Fudging is not your friend

Corathon · Oct 10, 2012

Elf Witch said:
He also felt that if you introduce a plot hook about something bad being planned for the world and the PCs chose not to do anything about it but something else instead and you let the plot unfold where the bad thing happens that is rail roading. That is such a foreign way to play to me I like a living breathing organic world where while the story is the PCs the world does not revolve around them things happen off stage.

That is also the style of game I prefer to play in as well. In one of my favorite campaigns we didn't manage to stop an apocalypse we missed some clues had some encounters where we lost so that BBEG won the war. That changed our game to instead of trying to stop it but now trying to fix it. I ceertainly didn't see this has any kind of rail roading as a matter of fact I see it as the opposite.

I'd agree, this is pretty much the opposite of a railroad.

On the subject of fudging, I only do it if I think that I have made a mistake which is severely disadvantaging the players. If the players make a mistake, or are even just unlucky I let the dice fall where they may.

JustinAlexander · Oct 10, 2012

Elf Witch said:
He also felt that if you introduce a plot hook about something bad being planned for the world and the PCs chose not to do anything about it but something else instead and you let the plot unfold where the bad thing happens that is rail roading.

That's literally the opposite of railroading: In railroading, you negate the player's choice. Here, the player's choice is empowered.

So... interesting anecdote about some kid who doesn't know what he's talking about. But what relevance does it have to fudging?

Elf Witch · Oct 11, 2012

JustinAlexander said:
That's literally the opposite of railroading: In railroading, you negate the player's choice. Here, the player's choice is empowered.

So... interesting anecdote about some kid who doesn't know what he's talking about. But what relevance does it have to fudging?

Because he views it as the same as fudging or DM cheating. We were discussing what we thought of fudging and then we were trying to define it. And his definition of fudging is anything that the DM does that changes the rules. He holds the view that DM care mote about their plot than the PCs fun.

In this thread it has been said that DM fudge to protect their plots.

One of the problems is defining exactly what someone means by fudging it seems that different people define it differently.

billd91 · Oct 11, 2012

Mark487 said:
If that's the way you wish to roll, go for it.

I, on the other hand, prefer another path. Sometimes, I feel like I've got to say "to hell with the dice. Let's have some fun instead."

Direct copy of post #3. Reporting as spammer.

delericho · Oct 11, 2012

Umbran said:
It isn't a "one-method-fits-all" kind of thing. For some groups it is a good tool, for others it is a lousy one. Know your players, and you can figure out if it is right for your table.

This is very true. And, indeed, the 'right' answer can actually be true of the same group of people at different times.

So while I have a preference for how I run a game (no fudging), and I have a preference for how I would prefer my GMs to run their games (again, no fudging), I wouldn't claim that that is the one true way - it's just my preference.

That said, I would strongly encourage every GM to at least try running a campaign in "no fudging" mode at some point, if only so they can then consciously decide that the alternative is better. I've known quite a few GMs who have always fudged*, simply accepting that that's the way it should be, and had they tried the alternative they may have found that they preferred it.

* That is, they've always been open to the possibility, not that they've fudged every roll, of course!

Celebrim · Oct 11, 2012

Elf Witch said:
I had a conversation about this at my son birthday dinner. He is a gamer and so are all of his freinds. I was surprised to hear one of his friends say that as a DM I didn't have the right to change monsters to fit my game better that the fact that sentient creatures in my game get to choose their alignment the same as PCs so a silver dragon maybe be evil and a red dragon may not be is a form of cheating.

He also felt that if you introduce a plot hook about something bad being planned for the world and the PCs chose not to do anything about it but something else instead and you let the plot unfold where the bad thing happens that is rail roading. That is such a foreign way to play to me I like a living breathing organic world where while the story is the PCs the world does not revolve around them things happen off stage.

While I agree with your choice of game style, I think your kid's friend is mostly guilty of not knowing how to express himself. I get what the kid is saying, and at the risk of putting words in his mouth, what it boils down to is, "The game you want to play is not one that I want to play."

By having some bad thing happening and making that plot unfold, the kid feels like you are imposing on his character a certain destiny or responsibility. Essentially, he doesn't want to play the game in a world were fate has it that his character is the only one that can save the world. He'd rather the world could just save itself, and he go about his business killing things and taking their stuff without worrying about a larger plot. While it isn't railroading per se to have an event occur or not occur according to the player's choice, when you've ordained a particular PC (or group of PC's) as the only ones that can accomplish a task, then there is some sort of non-simulationist forcing going on here unless the player has specifically asked for a 'heroic destiny' in his backstory. Not everyone is happy being the child of prophesy. It's a lot of pressure and you may not want that in a fun game (for your chosen value of fun).

Likewise, it isn't cheating per se to have evil silver dragons and good red dragons*, but it is creating a world of greater ambuigity than one were all the good guys where white hats and all the bad guys where black hats. It isn't really a matter of realism, or grit, or even a favored philosophical position. It's simply a matter of you are indicating through that choice that you want your game to be about interacting with NPC's via roleplaying, and the kid is indicating that this is a bunch of confusing, advanced, adult oriented, melodramatic BS that he'd just rather keep out of his fun romping game of hack-n-slash.

The kid may not know how to explain himself, but he's entitled to his preferences.

*This is assuming you aren't guilty of pulling a Nitro on your players, where you are not upfront about the fact that all silver dragons in your world are evil and all red dragons in your world good, and all centaurs are vicious cannibals. This sort of 'gotcha' mentality by a DM may not be strictly 'cheating', but it is some sort of bad DMing to present a world which is wildly different than the player's expectations so that they lack any basis to make descisions on. In this case, you are pretty much obligated to fill the players in with any information about how the world works that their character may know.

Janx · Oct 11, 2012

On the OT, "fudging is not your friend", nor is it my enemy.

My hammer is also not my friend, but I still keep it in my toolbox. It's not appropriate for most jobs. But now and then it comes in handy.

I am always against anybody preventing me from using specific tools.

Whether I agree with their logic on why such tool is not needed or not.

Elf Witch · Oct 12, 2012

Celebrim said:
While I agree with your choice of game style, I think your kid's friend is mostly guilty of not knowing how to express himself. I get what the kid is saying, and at the risk of putting words in his mouth, what it boils down to is, "The game you want to play is not one that I want to play."

By having some bad thing happening and making that plot unfold, the kid feels like you are imposing on his character a certain destiny or responsibility. Essentially, he doesn't want to play the game in a world were fate has it that his character is the only one that can save the world. He'd rather the world could just save itself, and he go about his business killing things and taking their stuff without worrying about a larger plot. While it isn't railroading per se to have an event occur or not occur according to the player's choice, when you've ordained a particular PC (or group of PC's) as the only ones that can accomplish a task, then there is some sort of non-simulationist forcing going on here unless the player has specifically asked for a 'heroic destiny' in his backstory. Not everyone is happy being the child of prophesy. It's a lot of pressure and you may not want that in a fun game (for your chosen value of fun).

Likewise, it isn't cheating per se to have evil silver dragons and good red dragons*, but it is creating a world of greater ambuigity than one were all the good guys where white hats and all the bad guys where black hats. It isn't really a matter of realism, or grit, or even a favored philosophical position. It's simply a matter of you are indicating through that choice that you want your game to be about interacting with NPC's via roleplaying, and the kid is indicating that this is a bunch of confusing, advanced, adult oriented, melodramatic BS that he'd just rather keep out of his fun romping game of hack-n-slash.

The kid may not know how to explain himself, but he's entitled to his preferences.

*This is assuming you aren't guilty of pulling a Nitro on your players, where you are not upfront about the fact that all silver dragons in your world are evil and all red dragons in your world good, and all centaurs are vicious cannibals. This sort of 'gotcha' mentality by a DM may not be strictly 'cheating', but it is some sort of bad DMing to present a world which is wildly different than the player's expectations so that they lack any basis to make descisions on. In this case, you are pretty much obligated to fill the players in with any information about how the world works that their character may know.

The kid is a 30 year old adult who according to him loves role playing and according to my son he just a big baby if anything does not go his way.

So who knows.

I get what you are saying though that is not quite what we were talking about. What you describe is a player DM disconnect the Dm wants one style say more heroic and the players want to just kill things and loot.

What we were talking about is a game where the players say they want to be heroic and are doing heroic things but either because they missed clues or made a bad decision something bad happens. He is saying that the PCs should never lose that way ever that it is unfair not fun. That the DM should make sure it does not happen. But on the other hand he hates any kind of fudging.

I am always upfront with my players on what style of game I am running. I don't always come out and say the dragons or monsters may not be like they are in the book. I do give the players the ability to find out this information for themselves. One reason I do it is that I got tired of players playing their characters with information that their PCs couldn't possibly have.

My players have told me they like it because it makes the game interesting again and new like it was when you first started playing and didn't know why that troll wouldn't stay down and you had to figure it out for yourselves.

Elf Witch · Oct 12, 2012

delericho said:
This is very true. And, indeed, the 'right' answer can actually be true of the same group of people at different times.

So while I have a preference for how I run a game (no fudging), and I have a preference for how I would prefer my GMs to run their games (again, no fudging), I wouldn't claim that that is the one true way - it's just my preference.

That said, I would strongly encourage every GM to at least try running a campaign in "no fudging" mode at some point, if only so they can then consciously decide that the alternative is better. I've known quite a few GMs who have always fudged*, simply accepting that that's the way it should be, and had they tried the alternative they may have found that they preferred it.

* That is, they've always been open to the possibility, not that they've fudged every roll, of course!

When I first started DMing I never fudged I followed the rules to the letter. I was insecure and worried I might make a mistake.

Over time I loosened up and found that tweaking the rules changing the monsters and yes sometimes fudging made me a better DM for my players.

steenan · Oct 13, 2012

Elf Witch said:
When I first started DMing I never fudged I followed the rules to the letter. I was insecure and worried I might make a mistake.

Over time I loosened up and found that tweaking the rules changing the monsters and yes sometimes fudging made me a better DM for my players.

It was another way around for me.

I fudged quite often when I was less experienced, knew less games and couldn't really decide with my friends what style we want to play in advance.

As years passed, I improved my GMing skills, I learned communicating with my players and I gathered many different RPG systems. Now I don't fudge. If I know I wouldn't like a possible result of a roll, I don't make such roll. If a game rules would push me towards making rolls I don't like, I house rule (before the game starts) or just switch to a different game. And my players enjoy games I run with this approach.

For example, I used to fudge to save PCs from rolls that would kill them. Now I just discuss with my players if they want a lethal game or not. If they want lethal play, we select a game where character creation may be done in 10-15 minutes and we all accept that one or two characters die in a session. If they don't like their characters dying and want to focus on long-term development, we use a game that has more interesting stakes in conflicts than character death.