AD&D DMG, on fudging

[Fifth Element]

You're arguing this would not be the case, but my experience says otherwise. I believe that in principle not fudging leads to more fun.

Fair enough. I would suggest this varies from person to person, and must be considered. Fudging is not required to ensure fun, then. Except for some people.

Fun v. rules is a false dichotomy.

True, it is too simplistic.

 

[ExploderWizard]

We can't; the judgment must be made based on what would be detrimental to their enjoyment. I am assuming that the desires of the participants are known, at least to a large degree. Otherwise you can't make an informed decision.

Bold Emphasis mine.

Precisely my point. If you know that a dead PC will ruin everyone's enjoyment and the players have agreed that they wish to play in such a campaign then the decision to save him/her via fiat is the correct one.

If your players believe they are in a fairly judged " dice happen" type of game and a PC is saved in a similar fashion then the player is being cheated out of the experience that he/she wanted out of the campaign and the decision is the incorrect one.

Expectations and understanding prior to play are the key here.

 

[Fifth Element]

Expectations and understanding prior to play are the key here.

Yes...I've tried to be quite clear throughout this whole fudging thing that different groups have different expectations. One man's abuse is another man's grant time, and all that.

 

[Imaginary Number]

Fun v. rules is a false dichotomy. This basically goes back to the same old thing: Do you believe fudging is good or bad? Principally, that is how you will decide. Not whether you are rules-based or fun-based. A rules-based GM would fudge if he thought fudging was good, and a fun-based GM would not fudge if he thought fudging was bad.

I see that we haven't entirely managed to avoid duplicating the earlier fudging thread. Given that this discussion is still going on, however, I'll contribute my two cents. As I see it, "fun vs. rules" is a false dichotomy here only because you're defining away the problem. If in your view "not fudging" in all situations = "fun," then obviously "not fudging" is something you always want to do. Most people advocating the "fudging is OK" approach, however, have posited that fudging is appropriate if and only if following the "rules" (adhering to the dice) conflicts with the "fun" (altering the roll to dictate a consequence different from what the dice roll dictates based on the group expectations for the game). (For the moment I'm assuming that the "rules" don't permit fudging, which is a separate question that was raised at the beginning of the thread.) So, in the situation in which the issue arises, there always is a conflict between "rules" and "fun."

I mentioned somewhere in the earlier fudging thread that I thought the real divide was between a "wind it up and let it go" approach, in which the DM is prohibited from deviating from the RAW once play starts and the rules clearly and independently define what the results are, and a "do what needs to happen" approach, in which the DM has the discretion to deviate from the RAW in order to advance the first-order goals of the campaign as the group defines it. I don't think that either approach is necessarily wrong, but I'll submit based on our discussion so far that that distinction, which essentially is "rules vs. fun," is valid.

 

[pawsplay]

I see that we haven't entirely managed to avoid duplicating the earlier fudging thread.

Well, no. The idea was to distill out some interesting points to discuss intelligently, using the DMG passage as a shared reference for the topic. Much more productive than talking about life, the universe, and your mother.
So far I haven't seen too, too much emotional carryover from the other thread, which is refreshing.

I mentioned somewhere in the earlier fudging thread that I thought the real divide was between a "wind it up and let it go" approach, in which the DM is prohibited from deviating from the RAW once play starts and the rules clearly and independently define what the results are, and a "do what needs to happen" approach, in which the DM has the discretion to deviate from the RAW in order to advance the first-order goals of the campaign as the group defines it. I don't think that either approach is necessarily wrong, but I'll submit based on our discussion so far that that distinction, which essentially is "rules vs. fun," is valid.

I think it's a false dichotomy. The fact that a person who advocates fudging and a person who advocates not fudging can both read the DMG passage and find a lot to agree with suggests, apart from demonstrating that Gygax was writing in generalities that may be useful regardless of your specific viewpoint, suggests the divide is neither wide nor deep. I cannot imagine describing myself as less fun-oriented or less rules-oriented, only as fully oriented toward both. In my mind, using the RAW and "doing what needs to happen" can exist harmoniously under the general umbrella of competence by applying reason, consistency, and sensitivity.

 

[Umbran]

Fun v. rules is a false dichotomy. This basically goes back to the same old thing: Do you believe fudging is good or bad?

I'd say the question is: Do you believe fudging is acceptable?

That may seem like a picayune distinction, but given the frequency with which the "slippery slope" argument comes up, it is an important one. If you look, I don't you will think you'll find anyone saying "fudging is good". There's none of us who are getting a warm fuzzy feeling, or thinking happily to ourselves, "Hey, I fudged! That's cool!" or anything.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Again?

Sure. I live in hope of a better answer than I last received!

It is generally better for a DM to see it coming.

And, as you have just proved, sometimes living in hope is rewarded.

But sometimes he can't. Not by using a reasonable amount of effort in that regard, sometimes not even by using an extreme amount of effort. That's why a contingency plan isn't a bad idea; you'll never be able to foresee everything. It's a practical consideration.

Agreed.

And, sometimes, all you are left with is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Choosing the lesser is still a better choice than choosing the greater.

However, if you can have a contingency plan that requires no such choice, it is better yet.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

However, if you can have a contingency plan that requires no such choice, it is better yet.

In theory, yes. My position is that you will never be able to plan for or foresee everything, due to the limitations of being human.

I want to try to rephrase my previous point, in the most impartial way possible.

DMs for groups who find it more fun to overcome challenges using the rules as they are written are more likely to not fudge. DMs for groups who find it more fun to throw the rules out at times to get their desired results are more likely to fudge.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There you go, then.

I've no disagreement with that.

 

[Odhanan]

I think that argument arises from a differing perspective on what it means to be DM. If you feel the DM's role is mostly to impartially enforce the rules, I'd say you're more likely to agree with the above quote. If you feel the DM's role is more to ensure the players' fun, then I think you're more likely to intervene when something like that comes up. So it's all a matter of preference.

What if the players' fun relies on rules being enforced impartially by the DM?