09-01, 06:11 PM
I generally try to avoid fudging as much as possible, though I do utilize the rule of MDC: Mooks Don't Crit. If on an attack roll for Generic Orc #12, I roll a natural 20, sure, he hits, but it is assumed that he fails his confirm roll.

AslanCross
2008-09-01, 10:27 PM
I fudge the rolls when the PCs are in a really dire situation that was entirely my fault. In one encounter (which I'd designed with the assumption that my players can take on an EL 5+their level. They can take SOME encounters of that level, but not all.) against a Naztharune Rakshasa and a Tiefling Swordsage, they'd gotten beaten up severely. The Tiefling had an AC of 30 and the Rakshasa's DR was difficult to pierce due to their lack of Good and Piercing weapons.

The party's cleric had already been thrown over 40 feet by the Tiefling (knocking her down to -5) and the Wizard had already been knocked to 0 HP once while he was flying---thankfully he'd been healed by the cleric before she got thrown into a wall, and the Paladin was down to 12 HP. In this situation I decided not to get them TPKed and fudged some of the Swordsage's rolls. Thankfully the Paladin remembered he had bonuses that he forgot to add to his rolls, so some of his attacks caused the Tiefling to "bleed to death."

In any case, I'm never putting the players up against EL 5+level encounters again.

nagora
2008-09-02, 03:37 AM
Has anyone noticed that this thread has devolved into a "Forum vs. Nagora" thread?
Oh, no it hasn't!

only1doug
2008-09-02, 04:38 AM
Oh, no it hasn't!

Oh, Yes it has!

Damn, failed another will save

busterswd
2008-09-02, 06:11 AM
Properly done fudging is the ability of the DM to adjust the encounter to make the experience more entertaining for the players. Of course, if your players know you're basically ignoring their rolls, you've pretty much made the game pointless. Thus I propose the following statement.

The less noticeable you make your fudging, the better.

Implications of this:

-Fudge as little as possible. The more you attempt to change rolls, the more obvious it will be that you're not paying attention to the rules, and a properly designed encounter should require little to none anyway. If one session goes poorly, fudge it a bit and plan out your next session to minimize the fudging.
-Fudging itself isn't a terrible thing as long as you don't let your players realize it. If your magical item central to the story, for example, doesn't get looted, change one of the mundane objects the party has into it, or make available their next big dungeon clear. Decisions like that can easily be made on the fly.
You should never have to stop and tell people you're fudging. Be subtle about it.
-Don't announce the rolls or DCs of a check. There's a reason you have that little DM divider.
-In the spirit of reducing your fudging, make a contingency plan ahead of time just in case things do manage to go terribly wrong; never ever plan a straight linear path for your players. If somehow, they manage to kill not only Elrond, but the entire elven village, Gandalf makes a decent, if outraged, stand in. He's smart, knows a lot, and purposely witholds info until he needs to reveal something.
-Combat fudging is pretty damn obvious most of the time. Unless it's clear the party is completely outmatched (hello needlefang monstrosities from 4E), let the chips fall where they may if they're supposed to be fighting. If the cleric is dying before anyone else, maybe the party doesn't deserve to have a living healer and should adjust. And having the occasional player death is good anyway. Death should be something they fear and struggle to avoid. FILL THEM WITH FEAR. But seriously, nothing makes a victory more satisfying than realizing just how possible it was for them to fail.
-If they do something stupid, let them. The most obvious form of fudging is when they do something catacysmically boneheaded and somehow don't face the proper repercussions.

nagora
2008-09-02, 06:29 AM
If your magical item central to the story, for example, doesn't get looted, change one of the mundane objects the party has into it, or make available their next big dungeon clear.
:smallredface: Okay, I'm sorry about beating on this subject but it goes to the heart of what I think roleplaying is all about, and it's something that I think was badly eroded in the post-Dragonlance era.

If the magical item that is central to the story is not found by the PCs, then the story has changed! Which is great! Surely that's the entire reason to have a role-playing game - so that stories grow out of the action of the players instead of the fiat of the author/DM?

Seriously, what is the point of playing a character who can't change the story except when the DM lets them? Because that's what fudging does: it keeps control of the story with the DM and away from the players. Even when the dice would kill the character, if the character's actions logically led to the roll of that die, then the power is ultimately with the player and changing that roll takes that power away and gives it to the DM. At which point, the players need not be at the table :smallfrown:

Discovering that a monster as printed in the MM is overpowered in play is a tricky point, I'll grant. But, a DM should never place any encounter that s/he has not considered in the light of his/her players. Different playstyles can radically change the difficulty of an encounter, so a DM really should be always think about what will happen when their players' party meets any particular monster. They shouldn't really be shocked by anything that happens.

But, if it does happen, then the "fudging" should be in-character. The monster retreats after being only lightly wounded, or the characters find some way of retreating themselves etc. Rolling the dice and picking a number is too much of a usurping of power from the players and a breaking of the consistancy of the gameworld, IMO.

busterswd
2008-09-02, 06:57 AM
:smallredface: Okay, I'm sorry about beating on this subject but it goes to the heart of what I think roleplaying is all about, and it's something that I think was badly eroded in the post-Dragonlance era.

If the magical item that is central to the story is not found by the PCs, then the story has changed! Which is great! Surely that's the entire reason to have a role-playing game - so that stories grow out of the action of the players instead of the fiat of the author/DM?

Seriously, what is the point of playing a character who can't change the story except when the DM lets them? Because that's what fudging does: it keeps control of the story with the DM and away from the players. Even when the dice would kill the character, if the character's actions logically led to the roll of that die, then the power is ultimately with the player and changing that roll takes that power away and gives it to the DM. At which point, the players need not be at the table :smallfrown:

Key problem with your logic: you're not attempting to write fictional novel for mass consumption in an attempt to boldly break genre cliches. You're attempting to give the players, and yourself, a fun, challenging, yet manageable experience. The best way to do this is preparedness, for most people. There is the odd DM who thinks and reacts better on the fly, but if it was a common talent, there'd be a lot less premade modules.


Discovering that a monster as printed in the MM is overpowered in play is a tricky point, I'll grant. But, a DM should never place any encounter that s/he has not considered in the light of his/her players. Different playstyles can radically change the difficulty of an encounter, so a DM really should be always think about what will happen when their players' party meets any particular monster. They shouldn't really be shocked by anything that happens.

This is a large judgement call, and mainly an issue with the transition for 4th edition.



But, if it does happen, then the "fudging" should be in-character. The monster retreats after being only lightly wounded, or the characters find some way of retreating themselves etc. Rolling the dice and picking a number is too much of a usurping of power from the players and a breaking of the consistancy of the gameworld, IMO.

Having a monster kicking your characters ass retreat after being lightly wounded is not believable or consistent at all.



Edit:
Seriously, what is the point of playing a character who can't change the story except when the DM lets them?

Also, going to respond to this little tidbit in a bit more detail. Imagine Dragonlance, except the protagonists never realize there are good dragons, they never discover the dragon orbs or lances, and Goldmoon dies to goblins before they make it to the inn.

You've pretty much made it impossible for the good guys to win short of massive leveling and overpowering encounters. Having the players just level to the point where they can take out an army of dragons by themselves without clerics not only makes the villainy less of a threat and less compelling to fight against, but also threatens to become a more boring grind.

There's a difference between railroading (an avalanche falls and you guys HAVE to pass through this town and meet these 4 people) and maintaining story cohesiveness (Gilthanas and his silver dragon lover adventured by themselves to uncover the conspiracy of the good dragon eggs, even if the players weren't involved).

Cainen
2008-09-02, 07:00 AM
Seriously, what is the point of playing a character who can't change the story except when the DM lets them?

What gives you the idea that that's all that fudging is? Most people don't have fun dying horribly because the dice are stupid.

Tormsskull
2008-09-02, 07:26 AM
There is the odd DM who thinks and reacts better on the fly, but if it was a common talent, there'd be a lot less premade modules.


I think that if any D&D plot reads "players must pick up item, otherwise it mysteriously appears in their inventory", then the plot designer is being lazy.

busterswd
2008-09-02, 07:34 AM
I think that if any D&D plot reads "players must pick up item, otherwise it mysteriously appears in their inventory", then the plot designer is being lazy.

It's more than that though; there should be lore hinting at the importance of it, there should be incentives for them to pick it up, and there should be more than 1 opportunity for them to get it or find a suitable replacement, if it's THAT important. If after all this they don't pick it up, then fine.

My point isn't so much as to say "a wizard did it, now you have to do this", but to emphasize that the objects you attribute importance have some fluidity. If they looted the necklace off the cultist but didn't take his magic ring that has some significance, make the necklace the important object. Conversely, perhaps they pick up both, and vendor the non-enchanted amulet that's a sign of the recently deceased's lineage. The magic ring they got could function the same.

And if the object is significant, unique, and very important, they should have more than 1 opportunity to pick it up again, or at least get a hint to backtrack a bit.

Remember, I'm advocating as little DM meddling as possible, but if it will break your world (Gollum dies before you get the ring from him) then it's not hard to recover from without making it obvious.

only1doug
2008-09-02, 07:37 AM
I don't think there's much chance of players not looting the plot specific item, most players tend to take everything that isn't nailed down, then come back with crowbars to get the nails too!

but a repairable break in the plot isn't where i'd fudge, they would receive a hint of some kind that said item is important, and if they ignore that they may run into problems later on. (and probably have to go back). if they chose they could always abandon that mission and the consequences of failure would be on their heads (others getting lauded as great hero's for doing what they couldn't perhaps).

I wouldn't have a monster that is about to TPK suddenly get bored and go away, i would fudge a little so the players have a chance to finish it or to gather their fallen and flee, depending on which was appropriate.

TwystidMynd
2008-09-02, 09:15 AM
Personally, I tell my players up front that I refuse to fudge rolls. I warn them that I won't be shaving damage off if they're in trouble, and I always make sure to roll for recharging abilities (when playing 4e).

Then, behind my DM Screen, I go ahead and do all that when necessary.

valadil
2008-09-02, 09:16 AM
If the DM can't fudge rolls, then the players may as well be playing Neverwinter Nights or something. Taking away the DM's ability to adapt on the fly (including in combat) makes it more or less a computer game - that's always been the big difference between CRPGs and tabletop RPGs.

I, for one, would rather play a tabletop RPG then a CRPG.

EDIT: Also, we've really been on a kick lately about the core concepts behind our RPGs lately, haven't we?

I agree that I prefer the flexibility of a tabletop to a CRPG, but I'm not sure that fudging dice is what makes tabletop more flexible. In a CRPG a TPK results in a gameover screen. In tabletop, a flexible GM will have the option to do something with the TPK. Maybe the PCs were all knocked out and got captured. Now they've got to spend 2 sessions breaking free.

Yes we have been on a core concept kick lately and I'm loving it. I just wish we could cut away the pretenses of the original threads and go straight to the concept. It wasn't so bad here, but it in the last thread it took a while before we got to rules vs story.

Back to topic...

As a fudger, I think it's important to draw a line at what you're willing to fudge. I mostly just fix combats. Meaning I don't let players die to dumb luck and I don't let fights run too short if I overestimated the NPCs. Players who are against fudging have probably seen it used too many times as plot armor to save that one NPC who can't die for story reasons. I try to shy away from that sort of behavior.

nagora
2008-09-02, 09:38 AM
You've pretty much made it impossible for the good guys to win
I feel that if you need the "good guys" to "win" then you're restricting the play to a dull subset of what it can be. It's up to the players to decide what winning is and means, not the DM. If they want to through themselves in with the "bad guys" then that's their choice to make. If they want to make a pact with a Pariah Deity that will lead to the end of the world after they themseves die because they will be able to live the remainder of their lives in opulence and ease, then that's their choice.


There's a difference between railroading (an avalanche falls and you guys HAVE to pass through this town and meet these 4 people) and maintaining story cohesiveness (Gilthanas and his silver dragon lover adventured by themselves to uncover the conspiracy of the good dragon eggs, even if the players weren't involved).
The difference there is that in the second case the NPCs have goals and pursue them. That's good DMing; the DM's job is to run the NPCs and monsters as if they were his/her own characters. Bad DMing would be finding a way to force the PCs to join them because "that's the story". In an ideal world, all the NPCs have their stories and the PCs have theirs, the DM decides the former and the players the latter. When they cross over, THAT's when the game generates its own story from the woven cloth of the two. Then the players and the DM get to engage fully in the creation of something neither of them expected.


Key problem with your logic: you're not attempting to write fictional novel for mass consumption in an attempt to boldly break genre cliches. You're attempting to give the players, and yourself, a fun, challenging, yet manageable experience
I disagree. You (as DM) are attempting to create a world with roles in it which the players can inhabit and adventure as, interacting with the other characters and the environment in order to make that role a rich and complete one, in the hope and expectation that this process will be fun.

It's like any creative art form: you don't set out to specifically find the most reliable means of amusing everyone, you set out to create something and hope that it will do so. Put that cart before that particular horse and you end up with soap operas and American Pie XLVII. If your players don't find it fun and interesting and challenging then you're not cut out to DM that group.

Fudging is inescapably the action of the DM taking control of the plot. If you are justifying it by saying that the results you are fudging are "wrong" or "stupid" then the problem is with the system and you should house rule around the issue or get a new system.

TwystidMynd
2008-09-02, 09:39 AM
No offense here, but whatever you were playing wasn't actually call of cthulhu...

I've never understood why people think that saying "I don't mean to be a douche, but..." or "I don't mean to call you an idiot, but..." or "It's not that you smell bad, but..." and think that they're automatically free to be a douche/call people idiots/tell people they smell bad.

Humankind is weird, sometimes.

Thrawn183
2008-09-02, 09:44 AM
You know, nagora, I never thought I'd say this but I think I agree with you completely.

I have never, not even once, fudged a roll for the PC's. If there is no way an enemy can beat the PC's then why bother rolling it out?

If there is no way the PC's can win, then why bother rolling it out?

There's nothing wrong with DM fiat. Lying to players is inconsiderate and frankly quite foolish. They will figure it out.

Edit: And any game where you already know the outcome (or just large chunks of it) is going to be boring.

DeathQuaker
2008-09-02, 09:58 AM
I think it's fine to allow for GM fudging, but it should be rare.

I don't believe in story fudging. Rather, I try to keep the story elements flexible enough that I can handle whatever the PCs decide to do or succeed in doing. And if I need, say, a villain to stay alive, I'm not going to put him in a situation where they have the opportunity to kill him to begin with. If I do put them into the fight with the villain, and they kill him, if I've done it right, I've prepared for those consequences. If he gets away, it's because he did a legit move in combat with no "faking".

Myself, I'll fudge mostly in combats for purely NON-story related reasons---I'll fudge in the monster's favor if he's really not providing a challenge to the PCs (i.e. my brilliant players are tearing through the thing like wet tissue when he was supposed to be tough), I'll give him a few more HP--if nothing else, just to help them feel like they actually accomplished something. If a PC is targeted by multiple series of really bad die rolls and is doing far more poorly than he should be, I'll usually give him a break. Even those cases should be quite rare, however.

And if a PC takes a substantially dangerous risk, he'll take the consequences as they come, of course. That's why it's called a "risk."

Bottom line: like most things one does in an RPG, the goal is to have fun. Fudging should be rare and happen only when the alternative substantially drops the "fun" level.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-02, 10:02 AM
No fudging rolls ever.

Players should *never* know you fudged a roll. Not even after the campaign is over is it ok, just don't tell them no matter how tempting it becomes that the tarrasque actually ate the whole party and/or BBEG actually disintegrated them twice.

From a player perspective it ruins the suspence and makes them feel as though they have no control over the story. So even if you're fudging in their favor do them the favor of not letting them know. Consider this an exercise in how well you can keep a secret!

Tallis
2008-09-02, 10:32 AM
What do the players want? Do they want the comfort of knowing the GM will fudge to keep them alive? Do they want the GM to fudge for "story reasons" as well? It's going to depend on the group.

Personally (just opinion folks) I dislike fudging. As GM I can have NPCs do something other than attack if they don't want to kill the PCs. If they're attacking, they're trying to take them down.
As a player, I want to play a game not just listen to the GM's story. Games include the risk of failure. Without it, there's no accomplishment in success.
Fudging also opens the door to other issues - here are a couple of questions to provoke thought: If a GM known for fudging kills a character, isn't he simply being vindictive? After all, he could have fudged that roll as well.
How is fudging to protect a story element different from saying the players' input is unimportant? You're fudging to avoid changing the story due to player actions...

I would include changing NPC tactics as a form of fudging. Pretty much any on the fly change to the encounter for the purpose of making it more survivable falls within my definition of fudging.

IMO no DM should ever be known for fudging. If he/she does it right the players shouldn't know it happened. Part of the reason for this thread was to get a feel for the majority opinion on fudging for future reference when running games. I don't want my players thinking I fudge things whether I do or not.
That is an interesting point about being vindictive if you let a player die, though I think it's an exaggeration.
I don't fudge to avoid the player input changing the story. Changing the story is fine, I do it all the time. The story should go where the fun is. I do fudge to avoid having the story go in a direction that I don't think the players would like. To me a TPK is not fun unless it is dramatically appropriate. From talking to my players I've always felt that they agreed.

If I started playing with a group that preferred to go with the dice no matter what that would be fine too.

busterswd
2008-09-02, 10:33 AM
I feel that if you need the "good guys" to "win" then you're restricting the play to a dull subset of what it can be. It's up to the players to decide what winning is and means, not the DM. If they want to through themselves in with the "bad guys" then that's their choice to make. If they want to make a pact with a Pariah Deity that will lead to the end of the world after they themseves die because they will be able to live the remainder of their lives in opulence and ease, then that's their choice.


The difference there is that in the second case the NPCs have goals and pursue them. That's good DMing; the DM's job is to run the NPCs and monsters as if they were his/her own characters. Bad DMing would be finding a way to force the PCs to join them because "that's the story". In an ideal world, all the NPCs have their stories and the PCs have theirs, the DM decides the former and the players the latter. When they cross over, THAT's when the game generates its own story from the woven cloth of the two. Then the players and the DM get to engage fully in the creation of something neither of them expected.


I disagree. You (as DM) are attempting to create a world with roles in it which the players can inhabit and adventure as, interacting with the other characters and the environment in order to make that role a rich and complete one, in the hope and expectation that this process will be fun.

It's like any creative art form: you don't set out to specifically find the most reliable means of amusing everyone, you set out to create something and hope that it will do so. Put that cart before that particular horse and you end up with soap operas and American Pie XLVII. If your players don't find it fun and interesting and challenging then you're not cut out to DM that group.

Fudging is inescapably the action of the DM taking control of the plot. If you are justifying it by saying that the results you are fudging are "wrong" or "stupid" then the problem is with the system and you should house rule around the issue or get a new system.

From what I can see you're treating any DM prompting as something limiting and useless. Where, then do you draw the line? Do you bother creating dungeons ahead of time, or do you create them on the spot as the party decides to explore a couple miles south of a city? Do you actually have level appropriate encounters set up for the players, or do you flip randomly through an environmentally appropriate encounters, regardless of the CR? After all, if you really want realism, you'll allow them to face any creature that could be in the habitat, and not just a small subset of them.

Your arguments seem irrational to me. I fail to see the distinction between setting up a backstory with a magical artifact for players to discover that will help further the plot, as opposed to setting up a backstory with NPCs actions for players to discover that will help further the plot. You are criticizing a structured story on the pretense that you're doing something without the player's express choosing, then praising NPCs causing events on their own that affect the players. You are basically asking for an open sandbox world that players will have complete freedom to act, yet still expect the DM to have a complete setting, NPCs that act autonomously of player input, and some sort of higher goal to choose from.

In short, you're advocating railroading through autonomous NPC action, then decrying any other sort of railroading. ANYTIME the DM provides material, he is limiting what the players can do, which is something you don't seem to realize. Being the spokesperson for NPCs is all well and good, but the other function of DM is a structured storyline. There should be some control over it.

Eldariel
2008-09-02, 10:58 AM
The only recent fudging I've done is drop an Annis Hag's HP when it, as a totally secondary opponent, was about to TPK the party after negotiations gone bad (they had a Staff it wanted in exchange for stuff they had come to her for - she of course had assumed a Human form - and when it was clear that the staff wouldn't trade ownership, the Hag attacked).

In general, I'm against the fudging simply because the dice add nice randomness to the story and really allow PCs to be equals of the DM towards the outcome of the game - it's truly the players' actions and how the dice land that decide things, not DM just deciding that this opponent escapes or such. I've simply strived to learn to cope with whatever happens, and preferably to avoid TPKs (although I can mostly trust my players to handle any creatures with Int under 10 without any trouble).

BRC
2008-09-02, 11:01 AM
I think Fudging can be a good thing, but it should be kept to a minimum. For example, a DM fudges a damage roll so that a PC is dropped to negatives instead of dieing. This means that the party can continue on rather than leave the dungeon and try to hunt down a cleric who can res.

Aron Times
2008-09-02, 11:15 AM
I don't roll behind a DM screen. All of my rolls are done in plain sight. If I want something to happen, it happens. If I don't want something to happen, it doesn't happen.

Of course, deciding whether something should or shouldn't happen is based mostly on my players' actions. Improvisation is key to DMing any system.

nagora
2008-09-02, 11:29 AM
From what I can see you're treating any DM prompting as something limiting and useless. Where, then do you draw the line? Do you bother creating dungeons ahead of time, or do you create them on the spot as the party decides to explore a couple miles south of a city? Do you actually have level appropriate encounters set up for the players, or do you flip randomly through an environmentally appropriate encounters, regardless of the CR? After all, if you really want realism, you'll allow them to face any creature that could be in the habitat, and not just a small subset of them.
Just quickly before I go back to work:
I do have dungeons and I do also create on the spot, I don't do level-appropriate encounters but logic suggests that stronger monsters tend to be in certain places (dragons draw down a lot of ire from heroes, kobolds not so much). If the players go into a dangerous habitat then they meet what lives there regardless of their level. dangerous habitats tend to be hard to get to and are well known for being dangerous, though.

If I have a scenario in mind, I introduce a reason (usually a patron NPC) for the PCs to hear about it and it's up to them if they want to follow it up. If not, then I'm winging it that week!


Your arguments seem irrational to me. I fail to see the distinction between setting up a backstory with a magical artifact for players to discover that will help further the plot, as opposed to setting up a backstory with NPCs actions for players to discover that will help further the plot.
The issue is "plot" the only plots I worry about are the aims of the NPCs; if they intersect the aims of the PCs then we have ourselves the start of a scenario. How it ends depends on what the PCs do to help and/or interfere with the NPCs aims.

The sort of plot I don't want is one where x,y and z have to happen in order to fulfill the DM's idea of a good ending/story. The Dm's right to a having a story ends when PCs meet NPCs. From there on it should be an emergive thing.


You are criticizing a structured story on the pretense that you're doing something without the player's express choosing, then praising NPCs causing events on their own that affect the players.
The PCs casue events that affect the NPCs too; it works both ways


You are basically asking for an open sandbox world that players will have complete freedom to act, yet still expect the DM to have a complete setting, NPCs that act autonomously of player input, and some sort of higher goal to choose from.
Yes. Works particularly well in a city setting with a few hundred NPCs wandering about.


In short, you're advocating railroading through autonomous NPC action,
In what way is giving each NPC their own aims and motivation railroading?


then decrying any other sort of railroading. ANYTIME the DM provides material, he is limiting what the players can do, which is something you don't seem to realize.
No, I do. In a perfect world the NPCs would all be players and run things themselves, I suppose, although MMORGs argue against that vision of heaven!


Being the spokesperson for NPCs is all well and good, but the other function of DM is a structured storyline.
I don't believe that to be the case. Instigator of events, sure, but storylines that run regardless of player actions? No.

Without player intervention, of course, the NPC's stroyline will run and be structured in the sense that it should be logical. But the object of the game isn't for the DM to just report the passing of outside events, but to provide the players with a way into those events specifically so that they can take part, and not so that they can simply be internal observers, pushed around by fudged dice rolls and DM's fiat, instead of external ones.

SmartAlec
2008-09-02, 11:47 AM
It's a nice idea in theory. In practice, it's not going to work for everyone. I've known more than a couple gaming groups whose players simply would not know what to do with complete freedom. At the very least, a campaign needs a starting-point, a DM nudge or an initial plot hook or something, just so everyone's got a handle on what's going on, can settle into their characters etc. While I agree that DMing is not simply charting a pre-written story with PC 'actors', neither does it seem to me to be simply maintaining a world while telling the players to figure out something to do. And if you help them find a way into something, then you're essentially manipulating the story with DM Fiat anyway.

Tallis
2008-09-02, 12:48 PM
I agree that I prefer the flexibility of a tabletop to a CRPG, but I'm not sure that fudging dice is what makes tabletop more flexible. In a CRPG a TPK results in a gameover screen. In tabletop, a flexible GM will have the option to do something with the TPK. Maybe the PCs were all knocked out and got captured. Now they've got to spend 2 sessions breaking free.

....which is the kind of fudging that started me thinking about his in the first place. Changing a TPK into something else.


As a fudger, I think it's important to draw a line at what you're willing to fudge. I mostly just fix combats. Meaning I don't let players die to dumb luck and I don't let fights run too short if I overestimated the NPCs. Players who are against fudging have probably seen it used too many times as plot armor to save that one NPC who can't die for story reasons. I try to shy away from that sort of behavior.

I've never fudge to make a combat run longer, if the PCs come up with a plan to kill a major NPC quickly and efficiently that's great for them. I congratulate them. In fact I don't think I've ever fudged in a major fight.

If there's an NPC that can't die yet for story reasons I won't put him in front of the PCs. Anyone they can fight they can kill if they're up to the challenge. In most cases NPCs are replaceable anyway. Others can step in to take their place if necessary. In fact sometimes that makes for an even more interesting game.

Not so much in recent posts, but in a lot of earlier posts there were a lot of people saying that they feel like fudging to avoid TPK eliminates the risk of failure. I find that odd. Do a lot of people believe that TPK is the only possible result of failure? Is every encounter in your campaigns to the death with no possible alternative result? That sounds a little boring to me over the course of a campaign. Do a lot of people prefer that play style?

@Nagora:
I still don't entirely agree with you about fudging, but you've made some good points and given me plenty to think about when determining what level of fudging is acceptable. Thank you.
I don't see fudging as railroading though. Not allowing a kobold to kill the entire party through dumb luck doesn't detract from the player choices IMO. Besides having him beat them and then still have them around later so he can show up as the new kobold king makes things a lot more interesting and fun, than just having a dead party the way I see it.
Minor NPCs should not have the same power to guide the campaign as the players. If you allow them to kill the entire party just because they get lucky then you are giving them more power than the players. If the players die because they make bad choices, that is a result of player actions and is acceptable.

nagora
2008-09-02, 12:49 PM
It's a nice idea in theory. In practice, it's not going to work for everyone. I've known more than a couple gaming groups whose players simply would not know what to do with complete freedom. At the very least, a campaign needs a starting-point, a DM nudge or an initial plot hook or something, just so everyone's got a handle on what's going on, can settle into their characters etc.
Absolutely, the DM is often the instigator of events; what I'm arguing about is what happens after that point, really. And, sure, some groups want or need more "doorbells"* than others.


While I agree that DMing is not simply charting a pre-written story with PC 'actors', neither does it seem to me to be simply maintaining a world while telling the players to figure out something to do. And if you help them find a way into something, then you're essentially manipulating the story with DM Fiat anyway.
To a small degree, yes. I don't know that the difference between "directing" a story and simply "starting" a story is as insignificant as I think you may be implying.

*DM: You open the door and find that a plot hook has been abandond on the step. What do you do?

busterswd
2008-09-02, 01:10 PM
Just quickly before I go back to work:
I do have dungeons and I do also create on the spot, I don't do level-appropriate encounters but logic suggests that stronger monsters tend to be in certain places (dragons draw down a lot of ire from heroes, kobolds not so much). If the players go into a dangerous habitat then they meet what lives there regardless of their level. dangerous habitats tend to be hard to get to and are well known for being dangerous, though.

If I have a scenario in mind, I introduce a reason (usually a patron NPC) for the PCs to hear about it and it's up to them if they want to follow it up. If not, then I'm winging it that week!


The issue is "plot" the only plots I worry about are the aims of the NPCs; if they intersect the aims of the PCs then we have ourselves the start of a scenario. How it ends depends on what the PCs do to help and/or interfere with the NPCs aims.

The sort of plot I don't want is one where x,y and z have to happen in order to fulfill the DM's idea of a good ending/story. The Dm's right to a having a story ends when PCs meet NPCs. From there on it should be an emergive thing.


The PCs casue events that affect the NPCs too; it works both ways


Yes. Works particularly well in a city setting with a few hundred NPCs wandering about.


In what way is giving each NPC their own aims and motivation railroading?


No, I do. In a perfect world the NPCs would all be players and run things themselves, I suppose, although MMORGs argue against that vision of heaven!


I don't believe that to be the case. Instigator of events, sure, but storylines that run regardless of player actions? No.

Without player intervention, of course, the NPC's stroyline will run and be structured in the sense that it should be logical. But the object of the game isn't for the DM to just report the passing of outside events, but to provide the players with a way into those events specifically so that they can take part, and not so that they can simply be internal observers, pushed around by fudged dice rolls and DM's fiat, instead of external ones.

Well, Alec expressed what I wanted to very cleanly and concisely. Plot hooks are not a dirty thing, nor are reminders of what the overarching story is.

Tallis
2008-09-02, 01:11 PM
*DM: You open the door and find that a plot hook has been abandond on the step. What do you do?

LOL, I'm tempted to use that as the start of my next campaign. Of course it'll have to be a very silly campaign, time to bring back the rainbow elves and Santa Claws the Gnoll.

One point I just remembered. You mentioned fudging being a post Dragonlance trend. I'm not sure if you meant fudging in general or just the plot critical artifacts idea. If you meant fudging in general I believe it was actually advocated in the 1e DMG. My books are in storage and I could be wrong, but that's the way I remember it. Thanks for the dragonsfoot link btw.

...and to whoever asked earlier about the origin of fudging as a word: I'm not sure but I'm pretty sure it predates D&D so I doubt it was from a DM's die falling in fudge. I'm gonna go with that explanation anyway though, just cause it's funny.

valadil
2008-09-02, 01:15 PM
I've never fudge to make a combat run longer, if the PCs come up with a plan to kill a major NPC quickly and efficiently that's great for them. I congratulate them. In fact I don't think I've ever fudged in a major fight.


I'm perfectly happy to congratulate them for being efficient. Whether or not I draw out a fight really depends on where in the session the fight takes place, and how much more material I have left for that night. I've had a lot of sessions that are supposed to end with an hour long combat. The players do well and the combat is over after 30 minutes. I choose to inflate enemy HP so the players can have 30 minutes more game time rather than ending early.

This is of course situational. Sometimes I can start the next plot in those 30 minutes. Sometimes we can just improvise. But since we're a bunch of nine to fivers playing on a weekday, games can rarely go past 11pm. My choices are ending the fight at 10:30pm. Prolonging the fight until 11. Or improvising and hoping we don't go over. Sometimes the 3rd choice works, but the second is usually more reliable.

I'd also like to point out that this particular group is very much in favor of fudging dice. Some of them have said I don't fudge enough (but I think that's because they aren't aware when I do fudge).

NeoVid
2008-09-02, 01:31 PM
I'm in a campaign where we started out with all the PCs being given a divine mission by their gods to assist each other in doing something world-shakingly important.

Thanks to extremely tough encounters in the early levels, all of the original founding PCs who were sent the divine messages are dead.

Not surprisingly, the campaign's stalled pretty badly.

Tallis
2008-09-02, 02:34 PM
I'm perfectly happy to congratulate them for being efficient. Whether or not I draw out a fight really depends on where in the session the fight takes place, and how much more material I have left for that night. I've had a lot of sessions that are supposed to end with an hour long combat. The players do well and the combat is over after 30 minutes. I choose to inflate enemy HP so the players can have 30 minutes more game time rather than ending early.

This is of course situational. Sometimes I can start the next plot in those 30 minutes. Sometimes we can just improvise. But since we're a bunch of nine to fivers playing on a weekday, games can rarely go past 11pm. My choices are ending the fight at 10:30pm. Prolonging the fight until 11. Or improvising and hoping we don't go over. Sometimes the 3rd choice works, but the second is usually more reliable.

I'd also like to point out that this particular group is very much in favor of fudging dice. Some of them have said I don't fudge enough (but I think that's because they aren't aware when I do fudge).

I can understand fudging in the NPCs favor to make combat more interesting or for dramatic effect. It just crosses a line I'm not comfortable with. Makes me feel like I'm working against the players rather than creating the story with them. So while I wouldn't say it should never be done, I choose not to do it myself.

Neovid presents a perfect example of why fudging is sometimes a good idea.

Justin_Bacon
2008-09-02, 02:49 PM
I've also played in games with blatant fudging where the DM would back up the encounter and say something didn't happen or roll out in the open and then tell us he was going to ignore the roll. This bothered me. The storyline was interesting, but there was no suspense since I knew he wouldn'y let us die no matter what happened.

I have, on a couple of occasions, retconned disasters when we realized that they were the result of screwing up the rules.

But I don't fudge the dice rolls for the same reason I don't railroad my players: Years have experience have taught me that the unexpected is almost always more interesting than whatever I planned.

The example I frequently point to is this one: In the Depths of Khunbaral (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/talesfromthetable/khunbaral.html).

But there are so many others -- both major and minor. I also remember a time when a 1st level party had gotten in over their heads. Surrounded in a subterranean passage, they had fought valiantly. But, at the end of the day, all but one of them and one of the serpent-people they had been fighting lay dead. The party druid was at 0 hp and it all came down to the next die roll: If he could hit the last serpent-person with his crossbow, they had a chance. If he didn't, the strain would drop him to -1 and the campaign would be over.

He made the roll, killed the serpent-person... and then dropped unconscious. It took 5 rolls before he stabilized, but those were possibly the most exciting dice rolls I've ever seen. The entire group -- myself included -- were hunched over the table with our fingers crossed.

And it was like my players said: That worked not only because I wasn't fudging, but because I never fudged. There was no doubt in their minds that this had really happened. It wasn't a dramatic situation that I had constructed and then maneuvered them into -- it was a drama born of the moment.

On a smaller scale, there's also this story (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/talesfromthetable/tale03-unexpected.html).


As nagora mentioned, "adapting on the fly" is not equal to "fudging rolls".

In fact, as testified to in this very thread, fudging a roll is often done specifically to AVOID adapting on the fly.

Fudging is really just a form of railroading -- it is the GM asserting his own vision of "what should happen" despite the outside input of the players. People have varying tolerances for the amount and kind of railroading they're willing to put up with.

But, personally, I play RPGs specifically because they're a group activity. If I wanted to tell a story, I'd write a novel. I play RPGs because I want to experience fictional events.

The nice thing is that I get the best of both worlds, because the stories I end up with are usually much better than anything I could have planned ahead of time.


it's not fun for the players and it's not fun for me, since it usually flushes my carefully-crafted adventure down the toilet. Likewise, I don't want my Big Bad going down like a chump either.

Actually, the first piece of advice I'd give to any GM is: Be willing to flush your carefully-crafted adventure down the toilet.

The second piece of advice I'd give to any GM is: Adventures don't have plots.

You're far better off designing a dramatically interesting situation and then letting the PCs do whatever they want to with it. This is actually easier to prep and easier to use.

As for the Big Bag going down like a chump... I think you're under-estimating how much fun that can be for the players. See the Khunbaral story I linked to up above, or think about Indiana Jones taking out the sword-swinging dude in Raiders of the Lost Ark with a single shot.


It's a nice idea in theory. In practice, it's not going to work for everyone. I've known more than a couple gaming groups whose players simply would not know what to do with complete freedom. At the very least, a campaign needs a starting-point, a DM nudge or an initial plot hook or something, just so everyone's got a handle on what's going on, can settle into their characters etc. While I agree that DMing is not simply charting a pre-written story with PC 'actors', neither does it seem to me to be simply maintaining a world while telling the players to figure out something to do. And if you help them find a way into something, then you're essentially manipulating the story with DM Fiat anyway.

This is a common fallacy I run into in these discussions, and so I feel the need to address it.

Giving the players complete freedom to do whatever they want to do does NOT mean that the game world becomes a completely passive place. Having some come to the PCs and say, "I'd like to hire you to do X." doesn't constitute "DM fiat" in any meaningful sense of the term.

IOW, giving the players liberty doesn't mean that you no longer give them plot hooks. On the contrary, it usually means creating a plot hook rich environment (while remaining open to any plot hooks they decide to create themselves). Some of these hooks will be active, others will just be interesting items or factoids or events that the PCs can choose to either investigate or ignore at their leisure. (And the term "plot hook" here is probably erroneous because you aren't looking to hook them into a plot -- you're just looking to hook them into a dramatically interesting situation.)

Let me give an example of how this works in practice: For my current campaign, I designed Act I around a structure of 13 adventures (with each adventure basically structured as a dramatically interesting situation or location). Each of these adventures, in turn, included 3-6 hooks that would lead to one of the other 13 adventures.

IOW, what I had was a web of interconnected situations along with hooks that would allow the PCs to move from one to another (if they chose to). Although I knew a good deal about each of the 13 adventures when I started, I had only developed a couple of them to any level of detail.

We recently completed Act I of this campaign. The PCs only went through 8 of the 13 adventures I'd planned and I ended up adding roughly another 4 adventures that spontaneously generated out of the PCs' actions.

In practice, however, there's very little wasted effort in terms of my prep time: Because I don't prep details until I need them, there was very little work that went into the 5 adventures/scenarios they didn't get involved with. (And the general information I'd prepped about those still affected the backdrop of the campaign. For example, one involved several clues pointing them towards a theater. They didn't pursue it, and the eventual destruction of the theater instead became a backdrop event.)

Of course, this isn't the only way to do this sort of thing. For example, in the campaign that involved the Khunbaral adventure, the action was structured around the quest to find the 3 seals. Once the players bit on that hook, the rest of the campaign was basically a well-structured series of adventures. (Within each adventure, however, there was still plenty of latitude for the PCs to pursue whatever course of action they wanted. And if they'd ever decided to simply stop pursuing their quest, they were free to do that.)

valadil
2008-09-02, 03:26 PM
I can understand fudging in the NPCs favor to make combat more interesting or for dramatic effect. It just crosses a line I'm not comfortable with. Makes me feel like I'm working against the players rather than creating the story with them. So while I wouldn't say it should never be done, I choose not to do it myself.



That's fair. I don't think it makes me come across as adversarial, but who knows.

How much I have to fudge combats also depends heavily on how much time I have to plan the game. Combats thrown together at the last minute aren't as well thought out. Other GMs I know actually run all combats ahead of time so they can see how things play out. I just don't have the time for that. What it really comes down to for me is that I'd rather write plot and story than combat. I have a finite amount of time to plan games. I choose to run combats that have to be fudged so I can spend more time writing story. If I forgo the story I'll have time to run combats that don't need fudging.

Mando Knight
2008-09-02, 03:34 PM
I don't like to kill off the players, and since we usually only have ~3 PCs, the encounters are a little harder, so I fudge the dice a little. Mostly, I don't accept more than one critical from non-warlord/leader-type NPCs per encounter.

Occasionally I'll also let the players re-roll ones and such, since the dice seem to like me better than them... (they're my dice... does that have anything to do with it?) One time I was a player rather than the DM, I got 2 crits in a row with the same encounter power (4E, different encounters in the same session), wiping out several foes in one encounter and seriously wounding the BBEG in the other. Especially since I had a magic implement to boost the crit damage...

SCPRedMage
2008-09-02, 03:40 PM
I'll admit, I fudge my share of dice. I have to, because you see, my dice HATE players. Hate them with the hate of a thousand hatey-things.

When I'm a player, my dice consistently roll low. I can have a 75% chance to hit a creature, and still only hit it 20% of the time. But when I'm the DM, the players start getting upset after I roll the fifth natural twenty in two rounds. They get downright perturbed when, five rounds into combat, not ONE of my damage rolls have been more than two points below maximum. And yes, this DOES happen to me. FREQUENTLY. The only exception seems to be recharge powers in 4e; I've YET to have a monster successfully make one of those checks...

When I fudge my dice, it's usually because the last few rolls have been particularly rough on the players, so I'll choose to convert that natural twenty into a non-crit, or maybe a miss, or maybe I'll take that max-damage roll down to something closer to average. Because if I don't, my players won't survive a FAIR fight.

MartinHarper
2008-09-02, 04:37 PM
If I don't {fudge the dice}, my players won't survive a FAIR fight.

If it's a fair fight, the players will only survive 50% of the time.

SCPRedMage
2008-09-02, 04:41 PM
If it's a fair fight, the players will only survive 50% of the time.
But with my dice, they only survive 10% of the time...

But thanks for nit-picking.

Raum
2008-09-02, 06:36 PM
I would include changing NPC tactics as a form of fudging. Pretty much any on the fly change to the encounter for the purpose of making it more survivable falls within my definition of fudging.While I'm not certain I agree with your expanded definition, who said anything about changing tactics? When the NPCs' goal is to kill the PCs, they'll do their best to do so. When the goal is capture, they're a bit handicapped and will avoid lethal damage unless the situation changes radically. When the goal is something else entirely and the combat is a distraction, the NPC may well take the first out he can so he can go after his goal. Personality enters into the picture as well...some are straightforward and willing to fight, others prefer stealth or trickery, still others are simply fearful and will only enter combat with a bunch of minions between themselves and the PCs...the options are nearly endless. One option I try to avoid is the "fight to the death" unless the NPCs' goals (or situation) justify it. It makes little sense for every NPC to continue walking into a meatgrinder...unless they're unintelligent undead, constructs, or trapped. The NPCs "might do something other than attack" just as PCs may. Personality and goals are generally the primary drivers.

You need to be able to answer "Why are we fighting?" for your NPCs.


IMO no DM should ever be known for fudging. If he/she does it right the players shouldn't know it happened. Part of the reason for this thread was to get a feel for the majority opinion on fudging for future reference when running games. I don't want my players thinking I fudge things whether I do or not.If you're fudging without the players' knowledge, you're lying to the players. Is that appropriate for the game? Frankly I'd rather have a GM just tell me "I don't like that outcome, lets change it." At least then I know when my decisions matter and when they don't.


That is an interesting point about being vindictive if you let a player die, though I think it's an exaggeration.Exaggeration? Why? You save Joe's character "for the sake of your story" or simply because you didn't want to kill off PCs. Why are you killing Bob's character now? Whether vindictiveness is the intent or not, the appearance is there.


I don't fudge to avoid the player input changing the story. Changing the story is fine, I do it all the time. The story should go where the fun is. I do fudge to avoid having the story go in a direction that I don't think the players would like. To me a TPK is not fun unless it is dramatically appropriate. From talking to my players I've always felt that they agreed. Perhaps, and hopefully your players do agree. However you are removing risk from the game. This means the players don't really need to think things through (just kill 'em and take their stuff when confused), seldom have to worry about strategy (not going to be a TPK, we can go on to the next fight without preparing), and don't need to worry about coordinating tactics as a group (after all you'll save them from a TPK). That's three elements gone from the game. Hopefully you're certain they're elements your players aren't interested in.


If I started playing with a group that preferred to go with the dice no matter what that would be fine too.Agreed...it should be part of the social contract.


....but the other function of DM is a structured storyline.Only true if you're scripting (railroading to one degree or another) the adventure. There are four general types of adventures and only two are scripted in greater or lesser amounts.

Matthew
2008-09-02, 06:39 PM
*DM: You open the door and find that a plot hook has been abandond on the step. What do you do?

Heh, heh. We call that "the silver spoon".

Charity
2008-09-02, 07:00 PM
Silver spoon... fudge... hang the diet.

I roll in the open so fudging would be extra difficult, thats how my dear wife was eaten by that hungry hungry crocodile 2 twenties in a row nom nom nom.

Inhuman Bot
2008-09-02, 07:06 PM
Personally, I really dislike changing rolls. I'am a player, not DM, so that affects it, but it destroys all of the danger (to me) if the DM changes away from a death result.

Xenogears
2008-09-02, 07:29 PM
All the campaigns (although they shouldn't really even be called that) were not very plot-driven at all. More like me and my friends goofing off. It's what we found fun though. Actually since I'm somewhat short on friends and was more like me and my best friend doing random stuff in DnD while we ate dinner... and recently it has also included my girlfriend. Much better with three players instead of just two. Either way though. DM fudging was only used if it made a situation so funny it was worth it. In the kind of games we had though fudging didn't really matter one way or another. Most of our encounters happened because either him or me would say "Hey let's go kill the Terrasque). Then we would go hunt it down and kill it (or sometimes fail to kill it.) One campaign was just me using a Frenzied Beserker and him trying to kill me off.

But I don't think I would like DM Fudging in a normal serious Campaign. Whenever I play with my friend he has a character too. He also rolls in front of us. Not to prove that he isn't fudging but because there is no need for him to hide the rolls. Of course it is Warhammer RPG so that is less important anyway. But either way I think the fact that he doesn't fudge the rolls makes it a better game. The other day we encountered a group of Slanesh worshiping mutants (one of them had Vagina's for eyes!) who were angry at us because one of the characters refused their ummm "offers" and insulted them instead. So halfway through the encounter had the DM's character at 0 HP and knocked out with a head injury that even if he lives could cause a permenant lose of one eye. So my Troll Slayer (coolest class ever. Period.) rushed in and saved him from the remaining mutants. He even made his roll to save his eye. It might not mean much in the long run but I really liked being able to rush in and rescue my friends from danger. If the DM just fudged rolls then I would have only rescued him from a Mutant that could never kill him. That wouldn't have mattered at all. So DM fudging makes the Player's successes less important if they know about it. And if they don't then you have set up a group based around lies.

Personally I think humor is the best part of the games. Not that everything has to be a joke. I mean maybe ten minutes before we fought the mutants we fought a Beastman. They are Goatheaded creatures(or sometimes other animals) and it got a bunch of lucky rolls and nearly killed us. So afterwords I was saying that I couldn't believe that a bloody goatman almost killed us. The DM turns to me and says "Actually it was a Donkey Man." I almost spat my drink in his face I was laughing so hard. Imagine great heroes slain by a man with a Donkey head. So we like to mix lots of humor with the action. But even that joke wouldn't have been as funny with DM fudging since we wouldn't have been almost killed by the monster.

Actually another example from the same game (and all of this happened in one session). Shortly after the fight with the goatman the DM decided to throw a harder foe against us (completely forgetting that we hadn't healed yet). It was a minor demon. I rushed up to it and hit it so hard that I literally shattered it's spine. It fell down instantly and lay there paralyzed. The DM's character hadn't even moved. We laughed so much at this one too. And none of these events would have happened with DM fudging. It is the random nature of any tabletop game that makes them so fun. You never know when a Player will pull off something so amazing it makes your jaw drop (like in the example someone posted where the Rogue killed that guy Twice! with two natural 20's each time.) or when they will roll a natural one a couple times in a row and almost get killed by the world's luckiest Kobold. Both events add a level of entertainment to the game that is impossible to equal if the DM fudges events. So in closing Let the Lord of Chaos Rule! Damn I wish I knew what Ishmael meant by that.

Bauglir
2008-09-02, 09:36 PM
I fudge rolls. Occasionally. "You're level 2 and the Str 22 Orc with a spear just landed a lucky critical? Yeah, ok, you're at -5 and unstable." "You're a level 20 melee character, but you've consistently missed all game because you can't roll higher than a 5? Ah, well, it wasn't using Combat Expertise this turn, so you hit. Yeah, that's it." I usually don't change the course of a combat or adventure, I just make a player's life a little less boring than "Oh, I'm dead by an enormous margin" (I think rolling to stabilize would be more suspenseful) or "Oh, I miss. Again." Then again, I'll also occasionally fudge numbers the other way "What's that? You've rolled above 15 on every saving throw today? Too bad, you just barely missed that DC this time." "You dealt 480 points of damage in a single attack against an opponent whose AC you had to roll a 20 to hit? Great job, he's almost dead." Although, if my players are reading this, yes, that Fort save really WAS DC 65, I wasn't fudging that time.

Xenogears
2008-09-02, 10:07 PM
I fudge rolls. Occasionally. "You're level 2 and the Str 22 Orc with a spear just landed a lucky critical? Yeah, ok, you're at -5 and unstable." "You're a level 20 melee character, but you've consistently missed all game because you can't roll higher than a 5? Ah, well, it wasn't using Combat Expertise this turn, so you hit. Yeah, that's it." I usually don't change the course of a combat or adventure, I just make a player's life a little less boring than "Oh, I'm dead by an enormous margin" (I think rolling to stabilize would be more suspenseful) or "Oh, I miss. Again." Then again, I'll also occasionally fudge numbers the other way "What's that? You've rolled above 15 on every saving throw today? Too bad, you just barely missed that DC this time." "You dealt 480 points of damage in a single attack against an opponent whose AC you had to roll a 20 to hit? Great job, he's almost dead." Although, if my players are reading this, yes, that Fort save really WAS DC 65, I wasn't fudging that time.

See that line there just proves my point. Your players would be angry that you altered the game to suit your needs. Even if you did it to balance the game or in an attempt to make things more fun for everyone. In essence (despite being the DM) you cheated. Sure Rule 0 states you can do it if you want to so technically you didn't cheat. But that doesn't matter. If you have to lie to the other members of the group about what you are doing then you should just stop. If the players know you are going to fudge the rules and are okay with it then go ahead and do it. Personally I would find that boring and go read a book because it's basically the same thing. If you don't tell the other members of the group then the entire campaign is just one big lie. There WILL be anger when/if they find out. No one likes being lied to.

BlueWizard
2008-09-02, 10:12 PM
Just look at my PbP games here. There are high mortality rates.

Tallis
2008-09-03, 01:04 AM
If you're fudging without the players' knowledge, you're lying to the players. Is that appropriate for the game? Frankly I'd rather have a GM just tell me "I don't like that outcome, lets change it." At least then I know when my decisions matter and when they don't.

DMs lie to their players all the time. It's a storytelling game, the whole thing is made up, even if it's based on real events. No good DM tells their players everything. I don't show off the NPC's character sheets or tell the players about the secret plot because the PCs wouldn't have any way of knowing that information. Why would I tell them when the goddess of luck takes a liking to them and gives them a little extra luck? That's OOC knowledge. Now if I tell them that I never fudge that would be a lie, but I generally just don't mention it one way or another. Fudging is only a useful tool if the players don't know about it, otherwise it takes the excitement out of the game.


Exaggeration? Why? You save Joe's character "for the sake of your story" or simply because you didn't want to kill off PCs. Why are you killing Bob's character now? Whether vindictiveness is the intent or not, the appearance is there.

I don't fudge "to save Joe's character". I fudge to save the group for the sake of fun. If Joe or Bob's character die that is acceptable. A total party wipe in a campaign everyone is having fun with sucks. I'll generally start fudging if about half the party goes down. Then I'll start toning down the damage or drop the NPC's BAB by 1 or something along those lines. I have had characters die even after doing this, but it gives them a chance. The only time I'll alter the numbers more tyhan a little bit is if I really screwed up planning the encounter and made it way too tough.




Perhaps, and hopefully your players do agree.

I can say for sure that 80% of the people I've played with agreed that fudging was an acceptable tool for the DM. Many of them tried DMing themselves, so it was something that came up in conversation. The rest I never discussed it with. Not one of my players that I ever talked to about it thought it was wrong.
Now obviously we've illustrated that there are people that are against it, but to my knowledge I've never played with them.
My general impression so far from this thread is that the majority of people think that minimal fudging is good. A somewhat smaller (but very vocal :smallwink:) percentage are totally against it, and a small percentage think lots of fudging is perfectly fine.


However you are removing risk from the game.

I'm lowering the risk in some parts of the game, not eliminating it.



This means the players don't really need to think things through (just kill 'em and take their stuff when confused), seldom have to worry about strategy (not going to be a TPK, we can go on to the next fight without preparing), and don't need to worry about coordinating tactics as a group (after all you'll save them from a TPK). That's three elements gone from the game. Hopefully you're certain they're elements your players aren't interested in.

All this only applies if I do it a lot (which I don't) and they know that I do it (which they shouldn't if it's done right). The whole game is about creating the illusion of danger and adventure while we sit back, relax and eat pizza. This is just one more tool to manage that illusion.

Thanks everyone who's posted so far (and whoever is going to). Even those of you that I don't agree with are making some excellent points and giving me lots to think about.

Those of you who just posted no fudging or whatever, please explain why. The reasons you feel the way you do are important to the discussion.

Think I'll go edit my original post now to make it clearer, I feel like I worded some things poorly.:smalleek:

Xenogears
2008-09-03, 01:36 AM
DMs lie to their players all the time. It's a storytelling game, the whole thing is made up, even if it's based on real events. No good DM tells their players everything. I don't show off the NPC's character sheets or tell the players about the secret plot because the PCs wouldn't have any way of knowing that information. Why would I tell them when the goddess of luck takes a liking to them and gives them a little extra luck? That's OOC knowledge. Now if I tell them that I never fudge that would be a lie, but I generally just don't mention it one way or another. Fudging is only a useful tool if the players don't know about it, otherwise it takes the excitement out of the game.

Not telling them the secret plot is a little different than changing the rolls and not telling them. Atleast to me it is. In the first case then it is knowledge that their characters not only can but are expected to find. Telling them would serve no useful purpose and would only serve to ruin the adventure.In the latter case it is different. There is no way their characters could even discover the information. In fact the difference is that in one case you are hiding an element of the world from the characters in the world. The fact that you don't tell the players is only because if you told the players then the characters would know. In the other case you are hiding your actions in the real world from the players. Not because the characters shouldn't know but because you feel the Players shouldn't. That is the difference. It is a small but important distinction.

Tallis
2008-09-03, 02:17 AM
Not telling them the secret plot is a little different than changing the rolls and not telling them. Atleast to me it is. In the first case then it is knowledge that their characters not only can but are expected to find. Telling them would serve no useful purpose and would only serve to ruin the adventure.In the latter case it is different. There is no way their characters could even discover the information. In fact the difference is that in one case you are hiding an element of the world from the characters in the world. The fact that you don't tell the players is only because if you told the players then the characters would know. In the other case you are hiding your actions in the real world from the players. Not because the characters shouldn't know but because you feel the Players shouldn't. That is the difference. It is a small but important distinction.

Actually I do see the distinction, I was exagerating to make my point and I have no doubt that I'm going to get a lot of flak about it. The problem is if you tell the players you're fudging it completely loses it's usefulness. It's almost a catch 22.
I do however think it's on the same level as showing the players the NPC's stat sheets. It's a tool for DMs that has been used, and generally accepted, for most if not all of the game's life. The DM's responsibility is to make sure the players have fun. If fudging helps that happen then it is a good thing in my opinion. If you tell the players you are fudging it has the opposite effect and makes the game less fun.
So yes, you are right. I feel that the players shouldn't know that I ocassionally improve their chances of surviving an encounter, because if I do they will not have as much fun. Telling them not only serves no useful purpose it actually has a negative effect on everyone's enjoyment of the game.
Is it dishonest? Technically yes. I'm okay with that as long as it helps everyone have more fun.

arguskos
2008-09-03, 02:43 AM
I feel that fudging is alright, as long as two things happen:

1. You have a list of things you WILL fudge (like random "oops, you're dead for no real reason" or whatever floats your boat) and things you WON'T fudge (like random "oops, you're dead for no real reason" or whatever floats your boat).
1a. I also tend to give myself a limitation on the number of times I'll fudge each session, and I STICK TO IT. That's important.

2. (and this is the vital part) You tell the players that they don't get to know your roll, the DC of stuff, and any other numbers related to whatever you are letting yourself fudge on. Not like you should anyway, really, but it's a good rule to have down pat (since I've had players demand to know the DC's of everything, the AC's of everything, all the stats for monsters, etc).

Note that I'm a fan of "if it leads to more fun, go for it, and damn the rules" so I doubt most people will agree with my personal system of doing things. *shrug*

-argus

Malicte
2008-09-03, 02:59 AM
My personal thoughts on this are that a little fudging is not a bad thing. If a group of my players are absolutely in love with their characters, are having a great time with them... well, the point is to have fun, and if I, as a DM, do something dumb (like make an encounter too strong), I don't want to rob them of that.

Too much fudging is a real issue to me only if I know the DM is doing it. As a player, this makes me feel cheated out of a lot of the control I'd normally have. Why even bother rolling, if I know how the action will end? If I'm the DM, it turns me into a storyteller, and while that's fine, I may as well be writing a book (or reading one). This is fine for some people, and I've had a game where a DM fudged EVERY roll, and it was wonderful. I didn't even know til weeks after the campaign ended that he had done so. But once a player knows the fudging is going on, it ruins the experience somewhat.

My last complaint with fudging is that it makes certain abilities very hard to use. Binary save-or-dies, for example, are very silly with fudging. They either die or suffer no effect. If you fudge that, you're picking from one of only two options. If you don't want your players to fall to that effect, don't use it on them in the first place. Doing that, however, is limiting.


To sum up, basically, I feel that fudging is a great way of keeping a great game great, but too much and it really limits it in ways that I don't like.

Raum
2008-09-03, 07:04 AM
DMs lie to their players all the time. It's a storytelling game, the whole thing is made up, even if it's based on real events. No, not all DMs have a need or desire to lie to players. NPCs lying to characters is a different story altogether.


No good DM tells their players everything. I don't show off the NPC's character sheets or tell the players about the secret plot because the PCs wouldn't have any way of knowing that information. Why would I tell them when the goddess of luck takes a liking to them and gives them a little extra luck? That's OOC knowledge. Not sure what you're saying here, how is this related to modifying and lying about the results of game mechanics? As for OOC knowledge, if the die roll of 20 is OOC I expect them to keep it OOC - doesn't mean I need to tell them the die roll was actually 40.


Now if I tell them that I never fudge that would be a lie, but I generally just don't mention it one way or another. Fudging is only a useful tool if the players don't know about it, otherwise it takes the excitement out of the game.So why is it good again? I don't buy the need to lie to players (as opposed to characters). Besides, if you haven't told them you're fudging you may well be violating the game's social contract. Perhaps they'd prefer to take their chances and leave the excitement in the game.


Actually I do see the distinction, I was exagerating to make my point and I have no doubt that I'm going to get a lot of flak about it. Well, we'll call you on it at least.


The problem is if you tell the players you're fudging it completely loses it's usefulness. It's almost a catch 22. If this is true, how are your players going to feel when they figure it out? If fudging is a habit, they will figure it out eventually.


I do however think it's on the same level as showing the players the NPC's stat sheets. Not sure I agree, but let's let say it's true. Defensive stats will almost always be figured out during the course of a mid to long combat...so why not just show them up front? I've played games where I haven't hidden defensive stats, it actually helped make the game faster. The players knew when their characters hit and could narrate their own strike without needing to wait for confirmation. There are even entire game systems built around this concept - target numbers are static and generally known, modifiers are applied to the roll.


It's a tool for DMs that has been used, and generally accepted, for most if not all of the game's life. The DM's responsibility is to make sure the players have fun. If fudging helps that happen then it is a good thing in my opinion. If you tell the players you are fudging it has the opposite effect and makes the game less fun.I'm not certain it's been 'generally accepted' - I certainly can't recall lying to players (characters are a different story) being advocated in gaming manuals I've read. There's probably at least one out there somewhere though...

As for 'making sure the players have fun' being a DM responsibility, isn't the DM's responsibility more along the lines of providing a playground? You can't force fun. It's seldom fun when you try.


So yes, you are right. I feel that the players shouldn't know that I ocassionally improve their chances of surviving an encounter, because if I do they will not have as much fun. Telling them not only serves no useful purpose it actually has a negative effect on everyone's enjoyment of the game.
Is it dishonest? Technically yes. I'm okay with that as long as it helps everyone have more fun.Fudging (and hiding the specific instances) may also be part of the social contract. I really don't have anything against getting agreement to fudge occasional rolls before the game starts and not mentioning it each time it's done. But if I go into a game expecting to play by the listed rules, I'll probably be irritated when I find out the rules weren't always followed.

DigoDragon
2008-09-03, 07:13 AM
I love fudge. Delicious. But everything in moderation, right? I only use a little fudging because too much does take away the threat of dying. People still die in my games, but I like them to die more often from their own actions then by random chance of a roll.

Thurbane
2008-09-03, 07:28 AM
I've played in both types of groups - fudging and non-fudging. I enjoyed both. Our current group, by consensus, had no fudging, all rolls out in the open. I tend to prefer non-fudging, but if the DM doesn't go overboard (i.e. saving fudging for occasions where the dice just hate one player or the like), I have no particular problem with the fudging-DM style, either...

Thrawn183
2008-09-03, 07:42 AM
I always roll in the open for my players to see. Every DM I have ever had does the same. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a "screen" until I went online to this forum.

Heck, and I still have enough problems with getting railroaded, the last thing I need is a DM that can screw with things even more!

Tallis
2008-09-03, 09:12 AM
No, not all DMs have a need or desire to lie to players. NPCs lying to characters is a different story altogether.

Lying is inherent in telling a fictional story, the fact that people know it's fiction doesn't change that fact. "Your characters see the dragon flying low over the fields towards the defenseless pilgrims" is a lie. The dragon doesn't exist, nor do the pilgrims, nor do your characters as anything other than a sheet of paper and some ink. So yes all DMs lie, because DMs are storytellers.


Not sure what you're saying here, how is this related to modifying and lying about the results of game mechanics? As for OOC knowledge, if the die roll of 20 is OOC I expect them to keep it OOC - doesn't mean I need to tell them the die roll was actually 40.

I don't tell them what the die roll is at all. I just tell them what happens. I prefer to keep the mechanics in the background as much as possible to help the players immersion in the game. Also because the players shouldn't know right off the bat what the NPCs stats are. Do you know the strengths and weaknesses of every random person you meet? How about if an alien landed in your back yard, would you automatically know everything it could do?


So why is it good again? I don't buy the need to lie to players (as opposed to characters). Besides, if you haven't told them you're fudging you may well be violating the game's social contract. Perhaps they'd prefer to take their chances and leave the excitement in the game.

It's good because when used correctly it makes the game more fun for everyone. Pretty sure I said that at least once.
As I pointed out above storytelling is lying. I'm sure you don't think of it that way and it is certainly an acceptable form in this case, but technically it is.

Now the idea of the social contract is definitely a valid concern. That's something a DM should really think about with any group of players. Especially if it includes new people they haven't played with before and don't know very well.


Well, we'll call you on it at least.

Fair enough.


If this is true, how are your players going to feel when they figure it out? If fudging is a habit, they will figure it out eventually.

I've been DMing for years and never had a player catch me doing it. The biggest problem I had was one player who also DMed occasionally who sometimes thought I was doing it when I wasn't. As I said every person that I've played with and discussed fudging with has been fine with the idea. So in my group of players I think they'd feel fine about it.


Not sure I agree, but let's let say it's true. Defensive stats will almost always be figured out during the course of a mid to long combat...so why not just show them up front? I've played games where I haven't hidden defensive stats, it actually helped make the game faster. The players knew when their characters hit and could narrate their own strike without needing to wait for confirmation. There are even entire game systems built around this concept - target numbers are static and generally known, modifiers are applied to the roll.

There is more on my stat sheets than just defensive stats. Even if the players do figure them out, that's fine, but it should be a natural progression. I like to have my players reason things out and figure out how things work in my world rather then just handing them information they have no particular way of knowing.
I have a habit of altering monster stats specifically so that brand new adventurers with experienced players don't know what every creature can do. I do tell my players that I do this in case you're wondering.
I also have people call creatures by the wrong name (a gnome might be referred to as a dwarf, any small humanoid could be called goblin, etc) because most peasant farmers in my world don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the creatures out there. It's then up to the players to determine from my descriptions what they're really up against. I tell them that what's in the MM is basically the folklore about these creatures. A lot of it is true, but not everything. If I were to show the players my stat sheets all that would be a waste of time.
I'm sure there are game systems based on full disclosure and if that's the way you like to play that's fine, but it's not the way I like to run things. I prefer things to focus less on the mechanical aspects of the game and I've never had any particular problem keeping track of my creature's stats.



I'm not certain it's been 'generally accepted' - I certainly can't recall lying to players (characters are a different story) being advocated in gaming manuals I've read. There's probably at least one out there somewhere though...

I know it's generally accepted among the people I've played with because I've talked to the majority of them about it at one time or another. This thread also seems to lean towards acceptance of it to one degree or another and I've been hearing about it being used without negative connotations throughout my gaming career. I'm extrapolating to say that it's generally accepted. As for gaming manuals it falls under what's now referred to as rule zero. The DM has the authority to change or ignore the rules to make his/her game better. Unfortunately I can't access my books right now, but I remember it being advocated in the 1e DMG. There is the chance that I'm remembering wrong since I can't check it right now.


As for 'making sure the players have fun' being a DM responsibility, isn't the DM's responsibility more along the lines of providing a playground? You can't force fun. It's seldom fun when you try.

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.


Fudging (and hiding the specific instances) may also be part of the social contract. I really don't have anything against getting agreement to fudge occasional rolls before the game starts and not mentioning it each time it's done. But if I go into a game expecting to play by the listed rules, I'll probably be irritated when I find out the rules weren't always followed.

Food for thought.

I'm curious, what edition did you start playing with?

I'm wondering if the people who are against fudging tend towards any particular edition as their introduction to D&D. I'm wondering because 3e shifted away from the idea of DMs having total control of the world (though it's still there in rule zero) and more towards a mechanics heavy system. Before 3e calling someone a rules lawyer was an insult because it meant they were butting into the DMs job and being annoying. Now not so much, pretty much means they just know the game really well.
In the AD&D 1e DMG it was even recommended that the DM arbitrarily kill someones character if they got out of line. Now I don't believe that is a good idea, but it illustrates the thinking that brings us to fudging. The DM has full control of the world, no matter what the rulebooks say.

For the record I started playing with OD&D (red box) and have played every edition up to but not including 4e. I do have the 4e books and have read them, but I just moved and don't have a group in florida yet.

nagora
2008-09-03, 09:36 AM
In the AD&D 1e DMG it was even recommended that the DM arbitrarily kill someones character if they got out of line. Now I don't believe that is a good idea, but it illustrates the thinking that brings us to fudging.
I think this section of the 1e DMG is germaine (p110); bolding is mine:


ROLLING THE DICE AND CONTROL OF THE GAME
In many situations it is correct and fun to have the players dice such thingsas melee hits or saving throws. However, it is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players. You might wish ta do this to keep them from knowing some specific fact. You also might wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining.

You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!" Examples of dice rolls which should always be made secretly are: listening, hiding in shadows, detecting traps, moving silently, finding secret doors, monster saving throws, and attacks made upon the party without their possible knowledge.

Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may! Again, if you have available ample means of raising characters from the dead, even death is not too severe; remember, however, the constitution-based limit to resurrections. Yet one die roll that you should NEVER tamper with is the SYSTEM SHOCK ROLL to be raised from the dead. If a character fails that roll, which he or she should make him or herself, he or she is FOREVER DEAD. There MUST be some final death or immortality will take over and again the game will become boring because the player characters will have 9+ lives each!

HANDLING TROUBLESOME PLAYERS
Some players will find more enjoyment in spoiling a game than in playing it, and this ruins the fun for the rest of the participants, so it must be prevented. Those who enjoy being loud and argumentative, those who pout or act in a childish manner when things go against them, those who use the books as a defense when you rule them out of line should be excluded from the campaign. Simply put, ask them to leave, or do not invite them to participate again.

Peer pressure is another means which can be used to control players who are not totally obnoxious and who you deem worth saving. These types typically attempt to give orders and instructions even when their characters are not present, tell other characters what to do even though the character role they have has nothing to do with that of the one being instructed, or continually attempt actions or activities their characters would have no knowledge of. When any such proposals or suggestions or orders are made, simply inform the group that that is no longer possible under any circumstances because of the player in question. The group will then act to silence him or her and control undesirable outbursts. The other players will most certainly let such individuals know about undesirable activity when it begins to affect their characters and their enjoyment of the game.

Strong steps short of expulsion can be an extra random monster die, obviously rolled, the attack of an ethereal mummy (which always strikes by surprise, naturally), points of damage from "blue bolts from the heavens" striking the offender's head, or the permanent loss of a point of charisma (appropriately) from the character belonging to the offender. If these have to be enacted regularly, then they are not effective and stronger measures must be taken. Again, the ultimate answer to such a problem is simply to exclude the disruptive person from further gatherings.

Note that I don't agree with all of this, it was after all written in 1978 and even the author was relatively inexperienced then, but it's food for thought on this thread and the "Role of the GM" one too.

The way I look at it is this: if you need to hide it from the players then you shouldn't be doing it. Hiding it - which seems a universal practice among fudgers - tells us all we need to know about how much fun the players really think it adds. I don't think any player would be happy knowing that the DM is making the dice dance to their tune; if they were, there'd be no need to be secretive about it.

Tallis
2008-09-03, 02:45 PM
I think this section of the 1e DMG is germaine (p110); bolding is mine:


Note that I don't agree with all of this, it was after all written in 1978 and even the author was relatively inexperienced then, but it's food for thought on this thread and the "Role of the GM" one too.

The way I look at it is this: if you need to hide it from the players then you shouldn't be doing it. Hiding it - which seems a universal practice among fudgers - tells us all we need to know about how much fun the players really think it adds. I don't think any player would be happy knowing that the DM is making the dice dance to their tune; if they were, there'd be no need to be secretive about it.

Thanks for posting that, it was indeed the passage I was thinking of, though I think there are some important lines that you didn't bold.
I also don't agree with all of it, but I think it illustrates the origin of the thinking that fudging is acceptable.
You, and others, seem to think that I hide fudging because I'm somehow ashamed of it. That is not the case at all. I don't hide it because I think my players would have a problem with me doing it. If I felt that they'd have a problem with it then I wouldn't do it, I just haven't run with a group where that was the case. If anyone asks me I'll admit to doing it sometimes, I just won't bring it up or point out when I'm doing it.
I hide it because it only works if players don't know you're doing it. By nature it will have the opposite of the desired effect if it's done in the open. The problem, with my groups at least, would be in the knowing not the action.
I'll also point out that, at least the way I do it, I'm not so much making the dice dance to my tune as adding a static penalty to the rolls to make an accidentally unfair encounter more fair.
My world doesn't work quite like yours does. The encounters are generally tailored to the players rather than it being a sandbox. I've considered making a sandbox world where threats are set regardless of PC level, but I've not had the time to design that yet. The players I've had recently probably wouldn't do well in that environment anyway. If I ever do run a campaign that way it'll be fudge free otherwise it's rather a waste of time, but in a tailored campaign I have to be ready to fix mistakes.

Bauglir
2008-09-03, 02:46 PM
Oh, I was perfectly serious about that Fort DC. It was an Epic Gestalt game, for one thing. I really wasn't fudging it, and it was something so high that they should have failed without spectacular rolls, and nobody got a 20. So I fail to see how that proves your point.

Xenogears
2008-09-03, 03:42 PM
Oh, I was perfectly serious about that Fort DC. It was an Epic Gestalt game, for one thing. I really wasn't fudging it, and it was something so high that they should have failed without spectacular rolls, and nobody got a 20. So I fail to see how that proves your point.

Well first of all the way you posted it made it sound like on of those "No. I Didn't lie. *shifty eyes* Why would you think that?" moments. So if it wasn't made in that regards then no it doesn't prove my point. My point still remains though. I feel that if you have to hide something like that then you are creating a group based on a lie. It's the same argument as if a Guy told a Girl that she was his first. If that is a lie then it sets up the entire relationship as based in a lie. If they ever discover that initial falsehood then they will become unable to believe anything you say in the future and will begin to question everything you said in the past.

It is basically the same situation. Maybe you think it is ok because it helps the players have more fun but they might not agree. Lots of people would start to question every roll that ever happened behind that little DM screen of yours. It would suck the fun out of all future games. Is the risk of that really worth the relatively minor increase in fun it might give? It's just human nature to distrust people that you know have lied to you. The actual act of the Fudging isn't nearly as much of a problem as the environment of distrust it can set up.

As a final note if you think your group is okay with it then try asking them before a session. You don't have to tell them which rolls have been changed and which remain the same. But they deserve to know if you are changing the dice or not. If they say they are OK with it then go ahead. If they say that they would rather have the dice stand then do so.

nagora
2008-09-03, 03:53 PM
Thanks for posting that, it was indeed the passage I was thinking of, though I think there are some important lines that you didn't bold.
I didn't want to bold the whole lot!


You, and others, seem to think that I hide fudging because I'm somehow ashamed of it.
I meant more that you know that letting them know will take away from their experience, not that you're ashamed of it.


The players I've had recently probably wouldn't do well in that environment anyway.
Well, it might come as a shock to them at first.

Jayabalard
2008-09-03, 05:00 PM
Fudging is good. I'm a simulationist. I want the world real. I prefer "realistic" over the randomness of dice.


As nagora mentioned, "adapting on the fly" is not equal to "fudging rolls".I don't see that big of a difference if any between rolling the dice and ignoring the result and just making an arbitrary adjudication. Many a time, I'll roll the dice behind the screen for no particular reason and let the players make their own assumption as to whether I'm making a ruling or following the dice.

Justin_Bacon
2008-09-03, 05:11 PM
The way I look at it is this: if you need to hide it from the players then you shouldn't be doing it. Hiding it - which seems a universal practice among fudgers - tells us all we need to know about how much fun the players really think it adds. I don't think any player would be happy knowing that the DM is making the dice dance to their tune; if they were, there'd be no need to be secretive about it.

That's not necessarily true. If part of what they enjoy is the illusion of impartial dice (even while benefitting from the DM arbitrarily accomplishing whatever it is that the DM is attempting to arbitrarily accomplish by fudging), then it still makes sense for the dice to be hidden.

Similarly, Chow Yun Fat doesn't actually have the ability to walk on water -- but that doesn't mean I don't want them to digitally remove the wires used in filming Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

nagora
2008-09-03, 05:16 PM
Fudging is good. I'm a simulationist. I want the world real. I prefer "realistic" over the randomness of dice.
I feel the solution to that is not to roll the dice when there isn't a good reason.

Want to climb a tree? Go ahead. Unless it's raining and you're encumbered or under attack. Then, we might roll some dice and live with the result.

Raum
2008-09-03, 06:15 PM
I'm curious, what edition did you start playing with?If it matters, one of the boxed sets. Don't remember which but the box was blue and the books were simply saddle stitched. However I played more Gamma World and Traveller than I did OD&D or even AD&D until the 90s. Even then I split time between AD&D and Shadowrun. The late 90s had a long string of mostly AD&D with spurts of d6 Star Wars and old World of Darkness. These days the 3.5 campaign is on hiatus (though may be restarting soon, not certain yet) and I've been playing Savage Worlds and True 20. A few other systems got mixed in there at different times but they tended to get tried a few times and left for other games.

You speculated starting edition of D&D may account for opinions on fudging...I wonder if it's an opinion simply endemic to D&D but possibly not as prevalent in other games.

Tallis
2008-09-03, 07:06 PM
I didn't want to bold the whole lot!

LOL.



I meant more that you know that letting them know will take away from their experience, not that you're ashamed of it.

Okay then, we at least partially understand each other.



Well, it might come as a shock to them at first.

I'm not so much worried about the shock as that they're not terribly self motivated. They don't really come up with plans for the future, they just kind of go with the flow. When I asked 2 of them what their goals were one didn't know and the other said he wanted to get rich and powerful, but with no goal beyond that or plan to get there.

Tallis
2008-09-03, 07:12 PM
You speculated starting edition of D&D may account for opinions on fudging...I wonder if it's an opinion simply endemic to D&D but possibly not as prevalent in other games.

I wouldn't necessarily say account for so much as influence. In my personal experience people that started with the 3.x rules tend to be a lot more focused on rules, where people that started with the older rules sets tend to be more accepting of DM judgement calls. That's just the people I know though so I'm wondering if it's a common divide.
I haven't had the opportunity to play a lot of games outside D&D ( I've played MSH, Star Wars d6, and a little gurps and robotech) so I'm really not qualified to speak for players of other games.

Raum
2008-09-03, 10:47 PM
Trying to figure out what or how opinions on fudging grew won't be easy. Opinions aren't always static either which will add difficulty. Twenty years ago I'd have been all for fudging as an integral part of the game. I feared killing 'Player' characters and thought since I only fudged in the PCs' favor I was doing well. Now I look back and say I was taking risk out of the game. All too often, fun and perceived risk are tied together.

I think the "perceived risk" link to fun is why so many try to hide whether or not they're fudging. That's not easy to do long term though, some have even pointed out being accused of fudging when they weren't. Obviously there was a perception of DM fudging.

Now I look at the game and say risk is good, it adds tension and fun. Lets keep it in the game and keep it real. In other words, "Kill 'em and take their stuff!" :smallamused:

Knaight
2008-09-03, 11:02 PM
It really depends on how its used. Sometimes you want to pull the players bacon out of the fire, while still leaving risk, so you can use reinforcements or some such. You weren't planning on it, and there was no real reason for them to be so close, but if its plausible(military campaigns for example), then it can sometimes be worth doing.

Glyphic
2008-09-03, 11:08 PM
I fudge my DM every other week; he seems to enjoy it, so I'd say DM fudging is good! :smallwink:

Diggorian
2008-09-03, 11:34 PM
I roll in the open and will state DCs if the character has the skill/experience to be able to access it.

It preserves the thrill of chaos for me, though I do lose some narrative control. Being a sandbox DM (http://dadominion.com/blog/2008/05/02/improvised-interaction-sermon-on-the-sandbox/), this isn't a big issue for me, though it can be for some.

I will make adjustments if I make a rule mistake and if it can't be justified by the story or setting.

Tallis
2008-09-04, 12:54 AM
Trying to figure out what or how opinions on fudging grew won't be easy. Opinions aren't always static either which will add difficulty. Twenty years ago I'd have been all for fudging as an integral part of the game. I feared killing 'Player' characters and thought since I only fudged in the PCs' favor I was doing well. Now I look back and say I was taking risk out of the game. All too often, fun and perceived risk are tied together.

I think the "perceived risk" link to fun is why so many try to hide whether or not they're fudging. That's not easy to do long term though, some have even pointed out being accused of fudging when they weren't. Obviously there was a perception of DM fudging.

Now I look at the game and say risk is good, it adds tension and fun. Lets keep it in the game and keep it real. In other words, "Kill 'em and take their stuff!" :smallamused:

That is very well put. Based on that I can see your point of view.
However we have different views of how to manage "percieved risk". I agree that risk is good, to a point. But I watch my players reactions. If they're having fun I let the dice fly. If it's a minor encounter going bad and they're grumbling about it I'll tip the odds a bit to give them a chance to make a heroic recovery. It isn't always enough. Sometimes PCs die anyway, but sometimes it makes for a great story about how they were able to make a last ditch effort and pull themselves out of a bad situation just when they thought they were going to die.
I believe that perceived risk is more important than actual risk. Fudging is used to maintain the illusion while allowing the PCs to be a little luckier than average. Then again sometimes they should just steamroll over an encounter to give them that feeling over power. That's why I don't fudge in favor of the npcs, they're not the heroes of the story.

As for being accused of fudging when I wasn't. He thought I was doing it because he did it when he DMed, not because of the rare occasions when I actually did it. In fact he never once brought it up around the times when I actually did anything. I suppose he figured if I did it I'd do more and make it easier than what I actually do.

Sorry if this isn't too clear, I'm very tired right now.:smallsigh::smallsigh:

edited for clarity