To Fudge or not to Fudge...

[Pilgrim]

No fudging, as DM or player. Don't tolerate it from other players either.

 

[billd91]

I answered that I will fudge as DM if I think the game needed it. I didn't answer anything as a player because the options didn't seem to fit. I won't personally fudge (without an agreed upon fudging mechanism, anyway), but I don't expect the DM to follow the same rules on that. I see that as part of the DM's powers as editor of things behind the screen.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I answered that I will fudge as DM if I think the game needed it. I didn't answer anything as a player because the options didn't seem to fit. I won't personally fudge (without an agreed upon fudging mechanism, anyway), but I don't expect the DM to follow the same rules on that. I see that as part of the DM's powers as editor of things behind the screen.

Seems most of us will fudge as a DM and frown upon players doing it.

As you've stated, you wouldn't fudge as a player unless agreed upon mechanics, but isn't fudging at its core a mechanic that someone uses (especially as a player) that changes the outcome of the game? A player doing it most of us say is cheating, a DM doing it is something that most of us think is to right a wrong/mistake in our games.

So I guess my questions to you is: How do you agree on a fudging mechanism as a player without it being cheating? I'm just curious how this would work in your game or a different game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I keep a close eye on mechanical operations by the players because half or more of them in our group aren't that interested in mechanics, and tend to make mistakes. For whatever reason, this tends to hurt their characters a lot more than it helps them. There have been a couple of times where if I hadn't said, "Wait a minute, don't you also have ...", a couple of characters would have died. This has been going on a long time.

As a byproduct of this, though, I also tend to pick up fairly quickly on those players actively fudging. It happens that the people trying this in my games over the last 30 years have almost all been doing it not for any story or narrative or fun reasons, but because they like the thrill of getting away with something. That is, they think it is wrong, but are doing it anyway. I've noticed a heavy correlation of that attitude with other, more serious behavior that I frankly dislike, and thus am prone to not cut such much slack.

So if a new player starts fudging, I might let it slide a little while, on the grounds that they might be an exception to my experience (which is hardly universal). But I am going to be watching them like a hawk from then on out for these other behaviors. It's somewhat as if a Robin Williams-type character was your lawyer in a civil trial. If he seemed otherwise compentent, you might roll with for a bit. But you'd be skeptical, and waiting for the heavier boot to drop.

 

[Nagol]

Seems most of us will fudge as a DM and frown upon players doing it.

As you've stated, you wouldn't fudge as a player unless agreed upon mechanics, but isn't fudging at its core a mechanic that someone uses (especially as a player) that changes the outcome of the game? A player doing it most of us say is cheating, a DM doing it is something that most of us think is to right a wrong/mistake in our games.

So I guess my questions to you is: How do you agree on a fudging mechanism as a player without it being cheating? I'm just curious how this would work in your game or a different game.

Several games have "player fudging" rules baked in.

At the basic level, Fate points from Top Secret (oops I died... no I didn't; this happens instead), poker chips in Deadlands, Whimsy Cards, and other such mechanisms give the player direct control over the character's fate after the dice roll. Other abilitieis like the Luck Domain clerical ability are similar but have a character facet to them.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Several games have "player fudging" rules baked in.

At the basic level, Fate points from Top Secret (oops I died... no I didn't; this happens instead), poker chips in Deadlands, Whimsy Cards, and other such mechanisms give the player direct control over the character's fate after the dice roll. Other abilitieis like the Luck Domain clerical ability are similar but have a character facet to them.

Nice to know about those mechanics, I don't have experience with Fate, and I completely forgot about the Whimsy Cards. Those rules are baked in.

I'd have to say my point is more along the lines of players fudging the dice roll(s) (saying they got a 17 instead of a 13 for example) outside of agreed upon mechanics is what I frown upon as both player/DM and would consider cheating.

On a side note, did anyone see Big Bang theory last night and watch Sheldon rolling the dice to make his decisions? He didn't fudge any rolls at all!

 

[pemerton]

I much prefer a game that works smoothly without the need for fudging. So far, for me, 4e has been such a game.

Over the past few years I've been incorporating a lot of the GMing techniques found in games like HeroWars/Quest and Burning Wheel. These emphasise "failure as complication" rather than "failure as THE END".

So far there's been one "TPK" in my 4e game: an ambush by undead (including a spectre with a dazing aura) disguised as refugee villagers, which the players were particularly easily suckered by because not long before they'd accientally killed a refugee thinking he was a bandit. In the game, the undead had been placed as a trap by a goblin hexer. When the PCs had lost the fight, I just asked the players who wanted to bring in a new character, and who wanted to keep going with the same character. All but one of the players wanted to keep the same character. And only one of the PCs - the paladin - was definitely dead (as in dropped below negative bloodied hit points "on screen").

So I did it this way: the PCs (but for the paladin) wake up in a goblin prison cell, having been taken prisoner. Their is a drow in the same cell that they don't recognise (the new PC) and they can smell the smell of roasting half elf (the former PC whose player wanted a change). Meanwhile, the paladin - whose body has been laid out in a sacrificial pattern on an altar by the goblin hexer - suddenly regains consciousness, sent back by the Raven Queen to complete his mission in this world.

I think this sort of fudging-free play needs robust mechanics - ie ones that produce the desired outcomes in play - and also mechanics that are flexible in their interpretation, especially for events that happen off-screen. 4e's non-simulationism helps here.

 

[jedavis]

Do not aim the dice at anything you are not willing to destroy. At one point I had a player who fudged rolls. This resulted in the development of a policy - it's totally legal to re-roll at my table, but at -10 per re-roll. Even if you roll a 1, expectation is against you. But no, as a DM and a player, there is no spoo- er, fudge.

 

[Jimlock]

Fudge or no fudge a DM should always roll behind the screen.

And the players better trust him.

Too much info on a DM's die when in public view. NOT good.

 

[Nagol]

Fudge or no fudge a DM should always roll behind the screen.

And the players better trust him.

Too much info on a DM's die when in public view. NOT good.

Whereas I have exactly the opposite point of view.