Do you "save" the PCs?

[Raven Crowking]

It's incredible that you're implicitly claiming otherwise and disparaging this method of weighting evidence, which, quite literally, people could not live without.

Anyone want some XP? I've got to spread some around, apparently, before I can give it to Jeff Wilder again.

 

[pawsplay]

He's said, in no uncertain terms, that he feels he knows better than you (for whoever "you" are) what your gamers would like - they'd like their game better his way. He doesn't have to meet them, doesn't have to play at the table. If you disagree with him, you may not realize it but you are simply mistaken. So, yes, he is saying that anyone who does not agree with him is, in fact, wrong. Classic OneTrueWayism, I'm sorry to say.

Okay, so maybe Robin Laws should have named his book, Robin's Laws of the One True Way of Game-Mastering, because the book is chock full of ideas what works and what doesn't. Can no one be wrong?

Is AllTrueWayism any better than OneTureWayism?

 

[Hussar]

Okay, so maybe Robin Laws should have named his book, Robin's Laws of the One True Way of Game-Mastering, because the book is chock full of ideas what works and what doesn't. Can no one be wrong?

Is AllTrueWayism any better than OneTureWayism?

The difference being here, of course, that at no point does Robin Laws ever, EVER state that there is ((virtually)) zero chance of a DM who doesn't follow his advice being a good DM. He never states that his advice is the only fount of knowledge and that if you do something that differs from what he's saying that you are a weak DM or a "not as good as you could be" DM.

He does say, "Here is what works for me. I think these are good ideas that will help your game." I don't recall him making any judgements about other people's tables that RC is so obviously doing here.

Anyway, back on topic.

To me, there is no real difference between mechanically supported fudging (like Action or Fate points) and ad hoc fudging. In both cases, you are altering die rolls. Now, as far as the honesty issue goes, well, again to me, it comes down to a trust issue.

If you trust your DM and know that he has a good grip on the game, why should it bother you if he shaves a roll or two? Why does it have to be done in front of you? Either way, the dice are going to be changed. Why break suspension of disbelief if you don't have to?

Again, to me, the "Fudge Pool" that Raven Crowking advertises, only needs about one or two chips in it per campaign. That's how often I feel that a DM might need to fudge. If it's to the point where you're fudging every session, that's much more indicative of a larger problem since the whole point of fudging is to smooth out some of the rougher edges that can come with random generation.

IOW, if those rough patches are occuring every session, then there's some serious problems in the group. However, OTOH, if it happens once in a blue moon, then I really don't see the need for a structured mechanic.

 

[Fifth Element]

(again, i caution you to take observer bias into account here.)

. . .

 

[Fifth Element]

You confirm my earlier inference that your fudging cannot be the factor that makes you the prefered GM. Your level of fudging might contribute to why you are preferred over those whose level differs, however.

What relevance does that inference have to do with the discussion? My contention is that my players prefer fudging in their games. I never made any claim as to why I'm the preferred DM.

I should really just call off this silly discussion now, but here's one more question. Each member of my group fudges when they are the DM. None of them, when they have the chance to strictly let the dice fall as they may, does so. So if none of them really like fudging, why do they do it themselves, and why does every member of the group feel that the group as a whole prefers fudging (since that's how they run the game)?

 

[pawsplay]

The difference being here, of course, that at no point does Robin Laws ever, EVER state that there is ((virtually)) zero chance of a DM who doesn't follow his advice being a good DM.

That's a fairly specific criterion for discerning whether he is also one true waying. I'm going mainly by the title: Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering. These are laws. These are the laws of good gamemastering. I, Robin Laws, wrote them.

He never states that his advice is the only fount of knowledge

See above commentary. And I don't think I've seen RC claim to be the chosen one.

and that if you do something that differs from what he's saying that you are a weak DM or a "not as good as you could be" DM.

I'll crack open my copy tonight, but perhaps you are right. Does it matter if you are? I didn't claim Robin Laws wrote a book of brazen rudeness.

He does say, "Here is what works for me. I think these are good ideas that will help your game." I don't recall him making any judgements about other people's tables that RC is so obviously doing here.

Well, it's not called Robin's Laws of How I Game-Master But I Am Not Making Any Judgments, is it?

To me, there is no real difference between mechanically supported fudging (like Action or Fate points) and ad hoc fudging. In both cases, you are altering die rolls.

To me, there is. Dice are not sacred things, they are tools. Whether you are dealing with dice or fate points, you can rest assured that death and failure are real possibilities.

If you trust your DM and know that he has a good grip on the game, why should it bother you if he shaves a roll or two? Why does it have to be done in front of you? Either way, the dice are going to be changed. Why break suspension of disbelief if you don't have to?

Already covered, but to reiterate:
1. Because if I find out later, I'll feel really cheated, and possibly feel a sense of let-down at misplaced pride and courage.
2. Because it will be detected. Period.

Again, to me, the "Fudge Pool" that Raven Crowking advertises, only needs about one or two chips in it per campaign. That's how often I feel that a DM might need to fudge. If it's to the point where you're fudging every session, that's much more indicative of a larger problem since the whole point of fudging is to smooth out some of the rougher edges that can come with random generation.

IOW, if those rough patches are occuring every session, then there's some serious problems in the group. However, OTOH, if it happens once in a blue moon, then I really don't see the need for a structured mechanic.

Now we are in general agreement. The game should be able to walk on its own legs, most of the time.

 

[Fifth Element]

So, let me see. I can't say that fudging is bad, in general (no specifics) or you jump in and ask me if I work for the Pentagon now.

You should stop playing the victim here, it doesn't become you. You're not just saying fudging is generally bad, IYHO. You're saying it's bad for everyone, and that those who think it's good for them are deluding themselves, and that you know better than they do what their players really want.

All of this about how we prefer to pretend to be elves.

I guess what you are trying to say is "Thou Shalt Not Say Fudging Is Bad".

Thou shalt not insult other posters and call their integrity into question while doing so.

 

[Fifth Element]

That's a fairly specific criterion for discerning whether he is also one true waying. I'm going mainly by the title: Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering. These are laws. These are the laws of good gamemastering. I, Robin Laws, wrote them.

I've never read the book, but I do hope you're basing this argument on more than the title of the book, which is clearly a play on the author's name.

 

[SteveC]

This is a pretty interesting thread. One thing that is for certain is that the folks who are against fudging have an intense opinion on the matter... it's really a big deal for them.

For me, I've moved from being a GM who rolls behind the screen to out in front of it for the last few years, and I've found that if anything, it's changed my game for the worse. Like most people, I was a "almost never fudge" GM, but I always considered fudging a die roll to be just another arrow in my GMing quiver. It was sort of the "black arrow" that was used only in extreme situations.

If rolling out in front of anyone has had a benefit I haven't really seen it, I just started to do it to make the game more of a "chips fall where they may," sort of thing, and now it's pretty well established.

The one playstyle effect I've seen from it is that it has encouraged players to play more conservatively, since they're now absolutely convinced that there's no safety net that might catch them if they play in-genre but have poor luck. I'm not sure that I like that result, but it's there.

After reading this thread, if anything, I'm convinced that the kind of GM who'll roll behind the screen is more to my liking: a lot of the folks posting here with a "zero tolerance" for fudging seem to think that this makes people enjoy their games more. I guess I'd just like to point out that this isn't universally true... I certainly would have more fun in a game where the GM would fudge maybe one roll in a hundred rather than wreck an evening's fun or end their campaign prematurely.

I think the most important point is that fudging the occasional die roll isn't about not wanting to be challenged: it's more about understanding that a die roll doesn't take story, character or genre into account, and I find those sort of things to be more important the more I find myself playing.

In any case, carry on...

--Steve

 

[Fifth Element]

Here's something I can't figure out. Back when I played AD&D, we played by the book. There was no fudging that I know about. Now, the same guys I played with back then that are still playing (generally 3E and 4E, though we've dipped into AD&D on occasion as well), all fudge. I still play with a couple of them.

So, my personal experience is that letting the dice fall strictly as they may is something enjoyed by teenagers, but you grow out of it. As you mature, you start fudging. So it's either an evolutionary step in a gamer's life, or it's simply a more mature way of playing. I mean, I've played D&D for 21 years and this has happened to everyone I know.

But would I reach that conclusion, much less argue it vociferously on a messageboard for pages on end? Of course not. It's a ridiculous conclusion based on a ridiculously small sample and completely ignores many things I've read and heard about gaming over the years. I've had many exchanges on this board with people for whom this clearly did not happen.

I can either assume they're lying or deluded, or I can include their experiences with my own when I'm thinking about things. I prefer to do the latter.