Will you accept fudging?

[Reynard]

Script? When we game the players write thier own "scripts" as the game progresses and they react to the outcomes of encounters which are determined by dice rolls for the most part, or the players problem solving abilities in non-combat encounters. Of course I'm of the opinion that the only story is when the players relate thier adventures to each other after sessions or later down the line. I don't set up a metaplot or anything like that for the most part.

I agree, though I will say that dice rolls are only part of it. Player/character decisions, strategies and tactics are all powerful influences on the final "story".

The key to not fudging, I think, is not requiring rolls for stupid stuff and when you do require rolls, make sure you have a plan for what happens when the roll fails. Hinging an entire adventure on a single die roll -- a successful Search for a secret door, for example -- is bad adventure design and invites fudging.

Once combat begins though, rolls should stand. If luck goes against the PCs -- or the BBEG NPC, even -- it might just be time to retreat and regroup. Unfortunately, "retreat and regroup" often means "lose" in the minds of both players and GMs, and no one likes to lose.

Oh, and for the love of Pete, if you *are* going to fudge, do so equitably. Don't use Character X as an example of how badass the BBEG is and then let Character Y slide.

 

[eyebeams]

I like fudging when it keeps the game running along a good general narrative, but not so much that it saves me from my own stupidity or risks at climatic moments. In fact, in dramatic moments I like no fudging at all. When I GM/DM I like to put the dice on the table and roll them in the open to let everyone know I'm serious.

 

[Umbran]

What functional difference is there in rolling in the open but keeping the target numbers secret (and therefore susceptible to 'fudging') and hidden rolling (and therefore susceptible to 'fudging') and having the target numbers known?

The basic difference is simple - In the former case they see the practice, in the latter they only see the theory.

If the die rolls are visible, the players gain information about the target numbers. But typically the reverse is not true. So, if you roll in the open, they can eventually divine if something they don't understand is going on - if a 14 hits in one round, but a 15 fails in the next round, they'll guess something is up.

 

[Ranger REG]

Can't disagree more. The dice tell the story ultimately, so they can't conflict with said "story". We are playing a game, not writing a novel. Will the PC be the hero of the realm or another noble soul that fell victim to the BBEG? We find out by how the dice roll.

I roll in the open for the most part so fudging isn't really an option in terms of dice.

Well, it's one thing to play a game, it's quite another if the random dice takes you places even you -- the DM -- are not prepared to go. Which is hard enough for anyone taking on the DM duty as it is, and makes it even harder for anyone wanting that duty, even though they are necessary to run the game, as sanitation workers are necessary to keep our toilets flowing.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Well, it's one thing to play a game, it's quite another if the random dice takes you places even you -- the DM -- are not prepared to go.

That's when I'm having the most fun.

The PCs one shot the BBEG who was supposed to give his speech then flee.
The PCs convince an NPC to help them who was supposed to be antagnonistic.
The PCs bluff their way into the mansion they were supposed to never enter.

Stuff like that is great fun, and the unpredictable nature of the game is why I play.

 

[Davek]

The basic difference is simple - In the former case they see the practice, in the latter they only see the theory.

If the die rolls are visible, the players gain information about the target numbers. But typically the reverse is not true. So, if you roll in the open, they can eventually divine if something they don't understand is going on - if a 14 hits in one round, but a 15 fails in the next round, they'll guess something is up.

Like if a buff spell/potion has expired/come into effect without them noticing visually or by other means. The point is that if the DM wants to fudge the encounter, given sufficient knowledge of the system the target values can be manipulated as well.

All I am concerned with is that my experience of the game is positive. I do not have a problem with fudging if ultimately it makes the experience worthwhile. This is not to say that I don't want my characters to die, but rather that when they do die, it is not merely because of a a bad dice roll. If I screw up then by all means wipe the character or even if I am heroically defending the pass against a horde of LG Paladins then the same applies. But if I have just successfully finished a major quest and am on my way back for some much needed healing, to die because of some random kobold hiding in a random location hits me with a critical that kills me, well that I would think of as a letdown.

 

[RFisher]

I'm OK with fudging. But I usually ask the DM to not make it obvious. I'd rather not know when he's fudging & when he's not.

 

[pawsplay]

Fudging tends to make me feel disgusted with a game.

 

[Fishbone]

I'm very much an outlier on this. I will not accept fudging, and if my character was saved I'll ask for the original result or go out of my way to make rash, reckless decisions that endanger him for a while in penance. If the characters couldn't die at any second its not fun.

 

[Ranger REG]

Fudging tends to make me feel disgusted with a game.

May all your RPGs, present and future, be fudged in your favor.