Do you "save" the PCs?

[Fifth Element]

I, in turn, would like to thank eveyone in the thread who has stated their reasons for not fudging without using dismissive, condescending or paternalistic arguments or phrases. Debates are never aided by name-calling, and if I myself have gotten riled up at times I apologize.

To paraphrase Umbran, I double-dog dare you to tell me why not fudging is awesome without resorting to loaded and inflammatory language like 'honest' and 'dishonest', or 'real game' and 'wish-fulfilment storytelling'.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I myself have gotten riled up at times I apologize.

Accepted.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I, in turn, would like to thank eveyone in the thread who has stated their reasons for not fudging without using dismissive, condescending or paternalistic arguments or phrases. Debates are never aided by name-calling, and if I myself have gotten riled up at times I apologize.

To paraphrase Umbran, I double-dog dare you to tell me why not fudging is awesome without resorting to loaded and inflammatory language like 'honest' and 'dishonest', or 'real game' and 'wish-fulfilment storytelling'.

Honesty and dishonesty are what they are. People can put different values on these depending on context but that does not transform them into something else.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Honesty and dishonesty are what they are. People can put different values on these depending on context but that does not transform them into something else.

"You must spread some XP around...etc...etc...etc....."


RC

 

[Imaginary Number]

A DM who didn't see the potential for death wasn't very experienced or didn't think it through.
Mistakes happen. Characters die due to both player and DM mistakes during the learning process. The negative effects of those mistakes teach the lesson. If we smooth over all mistakes with fudging then play never improves on either side of the screen.

I agree with most of this. With respect to the last sentence, though, I don't recall anyone in this thread advocating that a DM should "smooth over all mistakes" with fudging die rolls. It bears repeating that pretty much everyone who has argued that the DM has the authority to fudge actually also reserves the use of that authority to the odd corner case in which the dice dictate a result that is incompatible with the individual group's expectations for the campaign, whatever those are.

In the example above, my own inclination would be to keep the result as rolled and have a dead cleric; as I mentioned dozens of pages ago, that's what I think Raise Dead is for. But I also think that keeping or altering the roll is up to individual DM judgment, and I wouldn't disagree with a DM who altered the roll to generate a consequence less than imminent death for the character. There are still "negative consequences" from which both player and DM could take something from the experience -- even if the character doesn't die, the DM nevertheless might learn something about assigning appropriate damage and the player might learn to avoid whatever caused the damage. In other words, play might improve on both sides of the screen whether or not the DM determined to change the roll.

 

[Fifth Element]

Honesty and dishonesty are what they are. People can put different values on these depending on context but that does not transform them into something else.

But just throwing the words around does ignore the context, and their use in this thread is not a valueless one, it clearly indicated a belief that one is right and one is wrong. No word has real meaning without its context.

As DM it's your job to come up with imaginary adventures in an imaginary world, where the players do not have all of the information that you do about what's going on in said world. In another thread, Raven Crowking admitted that making an event appear random when it is actually planned is okay (a time-honoured technique, even); even though this would fall under the broad definition of "dishonest". We're talking about a game here. Would you call bluffing in poker "dishonest"? It fits the dictionary definition. But a much more accurate term is "playing the game."

Part of the DM's job in playing the game is having all kinds of secrets from the players. You could call that dishonest if you like, and it fits in some sense. But it's a completely inappropriate use of the word in this context, when we're talking about games where different parties have different access to information.

 

[Fifth Element]

It bears repeating that pretty much everyone who has argued that the DM has the authority to fudge actually also reserves the use of that authority to the odd corner case in which the dice dictate a result that is incompatible with the individual group's expectations for the campaign, whatever those are.

It clearly does bear repeating, since the idea that fudging DMs do or must fudge all the time is a pervasive one, despite clear explanations to the contrary.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

5d6 is easily deadly to a 20 hp character.

A DM who didn't see the potential for death wasn't very experienced or didn't think it through.
Mistakes happen. Characters die due to both player and DM mistakes during the learning process. The negative effects of those mistakes teach the lesson. If we smooth over all mistakes with fudging then play never improves on either side of the screen.

Umm, no it's not. It's a 1 in over seven THOUSAND chance that it will be fatal.

So, I'm perfectly happy with 7775 different results. I'm just not happy with one.

Now, why didn't I cap it before I rolled? Well, the fact that it's such a remote chance means I likely never thought about it.

But, this ignores the main point. The ENTIRE purpose of fudging is to fix a problem. If you've already fixed the problem beforehand, then you would never, ever need to fudge.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

What I do disagree with is that I must be this super computer DM capable of calculating and taking into account all possible outcomes before I decide something, because, once I've decided something, despite the fact that I'm EXPLICITLY entitled to do so in the rules, I CAN NEVER TAKE IT BACK.

This discussion keeps circling back to this.

- You should not fudge, it's dishonest. You're lying to the players.

- But, the rules specifically empower me to do so. The GAME and the Game Designers both tell me that it's ok.

- You should not fudge. It's dishonest. You're lying to the players.

- How can following the rules of the game be considered dishonest. Presumably the players know the rules as well. The rules say I can do this.

- You should not fudge. It's dishonest. You're lying to the players.

On and on and on. How is it dishonest to use mechanics that everyone at the table knows exists? The players know I'm entitled to change rolls. The rules say so. The game designers say so. When I actually use this power, how is it dishonest?

Since the players know I am entitled to change any roll at any time, it comes down to a trust issue. Do they trust my abilities to change the results of a roll in such a way that it results in a better game? If they don't, then they should probably get a DM that they do trust.

I don't get this slavish adherence to die rolls. Why are you stripping the authority from the DM that is EXPRESSLY granted by the rules? Do you take this further? Is a DM no longer allowed to apply any rule without player permission? If I want to add a template to a monster, is that dishonest? After all, I'm changing the stats of that monster into something else.

How is that any less dishonest?

 

[Fifth Element]

On and on and on. How is it dishonest to use mechanics that everyone at the table knows exists? The players know I'm entitled to change rolls. The rules say so. The game designers say so. When I actually use this power, how is it dishonest?

And further, even if it does meet some definition of dishonest, so what? Unless the players expect the DM to tell them eveything that's going on in the game explicitly, they must realize that the DM's job requires things to be kept from them to keep the game enjoyable. It's part and parcel of the role.

The comments in the thread seem to be along the lines of "You can do it, as long as you realize you're being dishonest." Okay....and? If 'dishonesty' like this improves the game for the players, so be it!

You are right about there being a trust issue. But if the players don't trust their DM to use his discretion (and a DM has a LOT of discretion), then there are bigger issues than whether or not he fudges.

 

[pawsplay]

The comments in the thread seem to be along the lines of "You can do it, as long as you realize you're being dishonest." Okay....and? If 'dishonesty' like this improves the game for the players, so be it!

Now you're making sense.