Fudging is not your friend

Desdichado · Oct 5, 2012

Nytmare said:
Are you saying that all the other stories the dice could have told are inferior? I trust my judgement as a story teller over a million monkeys at a million typewriters.

It is the GM's job to deliver the best experience to all the players (including himself) that he can. Usually, that means letting the results of the dice speak for themselves. But occasionally... it doesn't.

In my opinion, anyone who enforces strict dice interpretation, even when clearly the results are suboptimal for the experience of all the players at the game, for whatever reason is trading good GMing for some kind of moral high ground. And taking moral high ground over a well-run game is a poor consolation prize.

Knowing when you can get away with fudging, and most importantly when it really needs to be done is a key GM skill, just like many other key GM skills, and a GM that lacks that skill can only ever be so good--but never great. But part of that is reading his group, and knowing when it will work, and knowing how they'll react to what's happening, and knowing how up-front vs discrete he needs to be about his fudging. It's something that rarely works out for the best if its done openly or frequently; in my experience and opinion, it should almost never be revealed to the players that you're doing it. And also, to pull that off, you need to develop the knack of figuring out when to resolve things without rolling dice if you aren't willing to let chance decide what happens.

And again; it's much easier (and aesthetically superior, IMO) to fudge stuff other than the dice rolls. If you need a certain combat to be slightly less deadly, throttle back on the To Hit or Damage modifiers, or the Saving Throw modifiers, or the hit points of the opponents, rather than just ignore the dice rolls.

Alaxk Knight of Galt · Oct 5, 2012

Hobo said:
Because 99 times out of 100 the results are fine and work well. Why roll dice if you don't factor in the rare situations when it doesn't? Because we're people, not computers. We don't always foresee a problem until it happens.

I agree, that's why I don't roll the dice unless the outcome is uncertain.

But you concede, I hope, that that's not what everyone loves about gaming? Or that story is always going to be interesting?

I'm 100% in favor of fudging. But I'm in favor of doing it very carefully. And I'm in favor of fudging more intangible things about the game than the dice rolls, frankly. I don't really believe in fudging dice rolls.

Absolutely and I've fudged in the past. I simply describe how I GM today. I play and enjoy games where the DM says "your character will only die if you do something stupid." But that's not how I run games.

Alaxk Knight of Galt · Oct 5, 2012

Nytmare said:
I can easily imagine a situation where a fudging DM doesn't know how much damage he wanted to do till the rogue gets critted and mentions that he's close to dropping.

The Rogue in the example above took a chance at tumbling by a skeleton triceratops while at low HP. He obviously had a reason for doing it, why rob him of a perfectly acceptable outcome to his choice?

Are you saying that all the other stories the dice could have told are inferior? I trust my judgement as a story teller over a million monkeys at a million typewriters.

Obviously not. I don't design encounters or adventures by rolling dice. I do use dice to determine outcomes of game related actions just like the players do (as described by the rule book or any house rules the table plays by).

I trust myself, the dice, the adventures I created, the player's choices, and the rules of the game. However, when we reach a situation where dice rolls determine the outcome of actions, I don't fudge those rolls to let PCs off the hook or to increase the tension of the situation. The PCs have enough intelligence and agency in the game that they don't need that crutch from the DM.

Desdichado · Oct 5, 2012

I do have to admit that charging Triceratops skeletons is pretty dang cool, regardless of anything else. One of my favorite scenes in a game I've been in is a pirate ship in a bay firing cannons at a zombie Tyrannosaurus rex. Undead dinosaurs are just the bomb.

Nytmare · Oct 5, 2012

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:
The Rogue in the example above took a chance at tumbling by a skeleton triceratops while at low HP. He obviously had a reason for doing it, why rob him of a perfectly acceptable outcome to his choice?

I would assume that the player's reasons were probably more along the lines of succeeding and not dying in the process. You are ignoring the world of possibilities where not dying are also acceptable outcomes for the player and the DM.

I don't design encounters or adventures by rolling dice. I do use dice to determine outcomes of game related actions just like the players do (as described by the rule book or any house rules the table plays by).

As do I. In addition to that, there's a strong possibility that I, in my albeit fallible wisdom, decide that I know more about entertaining the people sitting in my game room than a bit of plastic with funny numbers written on it.

I trust myself, the dice, the adventures I created, the player's choices, and the rules of the game. However, when we reach a situation where dice rolls determine the outcome of actions, I don't fudge those rolls to let PCs off the hook or to increase the tension of the situation. The PCs have enough intelligence and agency in the game that they don't need that crutch from the DM.

It must be that my players are just dumber than yours.

Plane Sailing · Oct 5, 2012

Moderating note to all: Please remember that you don't have to change anyones mind or convert them to your view, nor are they attempting to convert you to their view.

This isn't a debate where you are trying to win points. It is a friendly opportunity to share your experiences, so don't try and poke holes in anyone else.

Thanks

S'mon · Oct 5, 2012

delericho said:
The only major problem with that is that giving them that information is likely to see them making character decisions based on meta-game knowledge - if they know the enemy has a much higher Fort defence than Will, they're almost certainly going to start targetting the Will defence exclusively, where their characters likely shouldn't have that information (or, at the least, should be required to figure it out).

One of the things that yet another of the DMs in my group did was to keep the defences hidden until just after the first time they were targetted, after which he revealed them. That way, the PCs might waste one attack on a deceptively high defence, but wouldn't waste loads of them, one after another.

That struck me as being a nice compromise.

Yeah, I normally only reveal defenses after they've been targetted at least once. Not necessarily even then.

S'mon · Oct 5, 2012

Nytmare said:
I trust my judgement as a story teller over a million monkeys at a million typewriters.

It's important to tell the players this kind of thing up front. I always tell mine before the campaign starts that I won't fudge or pull punches - my tabletop groups call me a killer GM, but I've not managed to kill a single PC in 30 sessions of my Dragonsfoot 1e online game, where I think I'm considered a softie - it's all relative. Conversely, if a GM told me "I trust my judgement as a story teller over a million monkeys at a million typewriters" I would know not to play with that GM, as our desires are clearly incompatible.

S'mon · Oct 5, 2012

Hobo said:
It is the GM's job to deliver the best experience to all the players (including himself) that he can. Usually, that means letting the results of the dice speak for themselves. But occasionally... it doesn't.

In my opinion, anyone who enforces strict dice interpretation, even when clearly the results are suboptimal for the experience of all the players at the game, for whatever reason is trading good GMing for some kind of moral high ground.

Well, no. I don't not-fudge for reasons of moral purity. The disbenefit of the suboptimal result in the moment is trivial compared to the long term benefits of not-fudging, IMO. Trying to always have the best possible outcome Right NOW does NOT lead to the best possible outcome over time, whatever certain games designers claim. Indeed I find it leads to a game I don't enjoy at all, unless the game is explicitly designed around that - Feng Shui maybe, but not Gamist games like D&D that involve players overcoming an actual challenge.

billd91 · Oct 6, 2012

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:
So why roll damage? You already knew (approximately) how much damage you wanted the attack to do (more then normal, less then max).
.

No I didn't. I didn't go into the encounter with any a priori plan about how much damage to do. What I did was exercise editorial control over what happened to come up. The full damage seemed like too much, so I reduced it.