My DM just told me he fudges rolls....

[Elf Witch]

As I do not go out of my way to look at every roll of the dice my players throw... my answer is 'Yes, absolutely.' I have no idea if they ever do or not, and really don't care... and thus I fully expect that any of them might have done so at some point or another. If one of them has missed their attack four rolls in a row and has gotten really annoyed/pissed off about it, and that fifth time they hit... maybe they fudged, maybe they didn't. Don't know, don't really care. The game for us is about having fun... and if fudging the roll makes them feel a little bit better and feel like they are contributing to the fight... so be it. I can work around anything they do as need be. I don't feel this game is a competition-- me vs the players-- so there's no reason for me to worry about it.

I am the same way I even let my players roll their hit points and stats without me having to see them do it. And since I have been doing that I have not noticed anyone who always rolls max hit points or have uber powered characters with a lot of 18s.

I trust my players to be pretty honest and if they feel the need to pad the roll for their hit points now and then I don't think it is gaming breaking.

 

[Mark CMG]

I understand completely what you were pointing out.

It doesn't actually seem like you do, nor that you get the idea that since it isn't adversarial, since there isn't a competition between referee/DM/GM/facilitator and other players, then it cannot be cheating. It's that premise I find false, so we'll have to agree to disagree on the other points you tried to make.

 

[The Shaman]

When I DM and I notice that this kind of situation is occurring, my normal technique is to modify the behaviour of the creature rather than its stats - maybe it attempts to flee rather than fight to the bitter end against badly wounded foes, maybe the intelligent creatures decide to capture for info or ransom rather than TPK the adventurers, and so on.

This is my default approach to running encounters.

Most intelligent foes value booty over blood, so live prisoners who can be ransomed or enslaved are preferable to a pile of corpses. Accepting a surrender and honoring the terms - "Give me your horse and your gold and I'll let you go free" - is better than taking unnecessary casualties to get the same thing and means others may be less likely to fight in the future as well. An honorable opponent, or at least one concerned with reputation, may choose a less lethal approach altogether - a duel to first blood, a joust to three broken lances.

Fanatics and the entrapped may fight to the death, but fleeing or surrendering are preferable for most foes - casualties comprising as little as one-quarter of a force's strength may result in a rout. I've had a foe commit suicide rather than submit, as it fit the personality of the character and the situation.

With less intelligent foes such as animals, predators likely cease to attack if they can get even a single prey item, and they will try to drag it off or simply defend it if they can, though not at the risk of their own lives unless they are sick or starving. Animals and like defending their young or a territory can be defeated simply by moving away in many instances, and an 'attack' in such an instance may be a bluff rather than an attempt to kill.

Unwavering killers who stand and fight to the bitter end are the rare exception, not the norm, in the campaigns I run. This has nothing to do with fudging, and everything to do with a pretty basic understanding of behavior.

In the context of the campaign, this may compel the adventurers to pursue, which is fun to play and may produce interesting situations of their own, as Beowulf discovered while following a wounded Grendel.

So if you want to search for traps, you want to see the roll out in the open - how do you know whether you searched and failed, or there were no traps? You are creeping up on someone, and you think he hasn't heard you but actually he has, and he is waiting to ambush you; can't happen if all rolls are public. Some rolls have to be behind screens, otherwise even failure gives you information you shouldn't have!

Just curious.

Referee: "So if you don't detect any traps, what does your character do next?"

Player: "If I don't detect any traps in the lock mechanism, I'll go ahead an attempt to unlock the chest."

Referee: "Okay, roll to check for traps."

*Sound of dice clattering, followed by a groan*

Referee: "You check the mechanism as carefully as you can but find nothing, but as you insert your wrench to put tension on the tumbler, a sharp pin sticks you in the finger. Roll a save."

In other words, declare the full action of which checking for traps is a part, then roll. Easy-peasy.

 

[The Shaman]

I don't feel this game is a competition-- me vs the players-- so there's no reason for me to worry about it.

I feel the game is very much a competition, the players and their characters versus an indifferent game-world.

The rules of the game provide a semblance of the physics-engine of that game-world, and the dice are the hand of Fate.

As referee, I'm the adventurers' biggest fan, but to the extent practicable, I let Fate and that engine decide the outcome on behalf of a game-world that only cares about the adventurers to the extent the players and their characters can make it sit up and take notice under the rules by which that world operates.

 

[prosfilaes]

You can think it's a lot different. But it isn't in any way other than aesthetically.

I don't know what that means in this context. If we think it's a lot different, and we respond to it differently, then it is different.

You made up a character and put that character someplace they weren't and only revealed the existence of that character when it was necessary to save the party - but pretended that character didn't exist if it wasn't necessary.

Which doesn't sound at all like fudging a die roll.

The moment you've had that NPC conveniently show up, you've fudged. The moment you have the monster conveniently change targets to the NPC (or even another PC), you've fudged. The moment you have that NPC conveniently armed with some kind of healing magic (or conveniently have some healing magic in the monster's treasure), you've fudged.

If you want to make up language, then go ahead. But I don't think when someone objects to something, redefining everything else to be the same solves anything.

But, again, modifying behavior is just another form of fudging.

Human, humanoid, or monster behavior is not set in stone. When Feeblemind is cast, it's down to Lady Luck what happens to the monster. When it's the monster's turn to move, it's down to the GM what the monster does.

But, yet again, you're still fudging.

Why don't you call it adjudicating? Then we can use fudging to refer to what we're talking about.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It doesn't actually seem like you do, nor that you get the idea that since it isn't adversarial, since there isn't a competition between referee/DM/GM/facilitator and other players, then it cannot be cheating.

Um, I consider any game with rules set up by the group that someone bypasses to be cheating. If I'm playing a game where we go around the group and everyone says one word and we make funny sentences, and someone says an entire sentence, we'd call that cheating. And there's no winning or losing in that.

It's a matter of what's fun. The idea that you don't think I understand the basic premise you're putting forward is pretty amusing to me.

It's that premise I find false, so we'll have to agree to disagree on the other points you tried to make.

Well, that's not my premise, but you can disagree with me if you want to, and I'm okay with that. As always, play what you like

 

[Umbran]

Um, I consider any game with rules set up by the group that someone bypasses to be cheating. If I'm playing a game where we go around the group and everyone says one word and we make funny sentences, and someone says an entire sentence, we'd call that cheating.

And that's fine, just so long as you are aware that that's an uncommon definition. In common language, cheating usually carries the meaning of breaking rules for purpose of gaining advantage, generally using deceit or trickery. Breaking the rules is not necessarily cheating.

If we had that game, where we go around the group and everyone says one word and we make funny sentences, we are using "game" to mean "structured, amusing activity". We aren't talking about scoring, or win conditions. I am fine with such a use of "game".

If in that game, I speak a whole sentence, I have broken the rules. But, getting up to get a ham sandwich isn't in the rules either, and doing that wouldn't be "cheating", would it? Saying that full sentence is against the rules, but maybe doing so at just the right time, in just the right way, would be really funny.

Games are not the only place we see rules. There are rules, both explicitly stated and implied or common understanding, to other things - art, literature, social decorum, and so forth. But, sometimes the author or artist breaks the rules specifically for effect. The playwright who pointedly doesn't use a gun he places on stage in Act 1, the poet who deviates from the rhyme or meter scheme she starts a work with, the diplomat who under-dresses just *slightly* for a formal event to make a point, and so on.*

Just as "game" has multiple meanings, so does "rule". "Rule" can be "law, which must be punished if broken" or "generally accepted practice, perhaps with good reason, that should be deviated from only carefully". And we ought to be careful when we are sliding from one to the other of those definitions.

Now, someone will say that if the GM can break the rules, so can the player! Why don't you allow the player to break the same rules?

My answer is that they could, but it would be less wise. The GM and player have different roles in the activity. They follow different meta-rules for good play, and therefore have different rules they can break for best effect.


*the forum poster, breaking the rules of grammar with a sentence fragment

 

[Mercurius]

The real question is, what is worse: finding out your DM fudges rolls or your wife fakes orgasms?

 

[JamesonCourage]

And that's fine, just so long as you are aware that that's an uncommon definition.In common language, cheating usually carries the meaning of breaking rules for purpose of gaining advantage, generally using deceit or trickery. Breaking the rules is not necessarily cheating.

It probably is in some circles. According to a couple sites, the definition can mean either breaking rules, or breaking rules for an advantage:

cheat
v. cheat·ed, cheat·ing, cheats
2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game

Definition of CHEAT
transitive verb
1
a : to practice fraud or trickery
b : to violate rules dishonestly

I feel that my definition has more than met the above sentiments, and that it's common enough in my circles. I can't speak to the world at large, but I can agree that it is often used with the implication of doing so to gain an advantage. However, I've also seen people "cheat" to help someone else win or the like (like letting a very small child break rules in a game), and other players being upset (like other slightly older children with a better grasp of the game). That's extremely similar to "fudging" within this discussion, in my mind.

If we had that game, where we go around the group and everyone says one word and we make funny sentences, we are using "game" to mean "structured, amusing activity". We aren't talking about scoring, or win conditions. I am fine with such a use of "game".

If in that game, I speak a whole sentence, I have broken the rules. But, getting up to get a ham sandwich isn't in the rules either, and doing that wouldn't be "cheating", would it? Saying that full sentence is against the rules, but maybe doing so at just the right time, in just the right way, would be really funny.

It might be funny, but it might rub certain groups the wrong way, no? Like if someone makes a funny comment that pulls people out of immersion or distracts them from their turn? I mean, yeah, I laughed, but that doesn't mean I'd rather it didn't happen.

Laughing is one type of engaging enjoyment. I do it a lot. I like it in my RPG time, too. However, I expect other forms of enjoyment, and would in the one-word game, like flexing creativity and improvisation. It's an amusing mental exercise. Breaking the rules would certainly be excusable sometimes to me, but if it happened often or wasn't pretty darn funny, it'd probably grate on me a little.

Games are not the only place we see rules. There are rules, both explicitly stated and implied or common understanding, to other things - art, literature, social decorum, and so forth. But, sometimes the author or artist breaks the rules specifically for effect. The playwright who pointedly doesn't use a gun he places on stage in Act 1, the poet who deviates from the rhyme or meter scheme she starts a work with, the diplomat who under-dresses just *slightly* for a formal event to make a point, and so on.*

Right. So, not in the context of game, I agree.

Just as "game" has multiple meanings, so does "rule". "Rule" can be "law, which must be punished if broken" or "generally accepted practice, perhaps with good reason, that should be deviated from only carefully". And we ought to be careful when we are sliding from one to the other of those definitions.

I totally agree. Which is why I was saying for certain groups, this is a problem. When Mark CMG stated that the GM can never cheat, I disagreed because it's only true some of the time.

Now, someone will say that if the GM can break the rules, so can the player! Why don't you allow the player to break the same rules?

My answer is that they could, but it would be less wise. The GM and player have different roles in the activity. They follow different meta-rules for good play, and therefore have different rules they can break for best effect.

I agree with this, too. If it is to be done, I'd prefer this approach to it.

*the forum poster, breaking the rules of grammar with a sentence fragment

I don't even notice it unless it's really bad. I don't care too much about grammar when I post, either. I've always liked your style, Umbran. Thanks for the discussion. As always, play what you like

 

[Halivar]

It probably is in some circles. According to a couple sites, the definition can mean either breaking rules, or breaking rules for an advantage:

Originally Posted by thefreedictionary.com
cheat
v. cheat·ed, cheat·ing, cheats
2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game

Am I still cheating if I'm the one who decides what the rules are? That's part of the social contract at my table: what I say goes. In all things. I am not bound by any constraints placed on me by the players. Other DM's in my group are treated likewise.