AD&D DMG, on fudging

[Votan]

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.

It was so much intended to suggest that blends are not possible so much as to point out that the focus of the combat encounters does a lot to determine if fudging makes sense. If your game is story focused and the outcome of the combat leads to a horrible anticlimax then everyone will probably enjopy a fudged game more.

You can do a story oriented game with no fudging but, in my experience, it requires a fair amount of "flex" in the storyline. Many games have an option where a character can die in a single die roll. If the character is crucial to the plot that can make things . . . awkward. You can still tell good stories without central protagonists but some sorts of stories go badly if key characters die in anti-climatic ways.

My understanding of how this is usually handled is to make sure opponents are really weak relative to the party (removes no more than 25% of he party resources was advice given in one edition of a major game).

 

[Votan]

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.

I agree, but I would argue that, at the limit, one falls into one of the two camps. If you aklways let the dice fall where they may then you have decided to make the combat challenges dictate where the plot goes next. This is not a bad way to play (and if I accidentally implied anything of the kind please accept my public apology) but it's not suitable for some types of plots.

In my own gaming I have moved towards open rolling, over time, when I do DM. But it makes it much harder to decide where things are going and the game has much more potential to "surprise me". That is both good and bad, in my experience but others may be better at winging unexpected plot twists than I am.

 

[Fifth Element]

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

In what way? Since there is no accepted definition of "fudging", go back to the crit-to-whiff example. The die says 'crit', you overrule it to 'whiff'. Is that not fudging?

 

[The Shaman]

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

It's the same thing: "You can choose any road you like, as long as it's north."

That's not how I like to play, either. I take care of the setting, but the game is driven by the players and the dice. I don't decide what's important to the game: the players do.

 

[pawsplay]

It was so much intended to suggest that blends are not possible so much as to point out that the focus of the combat encounters does a lot to determine if fudging makes sense. If your game is story focused and the outcome of the combat leads to a horrible anticlimax then everyone will probably enjopy a fudged game more.

Why? I ask because I hold the view that fudging turns every combat into something of an anticlimax, particularly for the GM.

You can do a story oriented game with no fudging but, in my experience, it requires a fair amount of "flex" in the storyline. Many games have an option where a character can die in a single die roll. If the character is crucial to the plot that can make things . . . awkward. You can still tell good stories without central protagonists but some sorts of stories go badly if key characters die in anti-climatic ways.

That hasn't been a problem. While each PC is integral in some way, I can move things along provided that at least one PC survives the encounter. If there is a TPK, I can run a sequel campaign or, I suppose, contrive a resurrection, capture, etc.

My understanding of how this is usually handled is to make sure opponents are really weak relative to the party (removes no more than 25% of he party resources was advice given in one edition of a major game).

I don't roll that way. Fewer, more dangerous encounters means a more exciting game and faster leveling. Further, one or two dangerous encounters is ultimately less dangerous, on average, than three or four "easy" encounters. The more times you roll, the more likely you are to be surprised.

I am pretty sure my style could be considered with the Gygaxian doctrine, although I get the impression he was a more active and interventionist GM.

 

[pawsplay]

In what way? Since there is no accepted definition of "fudging", go back to the crit-to-whiff example. The die says 'crit', you overrule it to 'whiff'. Is that not fudging?

I don't see that example, changing the crit to a whiff, anywhere in the Gygax text posted in the OP.

 

[Umbran]

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

Yes, they certainly have different connotations.

I think the term "fudge" was later adopted for two basic reasons:

1) Gary's language choice is sometimes... peculiar. I think folks would find it pompous if we talked about "overruling the dice".

2) Gary seems to have been a strong proponent for Authoritarian DMs - what the DM says goes, and the DM knows what he's doing. I think as that general idea has weakened among players, somewhat less powerful and authoritarian terms got applied.

 

[Fifth Element]

It's the same thing: "You can choose any road you like, as long as it's north."

No, it's not. Unless you're telling me that when you DM, you prepare nothing ahead of time, it's not.

I didn't say "the only thing I have prepared", I said "what I have prepared", which can be any number of possible adventures or encounters or locales or what have you. If you have prepared the setting, which you said you do, that's "what you have prepared."

 

[Fifth Element]

I ask because I hold the view that fudging turns every combat into something of an anticlimax, particularly for the GM.

If every combat is fudged, then every combat could be an anticlimax. I didn't see anything in that passage about fudging willy-nilly in every combat.

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't see that example, changing the crit to a whiff, anywhere in the Gygax text posted in the OP.

Give me an example, then, of something that would be considered 'fudging the die roll', but would not be considered 'overruling the dice'.