D&D 5E Do you want your DM to fudge?

Interesting how close the figures are to the other poll. I suspect they'd be identical if players knew all the boredom and stupidity they'd been fudged out of!

Ruin Explorer said:

Interesting how close the figures are to the other poll. I suspect they'd be identical if players knew all the boredom and stupidity they'd been fudged out of!

Click to expand...

...or if DMs knew how entertaining the things they've avoided with fudging can be.

AaronOfBarbaria said:

...or if DMs knew how entertaining the things they've avoided with fudging can be.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure most DMs have a better idea on this than players do vice-versa, as they're in possession of a great deal more information. I've run fairly regular fudging and zero fudging myself - some games cope really well with the latter, I note.

Ruin Explorer said:

Pretty sure most DMs have a better idea on this than players do vice-versa...

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that statement makes me not want to be associated with the term "DM".

Zak S said:

Regardless of intent-the instrument of the "crime" was the story.

You PRIORITIZED having a certain thing happen in the STORY over other considerations. Why you did that is not important.

Much as a driver might prioritize driving fast over safety and yet argue that they didn't prioritize driving fast they prioritized the pizza just getting out of the oven when they got home. Well: the difference is academic--the driving
fast was the instrument of the pizza being warm.

"But officer I had no consideration of how fast I was going. Only WARM PIZZA!"
Sure, but the cop would totally be legit in saying you prioritized speed over safety even if
you "don't care about speed" for its own sake. Speed was the way to warm pizza so you
focused on it. In your example. A story event not happening was the way to get the reaction
you wanted so you fudged to ensure it.

You seem to be kicking against this for unknown reasons. It's not like prioritizing having a story thing
happen over challenge makes you a mass murderer or even a bad GM.

Click to expand...

Zak S said:

I am asserting you fudged because:
-a certain thing occurring or not occurring in the story (in this case: TPK from side of the road ogres)
was more important to you than
-the advantages of never fudging (ie not risking a threat to the feeling of challenge).

Click to expand...

I thought I was pretty clear why I have a problem with your statement. I find it offensive for somebody to presume to tell me why I do what I do.

First and foremost, the problem I have is in the statement you have above:

You're statement is that 'x' was more important to you than 'y.' In addition you specifically say "I am asserting you fudged because"

The "more important to you" and "you fudged because" are declarations of intent. You are presuming to declare why I, or somebody else, is doing what they are doing. In that you are wrong. I gave you a very specific and clear example as to why I did something that had nothing to do with the story. I didn't care what the impact was to the story or the challenge. And yet you continue to say "you fudged because."

You don't have the right to declare why somebody else did something. What, how, what the impact was, etc. That's fine. Not the why.

In the game situation: The DM fudges to protect the character from dying is very different the the DM that fudges to kill a character. The intent is important.

My intent in a metagame situation may have had no practical difference than if I had fudged to ensure the character was still alive for the next encounter because they are crucial to the next challenge. But the intent is still different. You stated that fudging "100% prioritizes the story over the challenge" and it does no such thing.

You are correct that the act of fudging has an impact on the story, and/or challenge. I, and several others have agreed with you on this point.

It doesn't always prioritize story over challenge, particularly if the DM in question fudges in favor of the monsters by adding to the to-hit roll, increasing hit points, etc.

You have said several times that it 100% does 'x'. This is also wrong, it is not 100%. It's not 100% of the reason that a DM might fudge, nor is the result 100% the same, because it depends on what the DM did.

In the same example, the DM's could just as easily be prioritizing the challenge and/or risk over the story. Maybe they realized the encounter was too easy, or maybe it was too hard, so they fudged. It impacts the story, but in that case they were prioritizing the challenge, and the intent, the why was that they were more concerned about the challenge than the story.

--

As to the second point, I should have asked "Is that bad? Is that good? Does it really matter?"

Because I still don't get the point of you continuing to tell people the same thing that we've already agreed to.

"Fudging potentially alters the story, challenge and/or risk." I don't think anybody disagrees with this. Point made.

But so what? Why do we care? What is the point that you are trying to make? If it's just that it always prioritizes one over the other, then that's incorrect. If it's something else, what is it?

Maybe you're trying to say that it impacts the perception of challenge in the players? It might. Not 100%. It's never impacted my perception of challenge. It doesn't seem to have impacted the perception of challenge for anybody I've played with that I can think of, although I really can't answer for anybody except myself.

My extended response in the last post is due in part to the fact that there are others involved in the thread, and some of those have implicitly said fudging is 'bad' or at the very least that they refuse to play in a game where the DM is willing to fudge. As a result, I was using our discussion to tie into the greater discussion and ask, is that a bad thing? In the future, I will separate responses directly to you from questions posed to the group as a whole to avoid further confusion.

Ilbranteloth said:

"...and that those people might not prefer it because they like more challenge is an entirely reasonable explanation for why"

To which I'd add, there are other possible reasons as well;

And your statement that this is fact:
"-that if players become aware the GM fudges they feel less challenged"

You may feel less challenged, others might feel less challenged, but not all will feel less challenged, therefore it is not a fact. I would be OK with 'it is a fact that some players may feel less challenged if they become aware that the GM fudges. Some may object on account of a perceived fairness or unfairness, often expressed as favoritism, for example.

Click to expand...

I've just a moment for some brief commentary. The discussion of play priorities that [MENTION=90370]Zak S[/MENTION] has been attempting to frame the conversation around is the right one. However, I'm going to break down "challenge-based-play" a bit more and how it interfaces with rules and suspension of rules or mis-adjudication.

The National Football League has lots and lots and lots of rules. They have grown increasingly subjective over the course of the last several years. This increasing subjectivity, and the inconsistent/bad (game-changing or deciding) calls that have stemmed from it, has absolutely impacted the competitive integrity of the game. That is a key phrase. This impacts the behavior of gamblers, of folks who watch the games, and definitely on its participants.

The evolving rules construct of the NFL has taken place due to the competing priorities of (a) the competitive integrity of the game, (b) the want for an increased market share in viewership (revenue), and (c) player safety (which is basically a proxy for CYA for league executives).

Both (b) and (c) have absolutely been prioritized over (a), even if not admittedly so. The locus of control of the outcome of the product on the field has shifted from players/coaches to refereeing due to the deep, deep subjectivity embedded in so many rules changes. In some cases it is subtle and the noise is indistinguishable (but still there) from the signal of the play on the field. In other cases, it is egregious. Then there is a broad swath of in-between.

Regardless, the competitive integrity of the game has been altered and the locus of control of play outcomes has shifted. Players, gamblers, viewership, and definitely officials feel the weight of it. Because it is very real.

RPG players prioritizing a particular play-paradigm (challenge-based) whereby the needle that gauges "the competitive integrity of the game" and "the locus of control of play outcomes" is pointed here, will notice and feel the weight of it when that needle points elsewhere (even if subtly so).

Maxperson said:

Considering that you have him stating that he fudges solely based on his grandma, it cannot be because something occurred or did no occur in the story. Something happening in the story can be the trigger, but it can only be because of grandma. Grandma was the sole cause of the change. Story was merely the trigger.



Again, the cause was grandma, challenge was not even a consideration.


Maybe this will help you understand what is being done.

When I pass a homeless person I do not give that homeless person money, but it's challenging to resist giving some. (leaving the challenge and story the same). Now let's say I pass a homeless man who reminds me of my departed father and because he reminds me of my father, I give him $5 (changing both challenge and story).

The cause of the change there is my father (even though both challenge and story were altered, neither one was the cause).

Click to expand...

This is the

"But officer I had no consideration of how fast I was going. Only WARM PIZZA!"

argument, which you failed to address.

The officer would still be correct in saying "you prioritized speed over safety" even if the ultimate reason for speeding was you wanted pizza fresh out of the oven rather than a concern for speed as such or safety as such.

Ilbranteloth said:

I thought I was pretty clear why I have a problem with your statement. I find it offensive for somebody to presume to tell me why I do what I do.

First and foremost, the problem I have is in the statement you have above:

Your statement is that 'x' was more important to you than 'y.' In addition you specifically say "I am asserting you fudged because"

The "more important to you" and "you fudged because" are declarations of intent. You are presuming to declare why I, or somebody else, is doing what they are doing. In that you are wrong. I gave you a very specific and clear example as to why I did something that had nothing to do with the story. I didn't care what the impact was to the story or the challenge. And yet you continue to say "you fudged because."

You don't have the right to declare why somebody else did something. What, how, what the impact was, etc. That's fine. Not the why.

In the game situation: The DM fudges to protect the character from dying is very different the the DM that fudges to kill a character. The intent is important.

My intent in a metagame situation may have had no practical difference than if I had fudged to ensure the character was still alive for the next encounter because they are crucial to the next challenge. But the intent is still different. You stated that fudging "100% prioritizes the story over the challenge" and it does no such thing.

You are correct that the act of fudging has an impact on the story, and/or challenge. I, and several others have agreed with you on this point.

It doesn't always prioritize story over challenge, particularly if the DM in question fudges in favor of the monsters by adding to the to-hit roll, increasing hit points, etc.

You have said several times that it 100% does 'x'. This is also wrong, it is not 100%. It's not 100% of the reason that a DM might fudge, nor is the result 100% the same, because it depends on what the DM did.

In the same example, the DM's could just as easily be prioritizing the challenge and/or risk over the story. Maybe they realized the encounter was too easy, or maybe it was too hard, so they fudged. It impacts the story, but in that case they were prioritizing the challenge, and the intent, the why was that they were more concerned about the challenge than the story.

--

As to the second point, I should have asked "Is that bad? Is that good? Does it really matter?"

Because I still don't get the point of you continuing to tell people the same thing that we've already agreed to.

"Fudging potentially alters the story, challenge and/or risk." I don't think anybody disagrees with this. Point made.

But so what? Why do we care? What is the point that you are trying to make? If it's just that it always prioritizes one over the other, then that's incorrect. If it's something else, what is it?

Maybe you're trying to say that it impacts the perception of challenge in the players? It might. Not 100%. It's never impacted my perception of challenge. It doesn't seem to have impacted the perception of challenge for anybody I've played with that I can think of, although I really can't answer for anybody except myself.

My extended response in the last post is due in part to the fact that there are others involved in the thread, and some of those have implicitly said fudging is 'bad' or at the very least that they refuse to play in a game where the DM is willing to fudge. As a result, I was using our discussion to tie into the greater discussion and ask, is that a bad thing? In the future, I will separate responses directly to you from questions posed to the group as a whole to avoid further confusion.

Click to expand...

"Officer I thought I was pretty clear why I have a problem with your statement. I find it offensive for somebody to presume to tell me why I was speeding.

"First and foremost, the problem I have is in the statement you have above:

"Your statement is that 'speed' was more important to you than 'safety.' In addition you specifically say "I am asserting you were speeding because"

"The "more important to you" and "you sped because" are declarations of intent. You are presuming to declare why I, or somebody else, is doing what they are doing. In that you are wrong. I gave you a very specific and clear example as to why I did something that had nothing to do with the speed of my car. I didn't care what the speed of my car was or about safety. And yet you continue to say "you were speeding because." (I already told you: I was speeding because I wanted pizza right out of the oven, not because I had more concern for velocity than safety!)

"You don't have the right to declare why somebody else did something. What, how, what the impact was, etc. That's fine. Not the why.


...But the intent is still different. You stated that speeding "100% prioritizes going fast over safety" and it does no such thing.

Do you see why this argument makes no sense yet?

Even FUDGING TO MAKE AN ENCOUNTER HARDER reduces challenge because challenge isn't just "difficulty" it's the FEELING THE PLAYER HAS THAT THEIR ACTIONS AND CALCULATIONS ARE MASSIVELY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEY AFFECT THE OUTCOME. This is reduced whenever you fudge.
--

Because I still don't get the point of you continuing to tell people the same thing that we've already agreed to.

Click to expand...

Then ask.

You claim you did not prioritize "a story event happening over challenge" when clearly, 100% totally you, like all fudgers ever, did.

The fact that you were invested in that story event (survival) FOR SOME OTHER ULTIMATE REASON is not relevant here.

Maybe you're trying to say that it impacts the perception of challenge in the players? It might. Not 100%. It's never impacted my perception of challenge. It doesn't seem to have impacted the perception of challenge for anybody I've played with that I can think of, although I really can't answer for anybody except myself.

Click to expand...

I already stated--the player would have to be aware of what fudging is and does. If you are exactly as worried about how to play knowing the GM will just push toward a given result as you would be knowing they won't then you are not taking what fudging does into account. Unlike a challenge prioritizing player.

AaronOfBarbaria said:

I'm pretty sure that statement makes me not want to be associated with the term "DM".

Click to expand...

So you think DMs know less about what's going on with the RPG they're running than players? Curious.

Ruin Explorer said:

So you think DMs know less about what's going on with the RPG they're running than players? Curious.

Click to expand...

You missed the point of what Aaron was saying. It's not about what DM's know vs what players know during play. It's that your statement puts the DM on a pedestal. That they know better than their players what constitutes entertainment for everyone at the table, one person deciding what is best for 5 others for example, without asking for input or discussion. Which IMO is what fudging is really about.

@AaronOfBarbaria

Correct me if I'm wrong