AD&D DMG, on fudging

[pawsplay]

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".

Perhaps. To me says overrule means making a conscious, deliberate decision. Fudging might mean the same thing, but suggests an avoidance of natural outcomes. Arguably, that might be the right choice, but it does seem to me like a real difference. Intentional fiat and reactive changes to die rolls are not quite the same thing, although they can be close (e.g. the wandering monster table example given by EGG).

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.

Sure. The GM does, however, have a rule as arbiter, and if the dice are taken as a source of authority, then the GM does, indeed, "overrule" them, as opposed to simply ruling them.

 

[Fifth Element]

Perhaps. To me says overrule means making a conscious, deliberate decision. Fudging might mean the same thing, but suggests an avoidance of natural outcomes. Arguably, that might be the right choice, but it does seem to me like a real difference. Intentional fiat and reactive changes to die rolls are not quite the same thing, although they can be close (e.g. the wandering monster table example given by EGG).

That distinction seems waffer-thin to me. How would one fudge a die roll without making a conscious decision to do so?

 

[pawsplay]

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

I'm sorry, I must not have been clear. Fudging a die roll is sub-category of overruling the dice, which in term is a subset of exercising GM authority in general.

I could, however, furnish an example of overruling the dice that is not fudging. I might pretend to roll for wandering monsters, when in reality I know that a group of NPCs has pinpointed the PCs and will be arriving shortly. I am substituting that encounter and probability (100%) for what is ordinarily a random encounter (from some chart) with a different probability (10% or whatever), because the planned encounter is in keeping with the imaginary reality. My encounter is an accurate result and I am overruling the dice, but I am not changing any rolls or discarding any outcomes based on a momentary inclination. I am simulating.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm sorry, I must not have been clear. Fudging a die roll is sub-category of overruling the dice, which in term is a subset of exercising GM authority in general.

I could see that, but if you consider fudging to be a subset of overruling, and the DMG endorses overruling (without exclusion of certain types of overruling), I'm not sure what the difference is revelant to.

My encounter is an accurate result and I am overruling the dice, but I am not changing any rolls or discarding any outcomes based on a momentary inclination. I am simulating.

But why are you assuming that fudging is necessarily based on a momentary inclination? That seems to imply that DMs who fudge are guided by their whims, which is not fair. Some fudging DMs are very deliberate in their fudging.

 

[billd91]

Perhaps. To me says overrule means making a conscious, deliberate decision. Fudging might mean the same thing, but suggests an avoidance of natural outcomes.

Sounds an awful lot to me like the difference between six and a half-dozen. Or, I think more directly, between a 25-cent call girl and a 2-bit whore. They're the same thing, but one has got a more derogatory connotation.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

No real comment. I would just like to say that I love the term "willy-nilly" and would like to see it used more often in conversation.

 

[Fifth Element]

No real comment. I would just like to say that I love the term "willy-nilly" and would like to see it used more often in conversation.

Well, you can't just use it willy-nilly or it loses its effectiveness.

 

[Votan]

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

Here it might be remarked that the use of fudging in a story based camapign (using my operational definition) definitely follows a "more is less" philosophy. Having the party all die from an unfortunate die roll (ending the campaign) when the players acted in a reasonable way could be such an issue.

For example, an assassin that sneak in and kills the sentry in a single hit followed by coup-de-gracing the entire party.

There are narrative solutions, as well, such as taking party members prisioner but for the game of heroes to end with" "Wow, what an amazing stealth roll -- you are all dead." in the middle of a campaign might not be to the taste of all groups.

The sudden end of the campaign due to the single hidden die roll is not a satisfying way to finish a session (for me, at least).

Now, admittedly, I tend to avoid such circumstances (where a single roll has massive effects -- on either side). It was somewhat my issue with GURPS, for example, where a single lucky sniper shot could kill a PC at will.

But if by fudging you mean "I guarentee that the party wins every fight" then I'd agree with you that it'd make the game equally unfun. I am entirely focusing on single die rolls that make the game end (aburptly) with no dramatic effect.

 

[Umbran]

Perhaps. To me says overrule means making a conscious, deliberate decision. Fudging might mean the same thing, but suggests an avoidance of natural outcomes.

These are not in any way mutually exclusive. Cannot one have a conscious, deliberate decision to avoid a particular natural outcome?

And, by the way, thinking about it, "overruling the dice" seems to me to require it be post-roll. Like in a court of law - the judge cannot overrule an objection until after the lawyer voices an objection. Similarly, the GM cannot overrule the dice if the dice have not said what should happen. Overruling implies a prior ruling to be overcome.

I want to ask explicitly - are you trying to find meaning in the fact that he didn't use the specific term "fudge" or didn't specifically note the example of changing a to-hit roll?

If not, ignore the rest of this post.

If you are, I'd like to point out that, as a tool of analysis, looking at what is not said is highly error prone, when compared to looking at what is said.

For example - he never uses the term "fudge". So what? While Gary first coined many gaming terms, he didn't coin all of them. Language use drifts a bit over time, and new words get adopted. We have had decades to adopt jargon Gary didn't use. His failure to say "fudge" (or any particular piece of modern gaming jargon) does not speak directly to whether he intended us to do what we today call fudging.

Another - he did list some example of what he meant. Would you expect that list of examples to be exhaustive? Given that he said, "at any time," I would expect the examples to be merely demonstrative. "At any time" is so clearly all-inclusive that to also expect a specific list of all possible cases would be superfluous.

Otherwise, what we are considering him to have said was, "overrule the dice at any time, and by 'any time' I mean 'only this specific list of times'". That when he said "any" he didn't really mean any, he meant some.

If you want a slippery slope, my friend, this kind of analysis is it. "He said X, but what he really meant was Y..." is a good way to have the text mean anything you personally want it to mean, and the original author be damned.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Having the party all die from an unfortunate die roll (ending the campaign) when the players acted in a reasonable way could be such an issue.

For example, an assassin that sneak in and kills the sentry in a single hit followed by coup-de-gracing the entire party.

If that is a possibility that the DM won't accept, why is the DM rolling? There are so many non-fudging ways to avoid this outcome, up to and including, "Sir Merrick, all that ale is really taking its toll. You awaken and reach blearily for the chamber pot, when you hear the almost silent scrape of the window being eased open."

So why is the DM rolling for the possibility of an outcome he won't accept?