To Fudge or not to Fudge...

[JamesonCourage]

What does it matter if you fudge or not fudge, though? You're the DM. You control all elements of the game world.

If you see the PCs are getting their butts handed to them and you back off on the number of enemies that they are supposed to fight--2 show up instead of 6--isn't that fudging?

Yes, but fudging this way answers your dilemma from earlier: the players don't see it. Yes, they see the die rolls, and they can piece together certain information.

If you roll behind a screen, they don't know what you're rolling, and you can fudge stuff if you want to. That's good for some groups, but I get heavily suspicious as a play if I have 22 hit points total, get dropped to 5 throughout combat, and then enemies start missing me multiple turns in a row. It could be legit, it could be fudged. I don't know. But it does pull me out of immersion. However, if the roll is in the open, that's not the case, because I'm not worried about cheating.

However, if you fudge people showing up, or tactics, the players aren't worried about it, in my experience. Only two bad guys show up? That's fine, they have no idea you fudged the encounter. Nobody worries about you going soft on them, unless they knew there were six guys up ahead, via scouting or something. This type of fudging is softer, and a lot more subtle. It's really the better way to go about it, rather than dice fudging.

So, personally, I'll adjust encounters if I think I overpowered them from their original concept (that is, not if they've overpowering to the characters, necessarily, just too overpowered for what I thought they should be). But I won't do this via die rolls, because that's much, much too overt. I'd rather adjust hit points, attack bonuses, saves bonuses, tactics, mindset, and the like.

Yes, you're the GM, and yes, you control the world, but I find it's a lot better to let players know they've earned every single win they get. And, in my experience (which will vary from others), this has been accomplished by not fudging die rolls, but fudging other stuff when I misjudge it.

Just my thoughts on why it's different. As always, though, play what you like

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

IMO, it doesn't really make any difference whether you fudge the rolls or fudge the stats - you're fudging either way.

In these circumstances I'll avoid fudging things so the PCs win the fight. At best, they'll get away unscathed; ideally, they'll get away at some measure of cost. (And in any case, I'll only fudge when I've screwed up the encounter difficulty. If they take on more than they can handle, they're out of luck!)

Yeah, the only reason I'd do that is if it was my personal mistake that I threw an encounter/NPC too hard for them, not their mistake where they bit off more than they could chew.

 

[Water Bob]

I definitely prefer rolling behind the screen--not in order to fudge (I very rarely fudge as a DM, and when I do, it's usually in the player's favor. In the end, I am on the PCs' side. I want them to succeed.), but to keep the game focused on story and never dice throws.

...but I get heavily suspicious as a play if I have 22 hit points total, get dropped to 5 throughout combat, and then enemies start missing me multiple turns in a row.....

It is human nature. I've gotten hot on the dice before and been accused to being "out to get the PCs", when that thought couldn't be farther from the truth.

Right now, in my game, I'm rolling most throws out in front of the players because one of my new players strongly prefers that.

I need to find a balance.

No, more than a decade of never rolling more than a '1' does that. Playing the character with a glass jaw was fun once. Playing that same character over and over again, not so much.

Hm. Never rolling more than a "1"? In a decade? I'd say that you only rolled up one character in that decade, and he only made it to level 3, if what you say is true....

....or, I'd highly suspect that your die is not a fair die.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I definitely prefer rolling behind the screen--not in order to fudge (I very rarely fudge as a DM, and when I do, it's usually in the player's favor. In the end, I am on the PCs' side. I want them to succeed.), but to keep the game focused on story and never dice throws.

Oh, I totally understand your viewpoint, even if I don't share it. It just ends up distracting me and a few of my players, because sometimes it causes us to question if that "really cool scene" that just played out is legit or not. Because to us, if it's fudged, it's not legit. Still fun, but not as earned as if the rolls were straight.

We don't automatically think, "cheating!" when a screen is used. We just wonder, and that draws us out of immersion, and focuses us on the die rolls.

It is human nature. I've gotten hot on the dice before and been accused to being "out to get the PCs", when that thought couldn't be farther from the truth.

Right now, in my game, I'm rolling most throws out in front of the players because one of my new players strongly prefers that.

I need to find a balance.

Yep. You'll need to figure it out with what works for your group, but I know where your player is coming from. Behind the screen rolls ends up dampening immersion for me, and it enhances it for you. Just like minis dampen immersion for me, and enhances it for others (I think the user Lanefan, a big oldschool player, is like this, but I'm not sure).

At any rate, I ended up rolling in the open, and manipulating behind the scenes (when I felt I had made a mistake). I felt it preserved the most immersion for my group, and I've relayed why. If any of it strikes a chord (positive or negative), that's good. If it just explains something from an alternative point of view, that's good, too. But you'll have to find what works for you and your group. And, good luck with that. As always, play what you like

 

[Water Bob]

Because to us, if it's fudged, it's not legit. Still fun, but not as earned as if the rolls were straight.

I feel the exact same way.

XP in the Conan game is awarded differently than it is in D&D. XP is purely up to the GM. And, what I do is think back over the game session and scratch down the "Highlights". They're different each game. I try to remember what made the game fun--what were the high points in the story that session. What was neat and cool and interesting.

Then, I award points based what happened.

I love this system as it encourages the really fun parts of the game (as determined by the GM), and the XP is different every session.

If a player uses a Fate Point and make a spectacular jump from cliff to tree, I probably won't list this as one of the high points of the game session.

OTOH, I had a player have his character do just that, without using a Fate Point, when his character only had 3 HPs. Making the jump was completely heroic and a huge risk to the character.

He got a good XP award for his heroism.

Yep. You'll need to figure it out with what works for your group, but I know where your player is coming from. Behind the screen rolls ends up dampening immersion for me, and it enhances it for you.

I wasn't trying to enhance it for me, but for my players, going behind the screen.

Just like minis dampen immersion for me, and enhances it for others (I think the user Lanefan, a big oldschool player, is like this, but I'm not sure).

I don't care for minis, but we do use something to mark characters....pins ond a cork board, using large sheets of graph paper (and a magic mark to draw the maps).

 

[Water Bob]

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]

What about when you have a PC using his tracking ability? Or, what about Spot and Hide checks?

Do you roll stuff like that out in the open, too?

I mean, you don't want your player to be so at ease because he threw a 20 on his Spot check and is pretty sure that nobody is setting up an ambush around him. Rolling it behind the screen, the player doesn't know whether his character bricked the Spot check or really did make the roll.

 

[Filcher]

Rule Zero - as DM, I am always right. No matter what the players or dice say.

 

[JamesonCourage]

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]

What about when you have a PC using his tracking ability? Or, what about Spot and Hide checks?

Do you roll stuff like that out in the open, too?

Yep, all of it is in the open for both player and GM alike. So, the player rolls his Spot in the open, and I always say, "whether or not there's anything important to see, I rolled a ____" and roll in the open.

I mean, you don't want your player to be so at ease because he threw a 20 on his Spot check and is pretty sure that nobody is setting up an ambush around him. Rolling it behind the screen, the player doesn't know whether his character bricked the Spot check or really did make the roll.

My players are pretty relaxed about it. If they roll a natural 4, they'll basically roll with it just as if they had rolled a natural 16. If their character is positive they didn't see anything, they'll debate, in-character, with players that rolled higher and insist they saw something. Same things with Bluff and lies. If someone lies to the party and one person sees through it, the others will debate in-game, saying, "No, I'm pretty sure he was telling the truth."

For years, we all got on each others' cases for metagaming. We've pretty much beaten it out of each other now, so I don't worry about it most of the time. At best, it's "your character doesn't know about ____, remember?" and them saying, "oh yeah, right." Then we move on.

But, that's us, and I don't expect that to work for every group (or even most). But, that's why I roll in the open. It took time and practice to get there, but it's the style we prefer. As always, play what you like

 

[Bedrockgames]

What does it matter if you fudge or not fudge, though? You're the DM. You control all elements of the game world.

It doesn't matter. It is entirely a matter of preference. However I feel it is more fair to the players and creates more consistency if the GM refrains from fudging results.

If you see the PCs are getting their butts handed to them and you back off on the number of enemies that they are supposed to fight--2 show up instead of 6--isn't that fudging?

I think that is a reasonable use of fudging if the PCs are losing because you mismathed their opponents, but in my own games we operate with the understanding that some encounters will be overpowered and the PCs should avoid combat or retreat in these circumstaneces. So in this case they would probably just back off. If the dice just turned against the PCs, I don't think the GM needs to cut the slack. In fact as a player I prefer GMS who don't. It diminishes the significance of our victories if the GM is protecting us from these sorts of things.

Or, if the PCs are bored because they've chewed up everything you've thrown at them, so you increase the number of enemies that you throw at them the next encounter--isn't that fudging?

I don't believe it is fudging in the strict sense. I do think it is a kind of fudging, but most people take fudging to mean changing die results, HP totals, etc. What you suggest is something I wouldn't do however. If the adventure is too easy, then it is too easy and the PCs breeze through. Some of my adventures take 4 sessions to play some take an hour.

Or, it's late in the game session, but you've got about two hours to go, and you've got to ad-lib a section because of the players' moves or that you ran out of things you had planned. So, you make up some stuff and run with it.

No, ad-libbing is not fudging at all. I prepare hardly any events for my sessions. Everything is based around the characters (NPCs and PCs) or they are based around something like an investigation.

And, really, isn't fudging just good game management on the DM's part?

In my opinion, absolutely not. Fudging is about altering results in order to achieve the outcome the GM wants. Even when what he wants is in the interest of the players, I think fudging is bad GMing. First, eventually the players figure it out. It takes a while, but once they know the GM is fiddling with things it can really ruin things (at least in my experience).

Isn't it kind of silly to accuse the DM of fudging when he arbitrarily controls the entire game universe?

No, because a good GM doesn't just make arbitrary choices. He has NPCs behave in logical ways and has events that flow naturally from what is occuring in the setting. A good GM doesn't just decide when the monster dies in battle, he allows the dice and the system to act as a consistent playing field. At least in my view. I am not saying a GM can be 100% objective, but he should at least strive for impartiality and consistency. Fudging flies in the face of that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Oh, I totally understand your viewpoint, even if I don't share it. It just ends up distracting me and a few of my players, because sometimes it causes us to question if that "really cool scene" that just played out is legit or not. Because to us, if it's fudged, it's not legit. Still fun, but not as earned as if the rolls were straight.

We don't automatically think, "cheating!" when a screen is used. We just wonder, and that draws us out of immersion, and focuses us on the die rolls.

For me this is the heart of the issue with fudging.