Fudging for fun and profit.

[Jeff Wilder]

I roll all dice, in combat, in front of the players. So no, I don't fudge dice rolls.

But I do have creatures behave sub-optimally, if that behavior is within the parameters of reasonable behavior, if doing otherwise will mean the death of a PC. (And sometimes even if not.)

 

[Nagol]

I understand some of this (as I noted, sometimes I run a no-fudge game). However, I have a question: How did you come by the idea that the "hand of fate" is involved?

I suppose is the GM is running a published module unedited (say, in a tournament), or strictly following a formula to design encounters, I could understand this. However, in the general case the GM designed the encounter, presumably with some specific intended difficulty in mind. Clearly, the GM has a significant amount of editorial control.

What, fundamentally, is the difference between putting all of that editorial control on the back end (in the design) and taking some of it up front (at runtime)?

It is a great question and is forcing me to put coherent thought to my prejudice. Like others in the thread, I am a no-fudge roll in the open DM.

Why is moving the editorial control from design to implementation bad? There are bound to be a few answers to that question.

TO me, the most important reason it is bad is it moves the DM from impartial arbiter of action to a role with vested interest in the outcome of the encounter. Why is that bad? I think that's bad because of all the game roles, designer, DM, or player, the DM has the most covert control over the course of the session. The design is written down and can be reviewed by the DM and others. The player's actions are announced and interpreted by at least one other individual, the DM. No such oversight applies to the DM. The DM operates with as close to perfect knowledge of the situation, ramifications, and consequences to action as possible. If the DM is acting as an impartial arbiter then the events and consequences for player choice evolve 'naturally'. If the DM has a vested interest in a preferred outcome or solution then there is a likelihood that the situations the character find themsleves in with be guided and thus strip some player types of the feeling of success.

I view D&D as allowing the players to mold a story with the characters in an encounter backdrop. Once the DM becomes vested in a particular outcome or at least in the absence of a particular outcome, the set of player stories becomes more limited. The extreme case of this control where it leaves the realm of the covert action is known as railroading.

The designer can build a scenario with preferred methods of attack and expected outcomes based on the encounter elements and guessed player strategies, but not knowing the actual player choices.

Players can provide tactical responses as they see fit based upon their abilities and imperfect knowledge of the world, but not wholly knowing the environment.

The DM should attempt to resolve the action as fairly and consistently as he can since he sees the whole picture.


As a secondary point, the designer has the luxury of time to consider his choices to much more relaxed degree than the DM in the middle of the session. The DM is more likely to make mistakes or make poor on-the-fly design decisions as he take editorial control.

 

[jbear]

I used to on occaisions, when I was running a game for younger kids and they got into trouble. The game was more focused on the fun they had and dying didn't meet that criteria.

Nowadays I roll openly 90% of the time. The only hidden dice are things going on the pcs don't know about. Someone sneaking up on them etc. Sometimes I just roll the dice to get them worried to add tension.

When my wife ran the game the other week she often rolled the dice in secret, monsters attacks, the works. I think this was something carried over from when we played way back when. I found myself really disliking the feeling of not know whether she was fudging or not (especially as she complained the group was too powerful and the monsters too weak).

It confirmed in my mind that I prefer letting the dice fall, and what happens happens. And I prefer that my players have the assurance that there is no dishonesty on my part.

 

[Umbran]

It is a great question and is forcing me to put coherent thought to my prejudice.

That was the point of asking. So huzzah!

Why is moving the editorial control from design to implementation bad?

I would rather ask why you prefer not to move it to implementation. They aren't the same question - my version's a little less loaded, I think.

TO me, the most important reason it is bad is it moves the DM from impartial arbiter of action to a role with vested interest in the outcome of the encounter.

I am not sure that's true - the power to do a thing does not imply the DM has a particular personal stake in how it turns out. It moves the DM to a role where, if he or she had a vested interest, he has nigh-infinite influence, true.

And, shouldn't the GM have a vested interest in providing an entertaining session?

The design is written down and can be reviewed by the DM and others.

If you are using a published module, that is true.

I don't know about the rest of you GMs, but my players tend to wander off the beaten track, out into areas for which no design work has been done. I have to "wing it" every once in a while. I may have the most bare of notes, or nothing at all - there is no design to refer to. I may need to grab a beastie and throw it at the party. Now, what happens if I have over or underestimated the strength of that beastie?

Or, let's say the GM did have time to do a really good design (when a major complaint of GMs is lack of prep time, I don't think it is a given, but for argument's sake) - even the guidelines in the DMG aren't perfect, and the GM is a human being, and there is no playtesting of what the GM bring to the table. What if the design isn't very good - maybe it is over- or under-powered. Either way can be a lot less than fun. Everyone at the table is stuck with that?

You mention the possibility of stealing someone's feeling of success. That's a possibility, but not a given - I'm pretty sure that if you press that all players feel the same way, you'll find sufficient pushback to prove it not generally true. The GM should know his or her players, right? Shouldn't the GM's knowledge of players trump your theoretical?

As a secondary point, the designer has the luxury of time to consider his choices to much more relaxed degree than the DM in the middle of the session. The DM is more likely to make mistakes or make poor on-the-fly design decisions as he take editorial control.

I'd counter with the idea that the design is done by a single person in whatever time he or she has, with no playtesting to speak of, and the results are highly subject to variation at runtime. At the table, the GM has loads of player feedback where he or she had none at the design stage.

 

[The Shaman]

Do you fudge the dice rolls?

Never.

 

[pawsplay]

Never.

 

[pawsplay]

What, fundamentally, is the difference between putting all of that editorial control on the back end (in the design) and taking some of it up front (at runtime)?

Genuine uncertainty. Each die roll is the opportunity to be surprised.

 

[Cadfan]

TO me, the most important reason it is bad is it moves the DM from impartial arbiter of action to a role with vested interest in the outcome of the encounter. Why is that bad? I think that's bad because of all the game roles, designer, DM, or player, the DM has the most covert control over the course of the session. The design is written down and can be reviewed by the DM and others. The player's actions are announced and interpreted by at least one other individual, the DM. No such oversight applies to the DM. The DM operates with as close to perfect knowledge of the situation, ramifications, and consequences to action as possible. If the DM is acting as an impartial arbiter then the events and consequences for player choice evolve 'naturally'. If the DM has a vested interest in a preferred outcome or solution then there is a likelihood that the situations the character find themsleves in with be guided and thus strip some player types of the feeling of success.

I don't think this argument works. I think the point is that the DM is not an impartial arbiter if he's already setting up the preconditions in which he will (allegedly) impartially arbitrate.

Personally, I don't any of the following as being all that different from one another- at most, a difference in degree and not type:

1. Fudging a die roll to avoid a PC death or other unsatisfying event (not all pc deaths are unsatisfying, yadda yadda, if any passer-bys which to launch into a tirade on this point please fork the thread)

2. Fudging a die roll to ensure a PC setback you predict will be fun

3. Secretly granting a bonus or penalty to a die roll that isn't justified by the rules, but which is logical and helps avoid a PC death or other unsatisfying event

4. Secretly granting a bonus or penalty to a die roll that isn't justified by the rules, but which is logical and helps ensure a PC setback you think will be fun

5. Designing an encounter in advance so that certain outcomes are likely, for example, by including lots of places to hide so that a stealthy PC can succeed

6. Designing an encounter in advance so that certain setbacks are likely, such as including bright light to make a stealthy pcs life more difficult

7. Making a decision on the fly so that a PC can succeed, or is more likely to succeed, such as filling a previously unmapped room with hiding places so that a fleeing PC can hide or ambush his pursuers

8. Making a decision on the fly so that a PC can suffer a fun setback, such as a previously unmapped room being filled with a bathing opera star who screams at the PCs arrival with volume that shatters glass, alerting every guard in the area but giving him someone to sweet talk

9. Publicly announcing, in advance of it coming up, that a particular roll will get a bonus or penalty for a plot reason you've invented that will help create an outcome you think will be fun

10. Publicly announcing, at the time of the roll, that there will be a bonus or penalty for a plot reason you've invented that will help create an outcome you think will be fun

11. Publicly announcing, in advance of it coming up, that an entire rule will be altered for a plot reason you've invented that will help create an outcome you think will be fun

12. Publicly announcing, at the time of the relevant event, that an entire rule will be altered for a plot reason you've invented that will help create an outcome you think will be fun

The difference between these, to me, seems to be how seamlessly they fit into the game. Some show more or less of the man behind the curtain, others preserve the illusion of the Great Oz.

I think there's a lot of reasons to view numbers 10 and 12 as the worst, actually. No matter what the DM is exercising editorial control, but RPGs work on the illusion that the DM is being neutral. Numbers 10 and 12 are the ones that makes it most obvious that the DM is altering "the game," and since it happens at the time of the die roll, it makes it seem as if the DM is doing so without forethought.

Number 9 is less bad because it implies the DM considered matters in advance and came up with a situational rule, which is normally the DM's job.

Numbers 5 and 6 are least objectionable, and probably completely unavoidable. There are actually some DMs who claim not to consider PC abilities when designing encounters, but I'm not sure I believe them. In-game outcomes would be awfully strange if PC abilities were in no way considered during the creation of an encounter. But even 5 and 6 can become bad if the players start to get a feeling that the DM is using this ability unfairly.

Numbers 7 and 8 are amongst the least objectionable, though I've had some DMs object to them on the grounds that no one should ever have unmapped regions that the PCs might encounter. I've never quite grasped that objection.

Anyways, this has gone on long enough and I haven't even started to get into my dislike for the attitude that says that a DMs suspension of disbelief is important... let me stick all that and bottom line this:

All of the examples are the DM exerting editorial control. They have different degrees of utility and subtlety. At least for me, what matters most is preserving the illusion and believability of the gameworld, and letting interesting things happen at the table. Each of these are good or bad to the extent that they accomplish these goals.

But editorial control itself is inevitable and inescapable.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Nagol]

See, I don't see the DM as an impartial arbiter only. I see D&D as a collaborative game, with the players and DM shaping the story. Forcing a DM into the role of purely writer and arbiter (unless that's what he chooses), is denying the DM the creative control to influence the direction of the story. If the Players have the right to shape the story during play, why doesn't the DM?

Rolling in the open is not a bad way to DM. It's a form of DM'ing that has it's own rewards (the ability to be surprised, among others). But DM's fudging rolls isn't bad either. If I'm just running a one-off, or playing a system that isn't our normal system, I'll use the arbiter only style of DM'ing. But, if it's our continuing campaign, with ongoing plotlines and an in-depth story, then I'm going to use more on-scene creative control.

This is where I separate the DM and designer. The designer creates part of the story -- the situational basics that the player characters will find themselves within.

The players dictate the main part of the story by deciding what actions to attempt.

The DM, using the game rules and probability generators, knits the two together into a cohesive and plausible outcome.

To me, the art is in being able to do that, and never have the players be the wiser. Just leave them sitting at the end of the night saying "Awesome Game, Man!".

Don' sell player intuition and obsevational skills short: I and several others in my group notice very quickly. Just because a DM fudges doesn't make the game unfun. It does change how I approach the game and what I expect out of it.

As a DM, I have the advantage of "the big picture" and have the strongest ability, and IMO the greatest responsibility, when it comes to shaping that story.

If a game session goes south, in a manner unenjoyable to my players, and I let that happen, I don't feel that it's okay to just blame the dice for it.

I have a responsibility to present a game session that my players find enjoyable. If it goes south, I'm the one to blame...not the dice.

Whereas for me, it is the player's story to tell.

I agree everyone at the table is responsible for the group having fun -- but having fun shouldn't depend on a particular result on a particular die roll. If it does, ask yourself two questions: why is this decision being tied to a random result that can break the game? Is this the right game for the group at this time?

[Tangent]

If a game session goes south it is usually a failure of communication between DM/players or a out-of-game conflict. Sometimes its the DM. Sometimes its a player or players at the table to blame. Occasionally, the random results can get so lopsided as to be a prime cause for massive failure.

A recent session, I blame on the players. The characters found clues to an abandoned elven temple and are greeted at the entrance by a nymph who claims to occupy the grounds and invites them in. Feeling something isn't quite right (i.e. making a Sense Motive check), the players apologise and fall back. The inhabitants, recognising an adventuring band and expecting an assault, start to buff heavily.

The characters cast a Divination spell asking about the prospects of going into the temple. Their answer is a curt "Don't." Do the characters trust their god's message? Do they back off to discover what could possibly prompt such a straightforward command?

Of course not. They're the heroes! They'll just take extra precautions!

The battle ends when the Wizard, fearing eveyone else is lost, teleports out with the one other character in reach. Party loses 4 of 6 characters and all 3 cohorts.

The players picked the direction of the story and I don't doubt the story going forward will work through the recovery and repair of the group from the setback .

Had I fudged, the story would be different. Their god would have underestimated the heroes. The group would have escaped unscathed or won the fight and reaped the reward as opposed to losing 75-90% of its wealth and being very chastened and needing to recover.

[/TANGENT]