Are you a fudging fudger?

[Ariosto]

I can alter die rolls or handwave certain results, but every time I do, I have to give the players resources that they can use to change die rolls.

I tried the same thing back in the early '80s. I think I read about in a magazine, but I'm not sure.

That can make for a very nice balance, and some sort of flexible resource seems par for the course in superhero games. Maybe one reason is that in the comicbooks the heroes are very reactive, routinely letting the villains (or the GM, in a game) take the initiative.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I voted for option one because sometimes I make mistakes, and I don't want to restart a campaign over something I screwed up.

 

[The Greene Knight]

I do not alter dice results.

I do, however, roll dice just to make noise behind my DM screen, sometimes. It's an old trick that helps build tension, excitement, anticipation, or divert the players attention at times.

 

[pawsplay]

But do you want a lot when you're expecting a little? You know, if the GM tells you "they're pretty rough and it could be a tough fight," if it turns out "the odds are decidedly stacked against you" and you die, is that cool?

Yes. That is very cool.

Even if there was no real way for you to determine the latter because the GM believed at the time that it was a fairer fight than it turned out to be?

I think the GM is making a mistake in thinking they know how "fair" a fight can be. Luck, swinginess, tactics, player arrogance, all can change field conditions considerably.

Bad planning, or bogus challenge ratings, or whatever might lead a GM to believe that an encounter is less dangerous than it actually is, is kind of a trap. It basically prevents the players from making informed decisions, because as the GM doesn't know the actual extent of the danger, he can't inform them even if they do their best to discover it. I prefer to make sure my players' decisions are as informed as they can be; if I've screwed up, or the monkey in charge of challenge ratings has screwed up and I didn't catch it, I don't think it's fair to make the players eat the punishment and say "oh well."

It's true that bad GMing is bad. I don't think that concealing the error makes it any better. At least if the GM accidentally kills the party, it's an error in honesty. Better that, than to demolish the pretense that the PCs are actually in danger.

Of course, some people might not want that level of fair, which is all well and good. It's just not our thing.

I think being treated like an adult is fair. Different groups have different preferences, and I think those preferences can be respected without labeling one or more groups as an "unfair" style. My games are probably fairly deadly, compared to the norm, but I play fair with my players, and the campaign has gone from level 1 to level 19, rolling all non-secret rolls in the open, and one of the original party members has managed to survive, no deaths, no rez. That's not fair... that's awesome.

 

[pawsplay]

I do not alter dice results.

I do, however, roll dice just to make noise behind my DM screen, sometimes. It's an old trick that helps build tension, excitement, anticipation, or divert the players attention at times.

Agreed. I also, in theory, would be okay with above-the-board fiat if it serves a useful purpose, a la the 1e DMG, but I can't think of the last time it has come to that.

 

[the Jester]

I voted "GM, sometimes fudge," but that is only because the options were so strictly worded. The reality is that I fudge rarely, less than once per session on average- far less, in fact. But still, sometimes I do.

 

[Starfox]

Disregarding all the smack-talk here, it seems that about 1/2 of players accept fudging, while about 2/3 of DMs fudge. Pretty big difference. Which side of the screen has the best grip on the needs of the game? An interesting question; do players KNOW if their DM fudges?

 

[Umbran]

I think being treated like an adult is fair. Different groups have different preferences, and I think those preferences can be respected without labeling one or more groups as an "unfair" style.

I think the preferences can also be respected without whipping out labels like "bad GMing" too.

 

[Nagol]

Disregarding all the smack-talk here, it seems that about 1/2 of players accept fudging, while about 2/3 of DMs fudge. Pretty big difference. Which side of the screen has the best grip on the needs of the game? An interesting question; do players KNOW if their DM fudges?

I expect the GMs that believe that their players don't know they're fudging are most likely wrong. A player may not be able to tell every instance of dice modification, but players develop an keen sense of session flow and become very able observers of GM behaviour, wording, and body language.

As a GM, I don't fudge. As a player, I quickly sense when my GM is caught off guard and/or adjusting things on the fy.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But do you want a lot when you're expecting a little? You know, if the GM tells you "they're pretty rough and it could be a tough fight," if it turns out "the odds are decidedly stacked against you" and you die, is that cool? Even if there was no real way for you to determine the latter because the GM believed at the time that it was a fairer fight than it turned out to be?

How cool is it when the PC's bite off way more than they can chew and end up winning anyway without help?

In my experience fudging results to keep everything "winnable" encourages the kind of player behavior that I dislike. When PC's run headfirst at everything based on the metagame knowledge that the DM wouldn't put anything in thier path that wasn't possible to plow through then a campaign can get just as tedious as one made up of entirely unwinnable encounters.