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

[prosfilaes]

I'm in favor of fudging, when it's needed. If my fudging of the dice keeps my players alive long enough to do something awesome, I'm all for it. I want my players to be awesome. Dying, that's not awesome.

I'll fudge the dice if needed to keep the villain alive just that bit longer to make the story better. For me, it's all about the story, the dice are just along for the ride.

I'm not necessarily against fudging, but described that way it doesn't seem very fun. Through brilliant play or terrific luck, can I drop the villain early? No? Through awful play or terrible luck, can I die? No? Then where's the game?

(And as a spellcaster, whose most likely to hit the villain with a save or die or save or suck, it is absolutely no fun if I get a whiff of the fact that the villain will automatically make his save on Feeblemind or Power Word: Kill the first round.)

Totally up to the GM, though counter to the traditional "play style" of RPGs. I'd even go so far as to say that if all of the dice are meant to be taken at face value and rolled in the open, the game is more akin to games that need no facilitator, like a boardgame or a wargame. ... However, once you adopt nontraditional ways of playing a type of game, it does become something else, or at least a hybrid.

In a world where Amber and Dread and Nobilis are RPGs, I think a different style of dice rolling is a pretty weird thing to say makes an RPG not an RPG. (Note there's no fudging in Dread; once someone has set hands on the Jenga set, the DM has no control.) The DM always has huge powers to define things without fudging dice; he defines the other side, he dictates what they do, including suboptimal attacks and all-out retreat, and can introduce new NPCs (for and against the PCs) at will. What no dice fudging says he can't do is say that the villain's meteor swarm didn't do 64 points of damage, or that the villain saved against feeblemind. I think I'd rather play a game that was less random rather then play a game that claims it's random and then lets the DM bypass the randomness in the name of story.

My current DM gives us and him mulligans, and that cuts down on the randomness without taking freedom away from the players.

 

[nedjer]

meta-fudge is an option, i.e. it's an open roll, but on key rolls players are prompted along the lines of: are there any more factors or circumstances we should take into account here? This lets the players review their options and lets you present useful information again. I.e. a metagame fudge, not an in-game fudge.

It's not unusual for this to lead to +2 to +4 on a roll that's key to the party. Maybe because there's a tendency to stick to what usually works OK - when a better combined or individual use of a party's skills and the terrain, etc . . . is waiting to be sparked.

Is that acceptable for those who plain don't like a fudge?

 

[Flatus Maximus]

If a DM fudges die rolls to make the experience best, why roll the dice at all?

If the DM will ignore a failed save to avoid a first round defeat of the BBEG, why roll the die at all? If the DM will change the damage dealt to avoid killing a PC, why roll the die at all? Etc. etc. etc.

Bullgrit

This just can't be repeated enough. It's a game. Where outcomes are determined by dice.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I tend to use 'built-in cheats' like the hero point mechanic from Mutants and Masterminds, rather than other forms of cheating. Making it codified in such a way helps it to sit better with me than more underhanded methods.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As far as I'm concerned, "fudge" is changing a result after it is partially or fully resolved under the existing ruleset and/or o table expectations. Dice rolls are the obvious place, but so is having an NPC do something blatantly out of character to save a PC. I haven't done any of that in over 20 years, and don't plan to start again. (Before that, I fudged everywhere from "barely" to "all the time".) With the kind of people I enjoy running games for, I have found this leads to better play, they like it more, and there is plenty of roleplaying. Nor, having a fairly good understanding of basic probabilities, have I had any trouble maintaining this.

That is separate from the DM making decisions and judgments, including where appropriate, metagaming decisions. I do that all the time. So I'm not taking out the 4th encounter out of 5 because the party is terribly beat up. I'm not adding an extra encounter because they had an easy time. And I'm certainly not changing a die roll to help or hinder. But I might take out or add an encounter, or modify an encounter before it starts, or any number of such things, because the pacing will work better if I do.

I suppose many won't see any difference. If the 4th encounter comes out, the party has an easier time. However, it makes a difference to me. I'm fairly certain that I'm objective about it, too, because I've taken the encounter out when the party was banged up, and I've done it when they weren't.

I don't believe that fudging goes undetected for very long by the vast majority of players, no matter how skillful. They might not recognize particular instances, but they will know if it is happening in general.

On those handful of times when the metagaming and other such resources (e.g. fate points) are insufficient to smooth out any rough edges in the rules system, we have replaced any need to fudge with retcon, based on a group discussion. Once in the last 20 years, we retconned a near TPK right out of reality, because the group wanted to continue with the characters. We explained it as a bad dream that the characters experienced, then took the campaign elsewhere. Thus, the action we had just played out affected the tone of the campaign and ultimately meant far more than me fudging the outcome to save them would have. And they chose that result, instead of me guessing. Most of the time, they prefer that results stand.

I don't fudge. But I'll let the group collectively fudge if that is their conscious and deliberate decision.

 

[Mark CMG]

In a world where Amber and Dread and Nobilis are RPGs, I think a different style of dice rolling is a pretty weird thing to say makes an RPG not an RPG.

Oh, I'm well aware that there are alternate (non-traditional) RPGs and hybrids, as I posted above. Along the same lines, if I simply called LURCH! The Zombie Chess Game Chess, it would also be inaccurate or imprecise. It's based on chess and has some similarities but it isn't the same thing. True to say, though, that some cleave closer than others and my chess example is more obvious than some others.

My current DM gives us and him mulligans, and that cuts down on the randomness without taking freedom away from the players.

That's really no different than the so-called "fudging" and, in fact, extends the allowance to the players, FWIW.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

Personally, I think in a game where the rules are a framework with which to have fun, fudging can be part of that fun, but to me, it comes down to play style of the GM and group.

In my group, we're there to sit around, BS, and have fun. Everyone rolls in the open and the current GM has openly admitted that he fudges rolls. He also will raise or lower armor class and hit points of whatever we're fighting to make the challenge more appropriate. And you know what? My group doesn't care. If two of us step in and critical or at least do serious damage, he'll just look at us and say, 'Yep. Adding a zero,' meaning he just added a 0 to the amount of hit points the enemy has. Granted, it's not usually increased by a factor of 10, but it's happened once. Usually he just doubles the hit points.

We tell this to whoever wants to join our group. We've had a couple say 'Cool' and then end up leaving for other reasons and a few say 'Sorry, that's not my bag.' We don't take it personally, because that's our play style and I know that doesn't fit everyone else's style.

 

[The Shaman]

Adding an impromptu circumstantial modifier to a die roll for mechanical or narrative reasons is within the purview of a Game Master.

Before the die roll, to better reflect the context or circumstances of the action? No problem.

After the die roll, specifically to (a)void the consequences of the die roll? No, thank you.

 

[Mark CMG]

Before the die roll, to better reflect the context or circumstances of the action? No problem.

After the die roll, specifically to (a)void the consequences of the die roll? No, thank you.

It's like an action point with insight. I've seen games where a GM will suggest a player use one of their action points, although not revealing the die roll, while strongly hinting that a single point will make the difference. There's realy no difference between that and just adjusting a roll as the GM in a game where no action points exist.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I never fudge die rolls as a DM.

If it means that a boss encounter is a cakewalk for the PCs, or that it results in a TPK, so be it. (The way I roll, the first is much more likely...)

However, I usually have a secret DM-Ex-Machina built into a combat encounter just in case things go bad. Something like a friendly NPC that the players were supposed to meet the following sessions shows up early and heals a PC or distracts the bad guy or something like that. Or, maybe the bound & gagged merchant's daughter the PCs are trying to rescue slips her bonds and trips the charging orc leader.

In case of an easy boss encounter, there is always another bad guy around the corner - behind Darth Vader was Emperor Palpatine after all. However, I never throw in extra surprise monsters if things go badly for my bad guys (no "grudge ogres" as one guy calls them.). If the players do well thanks to good rolling and/or good planning, then I let them enjoy the rewards.

I....really think I would rather have a DM who fudged rolls than brought out the deus ex machina. Can't stand that stuff and it is sure to frustrate me faster than any amount of fudging I can think of.

As to the OP - if you don't think you can overcome your problem with fudging (and the DM isn't willing to not fudge your PCs rolls - which I think is a fine compromise btw) you'd probably be better off not playing. I would make sure the group knew why you are feeling compelled to leave though.