Do you "save" the PCs?

[pawsplay]

Why? The entire point of fudging is to cover a weakness in design or implementation. That's what it's FOR. That's it's quintessential function. So, who is saying that they have purposes other than that?

"If your'e really a good DM, you won't fudge." That's the implication of your argument: if you didn't have this weakness, you wouldn't find the need to fudge. That's insulting.

I think sometimes it is worth considering whether you are disagreeing with someone or you simply do not like how they put it. I think RC tends to be put his foot in his mouth from time to time, but I don't think he is saying anything he considers unfair or untrue in its essence.

 

[Fifth Element]

1. Fudging dice: Mostly ok, mostly not ok?

Mostly not okay to me, in the sense that you should do it rarely, if you do it at all.

2. Killing all the PCs: How much does the GM intervene and when and how?

It depends on so many things a general rule cannot be established. But since as DM I am expected to provide a fun adventure for the players, I'm comfortable using my discretion in this regard as well.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think sometimes it is worth considering whether you are disagreeing with someone or you simply do not like how they put it. I think RC tends to be put his foot in his mouth from time to time, but I don't think he is saying anything he considers unfair or untrue in its essence.

Very much so. He's not helping his case by being so dismissive and insulting. But on the other hand, I find his reasoning for why he recommends that no one fudge to be very weak. He has no response to those who say "DMs who find their games improve with fudging should not be advised to not fudge." He simply assumes that no such DMs exist (that those who say that are merely deluding themselves), despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It seems like your playstyle would indicate that, at this point, I should have the cave system mapped out so that I know where the entrance to the Temple is.
To me, that seems pointless. None of the characters know the temple exists, let alone where it is, so they cannot choose to go there. So why go to the extra effort of planning out the Temple's location before they enter the Dungeons?

Kingreaper, I try to assume that, even when players (and characters) do not have information, it is potentially knowable. Moreover, I tend to believe that making player choices meaningful is one of the most important responsibilities that a GM has. Therefore, while I agree that in reality players do make decisions with limited information, IMHO and IME it hurts immersion for the players to believe that some types of information (what is, as opposed to what might be) exists in a state of quantum flux until investigated.

I don't believe that players need complete information for their choices to be meaningful. IMHO, "I explore Hex 812" is a meaningful choice, even if Hex 812 is empty bogland. It is meaningful because it is motivated by player interest, and an engagement in the campaign world.

OTOH, this sort of manipulation of setting isn't fudging, IMHO, in the same way that rolling the dice and changing the result is. It takes the "wandering lairs" idea I mentioned upthread farther than I like, but I would accept that this is largely preferential.

RavenCrowking has gone on at length now that anyone who believes that fudging improves his or her game is flat out wrong. They are misguided and don't actually know what is good for their game.

No; Raven Crowking has gone on at length now that anyone who believes fudging improves his or her game is very, very likely to be wrong. Raven Crowking accepts that there is a vanishingly small percentage of Game Masters to whom this does not apply, because their particular strengths and weaknesses are very different from the norm.

Raven Crowking's experience suggests that this is overwhelmingly true. In fact, Raven Crowking has no experience of a case where it is not true.

Raven Crowking further claims that fudging is dishonest by definition. Raven Crowking has said that he has no problems with game systems wherein the results of the dice can be overruled without resorting to dishonesty.

Raven Crowking claims that this is a crucial difference.

Raven Crowking hasn't made any claims of ultimate superiority, only a claim of practical superiority, as pawsplay so aptly noted.

It's unbelievably arrogant to presume that you know other people's games better than they do.

Everyone who has ever given advice, on any topic, when asked, has presumed that their advice is of some value. It is not unbelievably arrogant to profer advice, or to state one's beliefs. It is unbelievably arrogant to demand that others accept your beliefs as "valid" or "true".

No one has to accept that what I say is correct. Do you demand that I accept fudging is valid? If so, why?

Although, I do find it uproariously funny to see you trying to minimize the effect of a Gygax quote that you don't agree with, when, in any other circumstance, you'd be pronouncing it from the rooftops as the one true way of playing.

If you can find one place where I pronounce anything Gygax wrote "as the one true way of playing" you win the thread. I won't even mandate that it be "from the rooftops".

Gygax is an authority on what Gygax intended, and he was a brilliant designer with a wide range of general knowledge. He described himself as a mediocre GM.

And, given a strong counter-argument, I will change my mind and accept I am wrong. "I am offended by your opinion" is not a strong counter-argument, however. It is, AFAICT, no counter-argument at all.

Again, perhaps it would help if we were able to discuss an example of fudging that is not intended to cover a weakness in design or implementation, or to promote the outcome the GM desires? Frankly, I cannot think of one. But I keep hearing that they exist, so that direction might be fruitful for discussion?

Surely, if there is a strong counter-argument, it comes from this direction?

Can anyone give me one such example?


RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

"Don't do this," is a different kind of idea than, "You are bad and wrong."

It's fine to say:

This wouldn't work for me.
This wouldn't work for me and the people I game with.
Imo, this wouldn't work for most game groups. (Note that you now need the 'imo' because you're going outside what you could reasonably be expected to know about.)

Normally it would be okay to say:
I think your game would be improved if you didn't fudge.

But in this thread I would say that that is not okay, because those GMs who fudge are our peers, they have thought about the issue deeply and they have discussed it at length. At that point, to say that you know, or even think you know, what is best for another fellow's game is going too far.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't understand. How are HeroQuest, The Dying Earth, The Burning Wheel, My Life With Master, etc, etc, etc , not games? What is the special criterion for "gamehood" such that only RPGs where the goal of play is to keep the PCs alive are games? Presumably, by this criterion, even most superhero games, or many Traveller and Runequest games, would not be games.

I really don't understand.

Dying is only one possible fate for a D&D character. This fate represents the ultimate state of loss.
I am unfamiliar with the other games so I don't know what the equivalent may be for them.

I suppose one could play a game in which the PC's were all immortal beings and death
was completely a meaningless and unimportant issue. The conflicts and struggles in this game
would involve other issues rather than combat. Perhaps the goals of the players would be to
bring about a particular outcome against forces attempting to prevent that outcome. The mechanics
combined with player choices would determine if the desired outcome actually happened, the opposing forces
won a complete victory, or something in between.
This could be a very viable game with no death taking place at all.

Death is just a basic part of D&D.
It does not have to be true for every game. All that is needed is a chance to succeed, a chance to fail, and for
the ultimate outcome to be unknown to the participants.

 

[Fifth Element]

No; Raven Crowking has gone on at length now that anyone who believes fudging improves his or her game is very, very likely to be wrong. Raven Crowking accepts that there is a vanishingly small percentage of Game Masters to whom this does not apply, because their particular strengths and weaknesses are very different from the norm.

Raven Crowking is playing semantic games. "I'm not saying no one should fudge! I'm saying that there is such a small number of people for whom it is right that it may as well be zero!"

Raven Crowking's experience suggests that this is overwhelmingly true. In fact, Raven Crowking has no experience of a case where it is not true.

No direct personal experience perhaps (though perhaps you're just deluding yourself about that?) But you have had the experience of a variety of experienced gamers explaining it to you in this thread.

Everyone who has ever given advice, on any topic, when asked, has presumed that their advice is of some value. It is not unbelievably arrogant to profer advice, or to state one's beliefs.

But it is to continue to proffer the same advice when those you are advising have flat-out told you that your assumptions are plainly wrong. Especially when you then tell them, "no my assumptions are right" when you have no evidence of that.

 

[Fifth Element]

But in this thread I would say that that is not okay, because those GMs who fudge are our peers, they have thought about the issue deeply and they have discussed it at length. At that point, to say that you know, or even think you know, what is best for another fellow's game is going too far.

Well spoken. Certainly, this thread has made me think about fudging in my game more than I ever have. And I am more certain now than I was when the thread started that it is right for me and my group.

 

[Raven Crowking]

He has no response to those who say "DMs who find their games improve with fudging should not be advised to not fudge."

Actually, he does. He specifically addresses this upthread, in response to Umbran's mention of Piratecat.

But herein I will expand:

DMs who find their games improve with fudging should consider why their games are improving.

Is it because they didn't do sufficient prep work? Is it because they have a particular outcome in mind, that the dice indicated would be damaged? Is it because they didn't understand the rules adequately to design the challenge they thought they were designing? Is it because the players fail to understand the rules well enough to meet those challenges? Is it because
the players fail to understand tactics? Is it because they don't want to let a PC die, or have a TPK?

Or is there an example of fudging that is not intended to cover a weakness in design or implementation, or to promote the outcome the GM desires? What have I missed?

The next thing that I would advise the GM to do is to try to come up with a method of dealing with the weakness that doesn't involve dishonesty on his part.

Can he shore up insufficient prep work? Can he allow his particular outcome to not come to fruition (i.e., give players greater agency)? Can he take more care with the rules? Can he devise encounters to train the players in rules or tactics, or create easier challenges?

Perhaps he should institute a house rule that limits PC death, or use something akin to Action Points to allow the players to determine when and where changing an outcome is warranted?

But, let us say, for one reason or another the GM is unable to tell why he finds fudging improves his game, or is unable to implement any other means of resolving whatever fudging cures.

Should he then fudge?

Yes.

But, he should also be honest about it. In fact, I would advise the prospective GM to let his players give him a number of tokens, each of which must be "spent" to fudge the dice. I would then advise the GM to roll his dice in the open, and only fudge when willing to spend a token.

This would do two things: (1) puts the players in the driver's seat as to how much fudging goes on, and (2) maintains tension because the players can see that the token pool is decreasing. If the players feel like it, they can always add tokens back into the pool.

Eliminate the dishonest and it's all good, IMHO.

He simply assumes that no such DMs exist (that those who say that are merely deluding themselves), despite evidence to the contrary.

No. He assumes it is a vanishingly small set, because his experience tells him it is so.

Or, put it this way. Which is larger set, in your experience:

(1) Great DMs, or

(2) Mediocre DMs who think they're great?

So, if I tell you something really works, which flies in the face of your experience, which set does that suggest I might belong to? Note that this does not mean that I do belong to that set, I am just asking how big of a grain of salt will you take my advice with?

Because, were I you, and were my experiences as you say yours are, I would be taking anything I said with a really, really big grain of salt.

Also, what evidence to the contrary?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think RC tends to be put his foot in his mouth from time to time

Luckily, I can breath through my nose!