AD&D DMG, on fudging

[Doug McCrae]

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.

Strangely, Gary's fudging is mostly to support something more akin to the first style of play, the wargame approach. Gary fudges to ensure that the skillful player wins more often (not always, but more often) even when the dice say he doesn't.

D&D is a bit like poker, in the sense that, purely through random factors, a skillful player can lose and an unskillful player win. Over time of course, this randomness should even itself out. But that's not enough for Gary, he stacks the deck to make sure the guy who goes all in with two aces hits another two on the river, and so doesn't get beaten by a guy who fluked a straight.

 

[The Shaman]

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.

Actually, this is shoving it in their faces, in my humble opinion.

It's one of the reasons I don't enjoy playing with referees who insist on deciding what's 'important to the game.' I'm also aware that I'm the exception on this, of course.

 

[ggroy]

D&D is a bit like poker, in the sense that, purely through random factors, a skillful player can lose and an unskillful player win.

Isn't this how real life is in practice?

Over time of course, this randomness should even itself out.

No it doesn't. For a finite number of dice rolls, nothing says it has to "even itself out".

EDIT: In the case of dice rolls, the "law of large numbers" can only be proven for the case where the number of dice rolls approaches infinity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

 

[Umbran]

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?

You realize that any number of computer games do "cheat", right? Some engines change the rules the presented enemies work under without telling you in order to alter the difficulty.

 

[Fifth Element]

Actually, this is shoving it in their faces, in my humble opinion.

It's one of the reasons I don't enjoy playing with referees who insist on deciding what's 'important to the game.' I'm also aware that I'm the exception on this, of course.

Fine. Replace "important to the game" with "places that I have stuff prepared for" and there you go!

 

[howandwhy99]

Strangely, Gary's fudging is mostly to support something more akin to the first style of play, the wargame approach. Gary fudges to ensure that the skillful player wins more often (not always, but more often) even when the dice say he doesn't.

D&D is a bit like poker, in the sense that, purely through random factors, a skillful player can lose and an unskillful player win. Over time of course, this randomness should even itself out. But that's not enough for Gary, he stacks the deck to make sure the guy who goes all in with two aces hits another two on the river, and so doesn't get beaten by a guy who fluked a straight.

That's a good observation. I think Gary was more of a "Viking Hat" Dungeon Master who wasn't afraid of changing the rules during the middle of a game or in fudging dice results to his own preferences. It's certainly not my preference when running a game, but the text quoted appears to bear it out.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

The word "overrule" does have something of a different flavor than fudge, though.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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.

Those two approaches are not mutually exclusive. I know it's been argued but I thought it was now an established fallacy. A game can certainly contain both to different degrees at different times.

Oh, and to add my own voice, just because you CAN doesn't mean you must or should. Fudging die rolls is something the DM is permitted to do for any number of reasons. That is but one element out of dozens, maybe hundreds that a DM can abuse. It is perfectly okay to decide that it isn't how I want to run MY game, but I'm also fine with deciding that it is a valuable tool and choosing to use it appropriately. The only thing I object to is if I'm accused of cheating or badwrongfun for choosing to exercise that option.

 

[pawsplay]

I run a very story-oriented campaign, but I am pretty strict on letting the dice fall where they may, so I reject Votan's dichotomy as well. I've run a 1st level to 19th level game over the past four years, based on defeating an eldritch evil. I can't recall fudging a die roll in more than twenty years.

 

[airwalkrr]

I happen to agree quite a bit with the passage cited by the OP. I "overrule" the dice all the time, but I do it for one reason and one reason only, to keep the game moving. I never do it to halt the players in their tracks and make them go home. That's no fun. If a player character dies, that's one thing. But I would never arbitrarily cause death to a player character for any reason. A DM with an axe to grind is not a very good DM. One of the DM's primary jobs is to be the referee, not the judge. He does not decide who dies and who goes free, rather he enforces the rules of the game for the fun of everyone involved. I'm not opposed to letting a player character die because of a foolish choice. If you do not allow such things then the players will never learn from their mistakes. But I am opposed to allowing character death through dumb luck alone.

On a related note, I do not consider a failed save versus death to be dumb luck. When you reach a certain point in the game, such saves become common enough that the players need to be intelligent enough to think of ways to prevent them. And the tools to prevent such things are many: spells, protective items, and so forth. As you reach higher levels the game becomes more dangerous because you are an experienced player to have reached such a state and are expected to have the wherewithal by that point to deal with more mundane hazards with ease.