AD&D DMG, on fudging

[Nagol]

<snip>

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

When remediation is less expensive (time, money, and resources) than mitigation costs mulitpled by probability, the truism fails.

There are certainly cases where fixing the mess is cheaper than preventing it.

 

[Fifth Element]

When remediation is less expensive (time, money, and resources) than mitigation costs mulitpled by probability, the truism fails.

There are certainly cases where fixing the mess is cheaper than preventing it.

Yes, but I'd say with D&D specifically the costs of prevention are typically the same as the cost of remediation. There are no actual physical resources on the line.

Now, prevention is not always possible, particularly in the sense that a DM cannot foresee every potential problem. But it's generally better for a DM to prevent a problem than fix one, if he can see it coming.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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 that like comes up. So it's all a matter of preference.

[Edited to be more clear and less confrontational.]

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.]

Before we can make claims that this that or the other occurance will destroy the game we need to define that game.

For example, if the DM is running a fairly judged game (because that type of game was agreed upon by all) then fudging to save the life of a PC when the dice produced a fair fatal result destroys that game.

If the group decided that they wanted an entertaining and satifying campaign story and that some delicious fudge from time to time if needed would be more fun then allowing a PC to get red-shirted by a stirge
at the dungeon entrance would destroy the game.

The game as defined by those playing determines the nature of destructive behavior. After all, if the desires of the participants are an unknown, how can we judge what will be detrimental to
their enjoyment?

 

[Nagol]

Yes, but I'd say with D&D specifically the costs of prevention are typically the same as the cost of remediation. There are no actual physical resources on the line.

Now, prevention is not always possible, particularly in the sense that a DM cannot foresee every potential problem. But it's generally better for a DM to prevent a problem than fix one, if he can see it coming.

I fully agree. (I just do a lot of remediation vs. mitigation work and RC tripped a well trained mental reflex. I have to explain the value of both to management types frequently).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, but I'd say with D&D specifically the costs of prevention are typically the same as the cost of remediation. There are no actual physical resources on the line.

Now, prevention is not always possible, particularly in the sense that a DM cannot foresee every potential problem. But it's generally better for a DM to prevent a problem than fix one, if he can see it coming.

Actually, I accept Nagol's caveat -- it is impossible for the DM to prepare everything in advance; at some point the DM must choose to allocate time and effort to what he expects will be of immediate use.

I agree a priori that prevention is not always possible, but I am curious how it can be possible that "it's generally better for a DM to prevent a problem than fix one, if he can see it coming" without it also being true that it's generally better for a DM to see it coming, so that he may prevent it.

Perhaps you can explain?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Unless we're talking about....seducing fellow players

Hey! Depending upon the group, that may be perfectly ethical!

 

[Umbran]

I agree a priori that prevention is not always possible, but I am curious how it can be possible that "it's generally better for a DM to prevent a problem than fix one, if he can see it coming" without it also being true that it's generally better for a DM to see it coming, so that he may prevent it.

Perhaps you can explain?

To quote Charlemagne, from Pippin: It is smarter to be lucky than it's lucky to be smart.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

Of course. For instance, I would argue that is usually true.

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.

I disagree almost 100%. It depends to a greater degree on whether you are a rules-based ethicist or a situational ethicist, but it really doesn't depend even on that. For instance, I feel the most important rule is ensuring fun, but I essentially never fudge. You're arguing this would not be the case, but my experience says otherwise. I believe that in principle not fudging leads to more fun.

Fun v. rules is a false dichotomy. This basically goes back to the same old thing: Do you believe fudging is good or bad? Principally, that is how you will decide. Not whether you are rules-based or fun-based. A rules-based GM would fudge if he thought fudging was good, and a fun-based GM would not fudge if he thought fudging was bad.

 

[Fifth Element]

The game as defined by those playing determines the nature of destructive behavior. After all, if the desires of the participants are an unknown, how can we judge what will be detrimental to
their enjoyment?

We can't; the judgment must be made based on what would be detrimental to their enjoyment. I am assuming that the desires of the participants are known, at least to a large degree. Otherwise you can't make an informed decision.

 

[Fifth Element]

I agree a priori that prevention is not always possible, but I am curious how it can be possible that "it's generally better for a DM to prevent a problem than fix one, if he can see it coming" without it also being true that it's generally better for a DM to see it coming, so that he may prevent it.

Perhaps you can explain?

Again? It is generally better for a DM to see it coming. But sometimes he can't. Not by using a reasonable amount of effort in that regard, sometimes not even by using an extreme amount of effort. That's why a contingency plan isn't a bad idea; you'll never be able to foresee everything. It's a practical consideration.