Do you "save" the PCs?

[Hussar]

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?

Again, why? The entire reason for fudging is to smooth off the rough edges in a mistake with either design or implementation. If a problem did not exist, then there would be no reason to fudge in the first place.

I honestly can't think of a reason to fudge other than to fix an already occured issue. Isn't that the basic definition of fudging? Why would an example that runs counter to the entire purpose of the term be helpful here?

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.

How is using the authority explicitly granted to you BY THE RULES dishonest? 1e D&D EXPLICITLY grants me, as DM, the authority to do this. I'm 99% sure that 2e did as well. 3e does in the first chapter or so of the DMG.

Granted there are no specific mechanics, but the authority to do so is certainly there. So, how is using the rules dishonest?

Granted, you can dislike it. I do too. But, trying to paint it as a moral issue just clouds things for no purpose.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

That's a pretty fine distinction. Are you sure you're not being as demanding as RC in saying what is and isn't acceptable?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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!"

Not a semantics game. I accept that, in any particular case, I might be wrong. I merely argue that, in any particular case, I would need some form of rational evidence to believe that I was.

No direct personal experience perhaps (though perhaps you're just deluding yourself about that?)

Observer bias should always be considered. I can tell you my observations; it is up to you to accept or dismiss them as makes sense to you.

But you have had the experience of a variety of experienced gamers explaining it to you in this thread.

I suspect that my understanding of what "evidence" means may differ from yours.

However, I am not at all certain as to where anyone explains why fudging helps, apart from helping to patch over a more fundamental weakness....which is my starting assumption.

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. "Your assumptions are wrong" is not a strong counter-argument, unless one then demonstrates why they are wrong, and (perhaps) offers replacement assumptions.

Again, it may 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.

I know I keep saying this, but you could (one assumes) by example demonstrate my starting assumptions to be wrong quite easily.

Can anyone give me one such example?

(That, btw, would qualify as "evidence".)


RC

 

[pawsplay]

How is using the authority explicitly granted to you BY THE RULES dishonest?

If you say something that's not true, that's being dishonest, right?

1e D&D EXPLICITLY grants me, as DM, the authority to do this.

Maybe. I think the passage in question is not entirely clear on the matter, but the way I read it is as close to my position as that. That is, the GM is free to arbitrate results as he sees fit, up to and including overruling a death and turning it into a maimed injury. It doesn't actually say the GM should lie to the players.

Granted, you can dislike it. I do too. But, trying to paint it as a moral issue just clouds things for no purpose.

And what if it does not need to be painted to look like a moral issue?

Admittedly, it's a fairly unserious situation, but I personally feel that honesty really is the best policy. Every policy admits to special cases, but there you go.

 

[Fifth Element]

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?

That there is no simple answer. There is no one reason, and there is no reason that applies all of the time. As DM I am expected to provide a fun adventure for the players. Doing so is much easier if I consider the players I am DMing for, how they enjoy playing and what they like in the game. It's also easier if you adapt to changing circumstances, such as players wanting to go off in a direction they never have before. I also find it easier if you make allowances for fudging, if you feel it's appropriate based on what you read off of the players, how they're approaching the game, etc, etc.

Because you cannot plan for everything. That's what you're missing. And if something you did not, indeed could not, plan for happens and it threatens to suck the fun out of the room, a DM should consider not having that thing happen.

You seem to be arguing that everything can be solved with a little planning. I would call that argument naive.

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.

Or you could choose to use a less loaded word. This is a fantasy game of make-believe we're talking about here. "The orc hits you, take 10 points damage" is dishonest, because there is no orc. But dishonest is a terrible word to use there, because we're dealing with the imaginary.

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?

No, there's no simple answer. It's ultimately an organic process. There's no flowchart to consult that allows you to determine when to fudge. It's all about what feels right. There are no rules, and no amount of planning or consideration can cover all situations.

It's about a DM's discretion. As DM I am expected to use my discretion to provide fun adventures to the party. I see little or no difference between that and applying this discretion to specific events in-game, again with the goal to keep the fun.

And note, "fun" does not always equate to keeping the party alive. Sometimes TPKs are awesome! But sometimes they suck. The DM should consider that when he's running a game.

 

[Fifth Element]

That is, the GM is free to arbitrate results as he sees fit, up to and including overruling a death and turning it into a maimed injury. It doesn't actually say the GM should lie to the players.

That's a pretty fine distinction. The rules say the characeter dies, but the DM can use his discretion to overrule it. That's a lie, of sorts, because it's contrary to the rule that the character should be dead.

Nothing is gained, of course, by throwing around loaded terms like "lie" and "dishonest" when we're discussing playing make-believe. Other that to put those you are applying the terms to on edge and feel you are attacking them rather than their argument.

Admittedly, it's a fairly unserious situation, but I personally feel that honesty really is the best policy. Every policy admits to special cases, but there you go.

"You are aware that I am not really a wizard" - Sir Ian McKellan

 

[Raven Crowking]

Again, why? The entire reason for fudging is to smooth off the rough edges in a mistake with either design or implementation. If a problem did not exist, then there would be no reason to fudge in the first place.

I honestly can't think of a reason to fudge other than to fix an already occured issue. Isn't that the basic definition of fudging?

That is my basic assumption.

Why would an example that runs counter to the entire purpose of the term be helpful here?

I have been told that my basic assumption -- that this particular basic assumption -- is wrong.

How is using the authority explicitly granted to you BY THE RULES dishonest? 1e D&D EXPLICITLY grants me, as DM, the authority to do this. I'm 99% sure that 2e did as well. 3e does in the first chapter or so of the DMG.

Heck, 2e doesn't grant you authority to do this; it blatantly encourages you to. I happen to believe that this is terrible advice, though. Perhaps the worst I have ever seen in an rpg.

"Dishonesty" is not defined by whether or not you can do something; it is defined by the intent to deceive. And that is a problem.

It is okay for the PCs to learn that the NPC Lord Flabberblabber lies to them; they can then use that information to make in-game decisions.

However, the players must be able to trust the GM. That relationship is the foundation upon which the game rests. Look at any thread complaining about any GM. The number one problem? Lack of trust in the GM. Note also how this lack of trust in any given GM tends to generate lack of trust in any GM.

Remove the threat to player trust, to damaging that fundamental principle, and I'll grant you a big, hairy thumbs up.

Why not let the players give the a number of tokens, each of which must be "spent" to fudge the dice? As I said earlier, 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.



RC

 

[Fifth Element]

Remove the threat to player trust, to damaging that fundamental principle, and I'll grant you a big, hairy thumbs up.

Let's see it then. More than one DM in this thread explicitly discussed the issue with his players while the thread was going on. The players' reactions were acceptance. When presented with that evidence, however, you merely questioned the veracity of the replies. "Sounds like they didn't really think it through" or something to that effect.

So even when that threat has been removed, because the players know the DM fudges and are cool with it, that's still not enough for you. Rather than give the thumbs up, you question the honesty of those providing the evidence. "If the players said they were okay with it, they were probably not being fully honest", that sort of thing.

 

[pawsplay]

That's a pretty fine distinction. The rules say the characeter dies, but the DM can use his discretion to overrule it. That's a lie, of sorts, because it's contrary to the rule that the character should be dead.

Being contrary is not lying. In fact, the DMG passage referred to earlier makes it very clear that the DM is overruling the results and sparing the character but imposing a penalty, a fact which would then be obvious to the player. It's not a lie of any sort. Lying is not telling the truth. If you wish to avoid such loaded terms, that's reasonable, but I have no idea what you are trying to say in the passage I just quoted.

Nothing is gained, of course, by throwing around loaded terms like "lie" and "dishonest" when we're discussing playing make-believe. Other that to put those you are applying the terms to on edge and feel you are attacking them rather than their argument.

Better terms, then? What do you suggest? Not-truth-telling? Unfaithfulness? I am open to suggestions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

First off, Fifth Element, thank you for your response.

There are some real differences as to how we view the game, which are peforce going to colour our viewpoints. So, as I said upthread, you may wish to take anything I say with a very large grain of salt.

That there is no simple answer. There is no one reason, and there is no reason that applies all of the time.

I only asked for one example. I am well aware that the circumstances of that one example will not apply to all times.

Because you cannot plan for everything. That's what you're missing. And if something you did not, indeed could not, plan for happens and it threatens to suck the fun out of the room, a DM should consider not having that thing happen.

You seem to be arguing that everything can be solved with a little planning. I would call that argument naive.

Herein, you may be right. Maybe I am naive. Certainly, you cannot plan for everything.

However, I would then ask, how do you explain that others, who also cannot plan for everything, do not have to fudge die rolls to compensate? I think that there is more involved than this.

Or you could choose to use a less loaded word. This is a fantasy game of make-believe we're talking about here. "The orc hits you, take 10 points damage" is dishonest, because there is no orc.

Every game ever invented is make-believe. Because there is no real knight, it is not any less dishonest if I "fudge" where I am allowed to move my piece.

"The orc hits you, take 10 points damage" is not dishonest, because it is understood by all particpants that both orc and damage are game constructs. There is no intent to deceive.

(This entire line of reasoning was deconstructed upthread, wasn't it?)

But dishonest is a terrible word to use there, because we're dealing with the imaginary.

If I said "I think you're right here", it would be a statement about something equally unreal (because it occurs only in my head), but it would also be untrue, and hence dishonest of me to say.

If the PCs encounter a room, and the DM says "You see an empty room", causing the players to enter, and then the DM says "The ogre in the middle of the room attacks you!" I really doubt that the players will accept "I wasn't being dishonest because the room, the ogre, and your dead characters are all imaginary!" as an excuse.

That's a pretty fine distinction. The rules say the characeter dies, but the DM can use his discretion to overrule it. That's a lie, of sorts, because it's contrary to the rule that the character should be dead.

Again, it is not a lie, assuming there is no intent to deceive. "I'm going to say Sir Robin is still alive, but loses his hand" is fine. It is above-board. Everyone knows that the rules are being bent....or even broken!

"Contrary to the rules" is not dishonest. Not telling the truth is dishonest.

Why not let the players give the a number of tokens, each of which must be "spent" to fudge the dice? As I said earlier, 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.



RC