AD&D DMG, on fudging

[Raven Crowking]

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

I would like to hear someone answer that question, just once.


RC

 

[Umbran]

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

Because other than the one possibility he won't accept, he'll accept all the others, and would rather have an outcome of bounded randomness than one completely determined by fiat?

There is a certain practicality involved here - if the number of undesired outcomes is small, and easy to eliminate post-roll, it may simply be easier to go ahead and roll and deal with the exception if it comes up, than to stop and think deeply about what other determination to use.

Fast, cheap, and works. Not perfect, perhaps, but I'm not in the habit of making perfect the enemy of good.

RC: I gave this answer some threads ago, so it has been answered at least once.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I would like to hear someone answer that question, just once.


RC

I think it has been in the other thread. IIRC the odds of the undesired outcome have to be sufficiently remote. What the exact threshold should be is anyone's guess.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Because other than the one possibility he won't accept, he'll accept all the others, and would rather have an outcome of bounded randomness than one completely determined by fiat?

There is already a term for this: Shenanigans

 

[Raven Crowking]

Because other than the one possibility he won't accept, he'll accept all the others, and would rather have an outcome of bounded randomness than one completely determined by fiat?

There is a certain practicality involved here - if the number of undesired outcomes is small, and easy to eliminate post-roll, it may simply be easier to go ahead and roll and deal with the exception if it comes up, than to stop and think deeply about what other determination to use.

Fast, cheap, and works. Not perfect, perhaps, but I'm not in the habit of making perfect the enemy of good.

RC: I gave this answer some threads ago, so it has been answered at least once.

Umbran,

First off, thank you for trying to answer the question.

However, as has been described many times already, if you limit the results you are willing to accept pre-roll (such as having a max-cap on damage), you are not really rolling for the possibility of an outcome you won't accept.

This is no different than deciding to generate a random number from 1 to 5 by rolling 1d6, and re-rolling any "6". Or saying something caused 5d6 damage, to a maximum of 20.

Why somebody might use a pre-existing distribution to generate an outcome, knowing beforehand that the potential range of outcomes has been modified, is not what is being discussed here.

What we are talking about is the DM setting a chance that X happens, quite possibly believing the odds are so small that it will not happen, and then changing the roll when those small odds come up.

The question is: Why?

RC

 

[Jeff Wilder]

it may simply be easier to go ahead and roll and deal with the exception if it comes up, than to stop and think deeply about what other determination to use.

Okay, so when you're about to make a roll that may kill every single character, it's still not a good time to "stop and think deeply" about making that roll.

Well ... okay, I guess. (But ... seriously?)

But even that aside, how does the DM know it's "easier" to just discard some of the possible results, without stopping and thinking about what they might be? And if he does stop and think about what they may be, and then decides it's easier to use DM fiat to change the probabilities ...

... that's not fudging.

DM's Internal Monologue:

Wow, this is an important roll. If the assassin rolls a crit here, he'll kill the sentry silently, and at that point he can coup de grace the whole party.

Seems like a pretty good time to "stop and think" to me.

Okay, so I'm going to roll, but if a crit comes up, it's just a hit. The poison might still kill the PC in 10 rounds, of course.

That's not fudging. That's the DM assigning probabilities on the fly, and adhering to them. That's the DM doing his job which, yeah, does include the necessity of stopping to think from time to time.

 

[Votan]

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?

I would consider not rolling to be equivalent, in this case. When using a screen, I will also occasionally roll dice that have no meaning so that I don't telegraph that something unusual is about to happen when I do roll.

Or just roll a "dummy die" and let it go.

However, there might be degrees of success that do not incldue the outcome "the campaign ends and you'll never know why" that make a difference -- you might roll for that. In 3.X D&D, there can be a big deal between 2 rounds of preparation and prone PCs needing to spring up and into action.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Exactly right, Jeff Wilder!

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would consider not rolling to be equivalent, in this case.

Please expand.

Equivalent to what? To rolling and discarding the results? And how is it equivalent?

 

[Votan]

Please expand.

Equivalent to what? To rolling and discarding the results? And how is it equivalent?

Yes. If the "rules as written" contain an outcome that would make the game completely unfun, I would consider the a priori decision not to include that option in the die roll to be the same as simply discarding it should it arise.

So if the entire party dies without ever knowing what happened on a roll of "1" on d20 (my admittedly extreme toy example) then deciding that 1-5 is "suprise" and and 6-20 is "a normal encounter" is the same as rolling, getting a 1 and deciding that it is "surprise" and not "instant party annihilation".

That being said, I agree with Jeff Wilder that it usually is better to think this out first and roll second but one may overlook an extreme possibility in the heat of the moment.