Are you a fudging fudger?

[Umbran]

On the other hand, I can't help but feel the boogeyman comment was a jab in some way. I'm left feeling both baffled and slightly offended.

Not a jab at you, but at the argument. No personal offense was intended.

Having a rule against fudging will not keep DM caprice away. Nor does having fudging create caprice. If caprice exists, it will be expressed no matter how many behavioral rules you have in place. By definition, caprice ignores rules!

Thus, the whole thing is a fiction, used to scare people into behaving a particular way - that's a boogeyman.

 

[Barastrondo]

I tend to generalize these principles to, "If the system doesn't produce interesting results, don't play it in the first place."

Slight qualifier there: I think "If a system consistently doesn't produce interesting results, don't play it in the first place" is good advice. "If a system occasionally doesn't produce interesting results, don't play it in the first place" is crummy advice. Much better to say "If a system occasionally doesn't produce interesting results, tweak and bend that sucker to something that works better for your group."

I love RPGs, but I love them while seeing them for the imperfect beasts that they are. It's perfectly commendable to find satisfaction and delight in adhering to each of a given system's little quirks and oversights, but even a tried-and-true Julia Child recipe can stand up to some seasoning to taste.

 

[Ariosto]

no DM can account for a run of dice like they saw and still keep the game challenging most other times.

How about if one recognizes and acknowledges that there is no guarantee as to when and where a "jackpot" roll comes up? If I want something not to happen here and now, then I do not roll to see whether it does.

Thus, I have no worries about a sudden rain of fish, falling 1973 Oldsmobile, or Carmen Miranda song-and-dance number irrupting due to a random toss of dice.

 

[Ariosto]

Having a rule against fudging will not keep DM caprice away.

You are quite correct about the bogeyman -- and it is curious that the same one was raised as argument in favor of the heavily mechanical "rules, not rulings" philosophy.

Stating a rule does not prevent cheating, but it does make clear what the rule is.

 

[The Shaman]

The topic is about fudging dice, not so much about encounter design. Yes, they can run parallel, but no DM can account for a run of dice like they saw and still keep the game challenging most other times.

Really? "No DM" can plan for bad rolls?

Fudging and encounter design don't simply run parallel to one another; the former is often a consequence of the latter. Look at all the examples of fudging presented here: adventurers overmatched by an opponent, adventurers missing a clue, players with a bad run of rolls.

The consistent argument is that fudging keeps the game fun, but what is it that's making the game fun in these examples? It's the players and their characters succeeding where they would otherwise fail. And why are the adventurers faced with failure? Encounter design appears over and over again. The adventure designer or referee didn't understand the monsters' abilities, or put in too many opponents, or made the clue that advances the adventure too hard to find. Failure is un-fun, so it must be done away with on a case-by-case basis.

Is fudging really the best way, or the only way, to solve these problems?

The other reason oft-cited for fudging is system failure. The challenge ratings are wrong, critical hits are too poweful, the exploding dice mechanic is mathematically wonky, et cetera. Barastrondo argues that no system is perfect and a steady hand on the wheel is a good way to steer around those design potholes.

But here's something I noticed over the years: the more complex the rules, the more moving parts, the more likely system failure will impinge itself on the game. So this is a choice as well.

My personal preferences are choosing a simple, robust system and adopting a social contract which says the results of the game are the results of the game.

As an aside, I find it ironic that some gamers complain about systems to rely on "GM fiat" or "handwaving," but in my personal experience more than a few of those same gamers want their referees to fudge "when it's appropriate."

In for a penny, in for a pound, I say.

 

[Barastrondo]

But here's something I noticed over the years: the more complex the rules, the more moving parts, the more likely system failure will impinge itself on the game. So this is a choice as well.

Absolutely. But sometimes it's the right choice. My wife made a remarkable statement after having played 4e for a bit of time: "You know, this is the first edition of D&D that I don't mind playing one-shots in." Ordinarily, her level of investment in a D&D game was solely tied to the amount of interest she'd invested in a character or a part of the setting over a long period of time. Now she was interested in the moving parts — the forced movement, the healing surges, the power choices, the role-specific tricks. Previously the mechanics were something she often tolerated in order to spend more time with a character; now they were interesting in their own right, and she also got to keep spending time with characters. It's still not a perfect system (oh, magic items as economy, I see you haven't slunk away yet), but it's doing something seriously right where she's concerned. Another longtime friend's the same way, and is delightedly planning the conversion of an old bard.

Is fudging the best or only way to fix the problems that might come up when we tangle with something unexpected with this ruleset? Maybe not. But it suffices, and options like "find another ruleset" are considerably worse for our purposes. It doesn't even come up that often; I've certainly spent more time answering questions and making clarifications about my game in this thread today than I've spent "fudging" over the last year.

 

[Ariosto]

Yes, the issue of time investment depends greatly on one's value priorities. If the GM steering things is something you're implementing in other ways, really as a fundamental assumption, then an occasional "fudge" is trivial.

On the other hand, if alea iacta est is an essential principle, then it can be worthwhile to adjust either rules or expectations so that they are in harmony. The old "Murphy's Rules" cartoon never let context get in the way of a punchline -- but it also pointed up a lot of real gremlins that could get fixed so that "a stitch in time saves nine".

 

[aboyd]

I fudge all the time. I assume my job as DM is basically to sit with players and lie to them until they are giddy from the fun of it all. Got a waiting list a mile long. Not taking new applications.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Thus far, selection bias and other statistical invalidators aside, it's interesting. Most especially, to me:

67% of GMs fudge, but 60% of players say they'd prefer no fudging.

 

[catsclaw227]

Is fudging the best or only way to fix the problems that might come up when we tangle with something unexpected with this ruleset? Maybe not. But it suffices, and options like "find another ruleset" are considerably worse for our purposes. It doesn't even come up that often; I've certainly spent more time answering questions and making clarifications about my game in this thread today than I've spent "fudging" over the last year.

This is how I feel as well.

The number of times I have fudged dice in the past year can be counted on one hand.

I don't need to seek out another system just because I fudged some dice once in a while. And my players are totally fine with my judgment on these things. We LIKE playing our edition...

It just seems that there are a few internet personalities that don't like the fact that some people can have fun with their game system and might, on rare occasion, fudge the dice.