Fudging for fun and profit.

[The Shaman]

I design the situations and environments without a thought as to the player character capabilities. There will be traps where trap should be logically placed regardless of whether the group has a rogue. There will be undead where undead would be found regardless of whether the group has a cleric, etc. In short, I try to design the environment to fit its conception. It is the player's job to devise strategies to play to their strengths and minimise thier weaknesses.

Yes. This. Plus one. Quoted for truth. Hells yeah.

 

[Umbran]

Cheating.

To quote the 1e DMG (pg 9):
"Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power. To be the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly."

And the 2e DMG (pg103):
"Here are some tricks you can use...

To fix things, the DM can have the monsters flee in inexplicable panic; secretly lower their hit points; allow the player characters to hit or inflict more damage than they really should; have the monsters miss on attacks when they actually hit...."

And the 3e DMG (pg 17):
"Do you cheat? The answer: the DM really can't cheat...

Even if you do decide that sometimes it's okay to fudge a little to let the characters survive so the game can continue, don't let the players in on the decision."

And the 4e DMG (pg 14):
"Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge if you want to."

It appears as an allowable tool for DMs in the rules of several different editions. It may appear in more, but I don't have the rulebooks to check. I therefore find statements that it is "cheating" for DMs to be a little weak.

Then maybe you don't mean to insist that yours is the One True Way...

At least twice in this thread I have said I sometimes run with fudging, and sometimes without. And I'm pretty sure I have not ever said one must fudge, or must not. So, no, I mean to insist no such thing. If you got the impression that I did insist so, we have failed to communicate.

And maybe you will choose not to attribute such intent to others.

My intent does not imply anything about the intent of others, unfortunately.

For the same reason I do not fudge rolls in secret?

Well, if I read you right, you don't fudge rolls at all. You cannot fudge in secret if you don't fudge at all.

Is the reason you don't fudge at all the same reason that I don't hand the players maps, stat blocks, and room descriptions before the game? I couldn't begin to guess.

I do not agree that it follows that the players must be prohibited from "fudging". The logic is especially hard to follow from having the DM "fudge".

I've found several quotes noting specifically that the DM fudging is seen as allowable. I looked, and cannot find one where player fudging is allowed. If that is not easy enough to follow, it may be beyond my ability to help you follow it better.

If you set out to decree what practices "are not D&D", then I am afraid you light your own petard.

And if you won't recognize the difference between a generalization and a decree, then I'm afraid you'll come across as unreasonable.

The rulebooks of games with GM/Player divisions are usually rife with statements that add up to how the GM has adventure and encounter editorial control and rules-arbitration control, and the players generally don't. You can play otherwise, if you wish, but that doesn't mean the generalization isn't sound.

Fudging is an editorial and rules-arbitration tool. Given that the GM has the control over such things, and the players generally don't, it makes sense that the GM gets to fudge, but the players don't.

I am excepting action points and similar mechanics from "fudging", as they are explicitly allowed player alternatives, rather than impromptu deviations from the rules and usual processes of the game.

I hope you will choose to accept that it is as okay for me to prefer that the dice not be "fudged" as it is for you to prefer that they should be "fudged", that your game is your concern and my game is mine.

Yes, that's fine. If you'd gotten that I was arguing otherwise, I'd be interested in learning how.

 

[Ariosto]

Getting back to the matter to which the question of "Why hide it?" was a response:

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)?

The difference is between setting the rules of the game (e.g., "Aces high, Jokers wild") and breaking the rules of the game (e.g., pulling an Ace and Joker out of one's sleeve).

By setting the rules of the game, one allows players to play it, exploring the rules and forming strategies. By breaking the rules of the game, one undermines that enterprise.

You see, if I always wanted really completely unexpected results, I'd never do an adventure design - I'd just build a random encounter tables, and let the chips fall where they may.

It's Aliiive!! Well, maybe not -- but that is a flash of the very bottled lightning that actually illuminates my understanding of the game of D&D as I learned it first by playing and then by reading.

The referee does not design an adventure; the referee designs an environment, in which the players design adventures. The process of finding out the results, by the interaction of the best laid plans of elves and men with the vagaries of chance, is itself the very thing called "play".

You see, if I always wanted really completely expected results, then I would not want to roll dice. Dice produce ranges of results, varying from instance to instance in accordance with probabilities. The most straightforward reason (or at least so it seems to me) for rolling them is that one desires just that.

A more subtle reason is to mislead people into thinking that something is the case when in fact it is not. That dishonesty may in fact be perfectly in keeping with impartial conduct of a game that often entails investigation of things that are not as they seem. I would not use the term "fudging" to refer to ignoring such unambiguously (to the DM) nugatory rolls as one to "find secret doors" when there are no secret doors to find. I do not think that is how others here are using the term, either -- or at least it is not the only way.

I would be grateful if you would share just what your reason for rolling dice is, when you mean to ignore the results and instead impose whatever you choose.

 

[Ariosto]

I've found several quotes noting specifically that the DM fudging is seen as allowable.

Maybe you can find several quotes noting specifically that player fudging is seen as not allowable by someone who happens not to be "the final arbiter of fantasy role playing" for me -- and who in any case wrote such a great many things, some pretty blatantly contradictory, that people can (and routinely do) pull out "proof quotes" for opposite positions.

I prefer to exercise a wisdom informed by the broad and deep context in which those words arose, and indeed to take upon myself the mantle of being the DM of my campaign rather than an apologist for what someone else makes of Mr. Gygax's style.

 

[Cadfan]

One difference is the explicit and implied contract in the play group.

I try to choose games that match the hoped for play experience so that the play group's expectations match my own. Many who purport to use the technique attempt to keep the use of it secret from the group.

If the mechanisms are built into the game, then the play group has agreed this is acceptable behaviour by picking that game engine. If the game engine has no such mechanism, the group could easily have a different expectation for appropriate DM behaviour.

What if the DM says to you before the game begins, "occasionally, when things are really going weird, I may fudge a roll or two, but I rarely do it and I'm not going to tell you when it happens."?

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[aboyd]

Jesus, Ariosto, you're getting condescending with a moderator. You come off just as "unreasonable" as he suggested, even if you might have a nugget of truth in there under all the posturing, which I'm not sure you do.

What good is going to come of this? Let the guy game as he games and find a way to be nice to him about it.

 

[Umbran]

I would be grateful if you would share just what your reason for rolling dice is, when you mean to ignore the results and instead impose whatever you choose.

On those occasions when I do fudge a roll, I don't generally have an outcome in mind before I roll the dice. I roll the dice, see the result, and go, "Hm, that's probably not something we want to have happen just now." I then fudge to get something near to the result the dice gave me, but not as bad.

How this can happen becomes fairly clear when you might get a critical failure, a plain failure, a success, or a critical success all on one roll of the dice. For example, if I roll a critical attack and high damage at just the wrong moment, I might tone down the damage so it doesn't kill the PC outright, but leaves them sorely wounded instead.

Maybe you can find several quotes noting specifically that player fudging is seen as not allowable by someone who happens not to be "the final arbiter of fantasy role playing" for me -- and who in any case wrote such a great many things, some pretty blatantly contradictory,that people can (and routinely do) pull out "proof quotes" for opposite positions.

Why should I find such quotes? I thought we were talking about whether or not I "very well knew" that I was "cheating". To know that, we should refer to the rules I'm using. Since I have not published my own, I refer instead to the closest common references for support that, really, there's no particular reason I should "very well know" it. Quite the opposite, as the common references allow it.

What may or may not serve as "final arbiter of fantasy role playing" for you doesn't enter into the question. Maybe it differs from the common rules. That's fine - but don't try to use your local rules to define what I do or do not know.

 

[Nagol]

What if the DM says to you before the game begins, "occasionally, when things are really going weird, I may fudge a roll or two, but I rarely do it and I'm not going to tell you when it happens."?

I'd reply "Thanks for being honest. I'd prefer it if you didn't -- I like weird." and then either "But it's your game, let's play!" OR "Thanks for the invite, but I'll pass this time." depending on the genre, my mood, and my experience/impression of the DM.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'll sometimes fudge with tactics -- the monsters will occasionally not use all their abilities or not use them optimally -- but the dice fall where they may.