AD&D DMG, on fudging

[pawsplay]

I just figured this topic could easily swallow the other topic on a critical hit. This topic is actually a tangent from the other thread, but an interesting one.

 

[The Shaman]

Even though I don't play D&D anymore, I still enjoy reading the 1e AD&D DMG for inspiration and advice on running tabletop roleplaying games.

That doesn't mean I slavishly follow or agree with everything in the book, however, or that every word of it's relevant to the games I run or how I run them.

My preference is for games which don't have adventures per se; random encounters represent the living setting, so they're not likely to 'dash expectations.' If I don't want a situation to present a mortal risk, then I won't create it as such. More importantly, I think the dice are as much the voice of the game-world as I am; they are a wild card, allowing me to be just as surprised as the players as the game unfolds.

Gary Gygax wrote that fudging the dice is okay; so did Marc Miller in Traveller. My question is, so what?

 

[pawsplay]

What I find interesting is that to me Gygax seems to be primarily justifying fiat and mild deception, while allowing that the GM has the right (though not necessarily the justification) to fudge. The specify example cited of turning an insta-kill into a maiming that is not defined under the rules is an example of arbitration, not fudging at all. I haven't seen anything that suggests to me that he thought changing a die roll, based on the outcome, was a generally good idea or even something he considered or endorsed. For insance, this:

You also might wish to give
them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a
complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining.
You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a
particular course of events that you would like to have occur.

seems to be saying, "Just because you are rolling the die does not mean you are obeying it." I kind of agree, although I prefer to be upfront about when I am defining certain outcomes. I think there is an important distinction betwen the intention with which you throw the die, versus your willingess to live with a rolled result when it is no longe probable but actual.

 

[The Shaman]

What I find interesting is that to me Gygax seems to be primarily justifying fiat and mild deception, while allowing that the GM has the right (though not necessarily the justification) to fudge. The specify example cited of turning an insta-kill into a maiming that is not defined under the rules is an example of arbitration, not fudging at all.

I wonder how many players would react well to their character losing an arm solely on 'GM fiat.'

I can see the, "My GM is an arseface!" thread already.

 

[Fifth Element]

seems to be saying, "Just because you are rolling the die does not mean you are obeying it." I kind of agree, although I prefer to be upfront about when I am defining certain outcomes. I think there is an important distinction betwen the intention with which you throw the die, versus your willingess to live with a rolled result when it is no longe probable but actual.

There can often be value in making something planned appear to be random. You can put it to use when you want the PCs to pick up a clue that's important to the game, but you don't want the importance to be immediately obvious. I've done that before to allow the players to figure out its importance without shoving it in their faces.

For instance, I've done it when using a good old-fashioned "rumours you hear in town" dealy. I roll randomly for X number of rumours the PCs hear. One or two of them, of course, are not actually random - roll the die and ignore the result, so the players don't realize that this one is the important one. Some might call that dishonest, but I've used it to good effect before.

 

[Umbran]

I haven't seen anything that suggests to me that he thought changing a die roll, based on the outcome, was a generally good idea or even something he considered or endorsed.

Well, we cannot know the mind of a man who has passed. However, the writing you quote is written broadly - "You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. " (emphasis my own).

"At any time," is pretty broad. While it doesn't specifically say, "you can look at the result and change it if you don't like it", neither does it say, "If you are going to ignore the dice, decide that before rolling." It seems to me that he was in pretty solid control of his language, so if he said "any time", he probably meant it that way.

Also, everything I've heard said of the man suggests he was pretty bright, and had been working with such systems in play for years before the AD&D DMG came out. I find the idea that he didn't even consider that the DM might fudge after seeing a result less than credible.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There can often be value in making something planned appear to be random. You can put it to use when you want the PCs to pick up a clue that's important to the game, but you don't want the importance to be immediately obvious. I've done that before to allow the players to figure out its importance without shoving it in their faces.

For instance, I've done it when using a good old-fashioned "rumours you hear in town" dealy. I roll randomly for X number of rumours the PCs hear. One or two of them, of course, are not actually random - roll the die and ignore the result, so the players don't realize that this one is the important one. Some might call that dishonest, but I've used it to good effect before.

That's a time-honoured technique that I would not consider fudging.


RC

 

[Votan]

I wonder how many players would react well to their character losing an arm solely on 'GM fiat.'

I can see the, "My GM is an arseface!" thread already.

My theory (and it is only a theory) is that there are two broad approaches to D&D and that, depending on which one you use, the issue of fudging is very different.

The first is a wargame approach where the DM creates a series of challenges to overcome. Here fudging the dice looks a lot like cheating -- the challenge of thwarting a tough encounter is gone if the DM makes it too easy. Conversely, to lose in an encounter due to DM fiat is pretty lousy.

The second is story-telling. Here, the idea is to tell an interesting story first and to have neat combat challenges second. Knights of the Old Republic is just as good of a game if, occasionally, one has to reboot after a failed battle. Babylon 5 would have been a much worse series if Sheridan had died from a freak accident in the middle of Season three due to a lucky strike by thugs.

Here randomness is used to make the story go in unexpected directions not to completely derail the plot. Here, I would argue, fudging is completely reasonabel if the makes the story and experience better. Doing this in practice is pretty tricky but I am highly sympathetic to good faith errors on the part of DMs who are trying.

I suspect that much of the issue arises when players and DMs are not on the same page with respect to the the approach to the game. I have played (and enjoyed) both styles.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Knights of the Old Republic is just as good of a game if, occasionally, one has to reboot after a failed battle.

Maybe, but that's not what fudging is.

Would Knights of the Old Republic be "just as good of a game" if, when the game engine has otherwise determined that you're about to die, the bad guy whiffs, and you know (or suspect) that the outcome was changed?

 

[Fifth Element]

Maybe, but that's not what fudging is.

Would Knights of the Old Republic be "just as good of a game" if, when the game engine has otherwise determined that you're about to die, the bad guy whiffs, and you know (or suspect) that the outcome was changed?

Perhaps not, but D&D is not a computer game, and the DM is not a microprocessor.