Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

[AMFV]

Well if we're just going into me teaching you good GM practises at this point... Don't call for rolls when you aren't going to immediately make a decision based on the result of that roll. If you fail a bluff then you're going to know about it because the vizier sighs, annoyed, and casts White Fire on you. If you fail a stealth roll I will narrate forward until the results of that failed stealth roll become painfully apparent to you.

If you are rolling in the open, the players will know immediately that they failed that stealth roll. That's the point you haven't even addressed. I mean if the Vizier is reacting violently to being lied to, then they'd know immediately but there are plenty of cases where somebody who has seen through your bluff isn't going to call you out right there and then. That's the advantage of rolling in secret, the players don't know what's going on, they don't know if they've failed or succeeded at their stealth check, hell if you're dropping dice often enough without them being actual rolls they might not even know when an actual roll is being made. Which is pretty crucial.

Also it allows you to roll for players in circumstances where they might not be aware of things. For example perception checks to notice hidden doors, objects, or creatures; Sense motive checks to discern lying, those are situations where the player's characters might have to make a check, but it's better for them if they don't know that there is a check being made.

The fact that you can't envision a scenario where somebody knows that they're being lied to and doesn't want to immediately reveal that they know is a problem.

Well we're broadening the scope of this now (and being absurd in the process because comparing someone drunk driving to someone wanting the GM to not be **** is pretty funny). But yes, if you hid a drunk person's car keys you should probably still be telling them "Hey. You're drunk. I took your keys. I'll give them back when you're sober." over lying and pretending you have no idea what they're talking about.

You have either never taken keys from a drunk guy, or you really like fighting drunk guys. You definitely should not tell them till the morning. Period. Because what's going to happen is that because drunk people cannot make decisions or think, they're going to want to get those keys.

To be blunt, fudging is railroading. Fudging is saying "What I want to happen is more important than the rules of this game". If I can't trust you to play the game fairly then I don't see any point in using any of the rules at all. We can just sit down and listen to you tell us a story about what happens. It invalidates the entire game. If you fudge dice you are not trustworthy in any way and you're just wasting my time.

What if those rules allow for the DM to alter those rules? Most of the games I've discussed do have sections for that, both for the DM setting difficulty classes as necessary or altering challenge numbers or whatever the equivalent in the system is. I'm not fudging the game I'm altering the results of one or two rolls.

The fact that some people care a great deal about this should be apparent to you by now. So let me say this again. If you fudge dice I will not play with you. This, in fact, makes lying about doing it a big damn lie.

Not really. Seriously you are blowing this out of proportion. There is no money on the line, there is no real danger, it's a game. And also as I've said, you probably would not realize that I was fudging rolls, I very rarely do, and if you were playing with me, I wouldn't tell you, because it is already covered under both rule zero and the DM's ability to alter the rules.

Playing systems that don't suit your needs.

In my mind the desire to fudge dice usually comes from a system/expectations mismatch. Generally the system is harsher or more about gaming skill than weaving a story than what you are actually looking for. Fudging rolls is a bandage on that wound.

No, fudging rolls is a way to deal with capricious fate, which is a thing that you can't always deal with. I've had sessions where I haven't rolled lower than a 15 as a DM, that screws players, every encounter is much harder than it's intended to be, and I've seen multiple 20s rolled in a row. That's something that is sometimes okay, but often is not.

This thread seems to have moved on from when I last looked at.
I apologize if this has already been said, but I’ll throw my 2 cents in. As a player, my concern when I hear a GM say that they insist/depend/rely on fudging is that it negates my choices. If you’ve already decided which battles we win and which we lose, then why don’t you just tell me the story? This is slight hyperbole, but it’s what I hear when somebody insists that fudging is necessary. It starts to take the risk vs reward out of the game for me. I may be misinterpreting things though.

Fudging isn't about negating your choices though, particularly not fudging in an encounter table (which is what was being described upthread). Also most people who fudge die rolls do not do so often. Like I think for me I average around one fudged roll every three or four sessions, maybe. It doesn't come up often.