AD&D DMG, on fudging

[Scribble]

I'm going to side with Plato and say that if you are a GM, the ethical thing to do is to be the GM you can be. Even if a call destroys your game, it's still "better" if you feel it's ethically impossible to do otherwise, since an unethical game is worse than no game at all. I'm not hinting at any interpretation of what has just been said, but I think Jeff Wilder's reservation should be noted. I can't see any possible contradiction of being ethical and running a good game, unless maybe you observe categorical imperatives that make the games themselves potentially unethical.

Well sure- but I guess the question at hand then just rolls back to is fudging always unethical. Some people think in some cases it's not. In which case they're still being an "ethical" DM.

So it's a big loop. Neither side is right in my opinion. Since it's a game, the only "right" answer is whichever side people find more fun.

Which is why I say fun wins.

If I'm at a table that feels the dice should fall as they do and never be fudged, then fudging is unethical.

If I'm not, it's not.

Sometimes it's a mix of the two... ohhh noooo more confusion!

 

[Umbran]

If by doing this I'm corrupting the ethics of officiating D&D... I guess so be it. I'd rather everyone at my table keep having fun then be the utmost ethical DM I guess.

You know, the D&D alignment rules note that ethics are not everything. Ethics are rules - so, that's a matter for the Law/Chaos axis. This is independent of the Good/Evil axis.

And, when you think of it that way, the whole drawn out discussion makes a whole lot more sense. It is the party NG ranger having an argument with the paladin

 

[Fifth Element]

So you believe that these are mutually exclusive. Okay. If I believed that they were mutually exclusive ... well, I might do things your way, or I might decide not to DM at all. Tough call.

He's not necessarily saying that they are mutually exclusive. I think he's saying that if a situation arises where a DM has to decide between being "ethical" and doing what's fun for the players, he'll generally go with the fun.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm going to side with Plato and say that if you are a GM, the ethical thing to do is to be the GM you can be. Even if a call destroys your game, it's still "better" if you feel it's ethically impossible to do otherwise, since an unethical game is worse than no game at all.

One might argue that it is unethical for a DM to let something happen that destroys the game, when it is within his ability to prevent it.

I think that argument arises from a differing perspective on what it means to be DM. If you feel the DM's role is mostly to impartially enforce the rules, I'd say you're more likely to agree with the above quote. If you feel the DM's role is more to ensure the players' fun, then I think you're more likely to intervene when something like that comes up. So it's all a matter of preference.

[Edited to be more clear and less confrontational.]

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If you feel the DM's role is to impartially enforce the rules, you'll side with Mr. Wilder. If you feel the DM's role is to ensure the players' fun, then you won't.

That's interesting, because I feel that the DM's role is to impartially enforce the rules and to ensure the players' fun.

I don't see how I could possibly side with "Mr. Wilder," who clearly doesn't care about ensuring the players' fun! Gee willikers, I'm in a pickle now!

(But at least I'm not an intellectually dishonest douchebag. That's something, I guess.)

Admin here. Seriously, Jeff? Really? I know you can make your point without resorting to insults. Please do so. And get off my girlfriend!

And Fifth Element, I think we'd all be better off if you don't tell other people what their positions are. The quoted post here is a problem in and of itself. Try to avoid those.

Discuss the topic, guys, and disagree all you want -- but no more telling other people where they stand or leveling insults. PM me if this is in any way unclear.

- PCat

 

[Fifth Element]

That's interesting, because I feel that the DM's role is to impartially enforce the rules and to ensure the players' fun.

Sometimes you have to choose between the two in a particular situation.

The two extremes were chosen for illustration, don't read them too literally. Obviously most DMs do a lot of both. I've also edited my previous post to be less dickish.

[Edited to mention edit. Very meta.]

 

[Desdichado]

Deliberately making a bad call is a corruption of the ethics of officiating.

Unless we're talking about bribes, seducing fellow players, or stealing their stuff or something equally and obviously inappropriate, I'm not sure exactly at what point we've become so serious that the "ethics" of running a game are actually in question.

In no way, shape or form does whether or not I fudge a call in my group's home game ever become a question of ethics.

 

[Scribble]

You know, the D&D alignment rules note that ethics are not everything. Ethics are rules - so, that's a matter for the Law/Chaos axis. This is independent of the Good/Evil axis.

And, when you think of it that way, the whole drawn out discussion makes a whole lot more sense. It is the party NG ranger having an argument with the paladin

Long and drawn out argument? There's no need for a long and drawn out argument because- SNEAK ATTACK!

 

[Raven Crowking]

One might argue that it is unethical for a DM to let something happen that destroys the game, when it is within his ability to prevent it.

I was wondering how long this would take to come up.

You are, of course, correct. IMHO at least. It is unethical for the DM to allow the game to be destroyed, if the DM can prevent the destruction of the game.

Depending upon what that something is that will destroy the game (and sometimes it is saying Yes to the players, or putting the players' immediate "fun" over the longterm good of the game), the ethical DM will have to make a valuation as to what is the best course of action. Sometimes, this means choosing the lesser of two evils. Sometimes, you are going to harm your game to some degree, and the only choice is which will do the least harm.

An easy example, that has nothing to do with fudging, is dealing with a problem player. You have to do something, or the game will be hurt. But doing something will also hurt the game. The ethical DM attempts to minimize the harm regardless of what he chooses. Depending upon the particular strengths and weaknesses of the DM and player involved, this might be an attempt at reform, the boot, anything in between, or something completely different.

The truly great DM (a standing to which no one attains at all times) can head the problem off at the pass, and fix it before it becomes critical.

It is a general truism that it is better to fix the problem before it has become critical; addressing a potential problem before it has become a problem is always superior to addressing a potential problem after it has fully manifested.

There may be an exception to that general truism; if there is, I cannot think of one right now.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

It is a general truism that it is better to fix the problem before it has become critical; addressing a potential problem before it has become a problem is always superior to addressing a potential problem after it has fully manifested.

Agreed. As much as possible a DM should try to detect potential problems before they become full-blown problems. Unfortunately that's not always possible, but it should be the goal.