AD&D DMG, on fudging

[Doug McCrae]

1. Gygax did not take an explicit position on fudging a singular die roll in that passage. (I would be curious if he took a stand elsewhere, actually).

...

Specifically, nothing in the DMG I'm reading says to me, "Yes, fudge," by a fairly general understanding of fudging to be, "To alter the outcome of a die result, covertly, primarily and almost purely because the result is disliked." I would say, "No, don't fudge," but I don't read anything in the DMG I categorically disagree with.

Found it.

In those instances where a randomly discovered monster has a nearby lair, and somehow this lair contains treasure, do not allow the dice to dictate a disaster for your campaign. If their result calls for some item of magic which is too powerful, one which you are not certain of, or one which you do not wish to include in the game at this time, you will be completely justified in ignoring it and rolling until a result you like comes up, or you can simply pick a suitable item and inform the players that this is what they found.

- page 93

 

[Votan]

I think it's a false dichotomy. The fact that a person who advocates fudging and a person who advocates not fudging can both read the DMG passage and find a lot to agree with suggests, apart from demonstrating that Gygax was writing in generalities that may be useful regardless of your specific viewpoint, suggests the divide is neither wide nor deep. I cannot imagine describing myself as less fun-oriented or less rules-oriented, only as fully oriented toward both. In my mind, using the RAW and "doing what needs to happen" can exist harmoniously under the general umbrella of competence by applying reason, consistency, and sensitivity.

I agree that the dichotomy, itself, is false. If your social contract includes letting the dice fall where they may then fudging would destroy fun even more rapidly than anything else. When I DM such a group, I generally roll dice out in the open so that players may savor the anticipation of unexpected rolls.

The general case for fudging, as I have advocated it, is for when a die roll would actually damage the game. Now, a cogent argument is that a DM should never be in a position where a single die roll can do this. But it can happen.

In 1E, we once found the Ring of Gaxx on an Orc, as an extremely low level party, due to the random magic item table. In the end, we should have been smart and just left it (we were not high enough level to handle the side effects of the bad facets). Here, I would have understood, however, if the DM had rerolled the random magic item (as per Doug McCrae's quote).

I also want to make a distinction about fudging -- if it happens frequently then I think it is toxic no matter what.

I once played in another 1E game where they had a critical hit table inserted. I remember the fighter (or ranger) dying when a Gargoyle rolled 3 critical hits out of 4 attacks. We were already seeing about 50% of the hits being critical hits (despite them only being on a natural 20). This definitely made the game less fun, and in a way that was hard to fix (I dropped out of that campaign and it is possible that the lack of trust could have ultimately been fatal).

So my position is that I can see fudging used as an exceptional tool for the extremely rare die roll that could seriously impede play. I think routine fudging is bad and I will roll openly these days if the players wish it.

 

[Umbran]

What if the players' fun relies on rules being enforced impartially by the DM?

I'm pretty sure that was already hashed over thoroughly in the other thread, which got closed because it kept rehashing the same arguments over and over.

If your fun relies on something, then go do that thing. Pretty simple. Contrary to some of the previous argument, nobody's trying to get you to do otherwise.

 

[Odhanan]

Contrary to some of the previous argument, nobody's trying to get you to do otherwise.

And nobody besides players at my game table could get me to do otherwise. Thank you very much!

 

[pawsplay]

Found it.

- page 93

Doug, that's virtually interchangeable with the wandering monster example already given and does not constitute an example of "fudging" in the sense it has been discussed thus far, because it's less a question of resolution and more one of design.

 

[Umbran]

And nobody besides players at my game table could get me to do otherwise.

Right. So, I take it your question was largely rhetorical.

I kind of thought the point here was to take a look at what the AD&D DMG had to say on the topic - maybe some historical perspective to be had, or some wisdom from on of role-playing's icons. I presume if nobody but folks at your table could make you do otherwise, then I'm not sure that discussion of what Gary said is of much value to you - as he's not at your table.

Or, was there some point to your question I missed?

 

[Odhanan]

Or, was there some point to your question I missed?

Yes, there was a point, and yes - I'm afraid you missed it.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, there was a point, and yes - I'm afraid you missed it.

Right. But when asked if it was there, you don't bother to explicate? You want your invitation engraved or something?

Listen, if you want to jump into the conversation, you are quite welcome to. Otherwise, please don't play games with the people here.

 

[Odhanan]

Right. But when asked if it was there, you don't bother to explicate? You want your invitation engraved or something?

Listen, if you want to jump into the conversation, you are quite welcome to. Otherwise, please don't play games with the people here.

Thank you. I will. But don't expect me to be bullied into giving explanations because someone might feel offended for me taking a jab at an argument you yourself told me nobody was trying to make.

You can't have it both ways, Sir: either people are trying to tell others what they're doing is "badwrongfun", or they aren't. If they are, then it's only natural for me to tell them right off the bat that what matters to me is what the players at my game table have to say, and only that. If they aren't, then they shouldn't ge offended when I precise as much.

The point of my original question, since you're asking so nicely, Umbran, was that the impartiality of the DM is a support for the player's fun, or at least, some players' fun, and that the original dichotomy Fifth Element was pointing out, between "a DM caring for the fun of the players" vs. "a DM caring for the impartiality of the rules" is actually not accurate, and falls apart logically once you look at it a little harder.

Now, I appreciate that you're curious about what I meant, and I'm sorry you didn't find out for yourself, which was actually my point in asking a question directly rather than writing a whole post like this. Now you're free to ignore it, take it apart, engage in hair-splitting debate, whatever.

What I'm not going to do is let myself get dragged in such debate because somehow that bothers you, and you might use your mod stick because you think "I'm playing games with people". How does the ENWorld rule go again... "Don't ascribe motives to other posters" or some such? Well, you just did, Umbran.


Mod edit: Well, you're wrong on that one - taken to PM.

General suggestion for everyone: Next time you feel like publicly calling someone out for some perceived bad behavior, don't. That's what the "report a post" function is for. If anyone has any further questions on that, take it to PM or e-mail. Thanks.

 

[pawsplay]

I can see fudging used as an exceptional tool for the extremely rare die roll that could seriously impede play. I think routine fudging is bad and I will roll openly these days if the players wish it.

I think one thing that has come out of all this is that it seems like it's easy to get hedged into picking a side in Internet debates, when people are often very reasonable and sometimes even sophisticated in holding diverse views. I see a lot of agreement in 90% of scenarios about how to handle these things. It's not surprising that Gygax's words are brought into these kinds of discussions as support. But, of course, Gygax appears to be numbered among the reasonable and flexible, so anyone holding a fairly moderated opinion could enlist him as support, at least in spirit.

I'm actually rather surprised, though, to see such broad agreement, irrespective of the positions on the fudging issue, in terms of good GMing and not getting penned into difficult situations in the first place. Even across perspectives in terms of sandboxing versus programming. The Gygaxian long view seems to apply, but also as a GM taking responsibility for good design, and for presenting a good scenario with, because of, and despite the dice.