In what other games is fudging acceptable?

[Bullgrit]

Judging from the current thread on the subject, and previous threads on the subject, it seems that most people consider fudging, (usually by the DM), to be completely acceptable. One argument is that fudging can make the experience more fun.

What other games are there in which fudging by one or more participants is acceptable and fun? I'm not talking about games where fudging/cheating is part of the written rules, (I know there are some, but I can't think of any off the top of my head) -- fudging/cheating has never been part of the written rules of D&D.

I'm curious if this notion of some fudging makes for a better game experience is unique to RPGs or if it exists in other games.

Bullgrit

 

[Desdichado]

In what games is it not acceptable? Other than organized sports--high school, college or professional, or professional gambling or something like that, it's always acceptable to fudge if it's obvious that the result will be more fun for all involved. We fudge Clue at home when one of my kids makes a mistake and accidentally gives something away. We fudge Monopoly at home when we're getting bored and want to speed up the experience. We fudge Risk if someone is starting to feel picked on or frustrated. We fudge in Dodgeball if it's not clear what happened... or what should have happened. As a college student, we frequently fudged "foot faults" in our games of ultimate frisby.

I mean, presumably we play games to have fun, right? And presumably we mostly play with friends and/or family? Personally, I think it's inexcusable to allow the rules to stand in the way of fun in any game... barring of course, the exceptions I noted above.

 

[the Jester]

The only thing that comes to mind that isn't an rpg is exquisite corpse, where a group of people write a story or poem together. Usually there's a rule about only writing one line (or two sentences or what have you), or it has to use a word from the previous line or something, and someone inevitably messes up and breaks the rules but nobody cares.

 

[fba827]

RPGs have a somewhat unique situation in that it caters to both a tactical as well as story-oriented crowd and mechanics.

If you have a group that is at least somewhat story-oriented (or at least playing an RPG because it has a story components) I would think that they are more willing to accept fudging if it serves for a better story (and yes the 'better story' could simply mean funner for the players otherwise they'd be bored and then no passion to even bother continuing the story).

whereas if you compare to a game like chutes and ladders where it is more game-dice dependent (rather than story dependent) i would think that people are less willing to fudge since dice are the singularly defining mechanic.

 

[Bullgrit]

In what games is it not acceptable? Other than organized sports--high school, college or professional, or professional gambling or something like that, it's always acceptable to fudge if it's obvious that the result will be more fun for all involved. We fudge Clue at home when one of my kids makes a mistake and accidentally gives something away. We fudge Monopoly at home when we're getting bored and want to speed up the experience. We fudge Risk if someone is starting to feel picked on or frustrated. We fudge in Dodgeball if it's not clear what happened... or what should have happened. As a college student, we frequently fudged "foot faults" in our games of ultimate frisby.

I mean, presumably we play games to have fun, right? And presumably we mostly play with friends and/or family? Personally, I think it's inexcusable to allow the rules to stand in the way of fun in any game... barring of course, the exceptions I noted above.

Perhaps we're using different definitions for "fudge". I'm referring to intentionally changing a legitimate result to get a result someone likes better.

In RISK, it would be changing a battle roll result so someone isn't knocked out of the game, or the number of armies for turning in a set of cards so someone can turn the tide of the game against the leader.

In Monopoly, changing a movement roll to avoid going to Jail, or allowing another draw from the Chance deck to get the Get Out of Jail card.

In Dodgeball, saying the ball hit even though it was a clear miss because that guy is always the last one on his team and is just too hard to take out.

This is the kind of "fudging" I'm talking about. Intentionally changing a result, not handwaving a fuzzy/unclear result.

Bullgrit

 

[Ahnehnois]

In a competitive game, this sort of "fudging" is seen as cheating. In a noncompetitive game, like D&D, this isn't an issue.

D&D is noncompetitive, because there is no definition of success or failure, no winners and losers. Games such as Chess, Soccer, or Poker are competitive.

Many small children's games, such as "playing house" or other similar freeform simulationist play are unharmed by arbitrary changes in the game's parameters. Other more advanced games are somewhat noncommittal on this topic. In many tactical CRPGs, "modding" is the norm, which definitely changes outcomes. It's also common to "abuse" saved game capabilities to try a random event over and over again to get the best outcome.

Notably, when there is a great power difference between players (i.e. adults playing with a child or disabled person, or even a large person casually playing a game where strength is important with a smaller person), fudging outcomes in all sorts of games is common to create an enjoyable experience for the latter party. One could argue (among other things) that DM-player is also a large enough power gap to justify this kind of behavior as DM fudging is quite commonly done to make the game easier and prevent character death.

 

[Desdichado]

Perhaps we're using different definitions for "fudge". I'm referring to intentionally changing a legitimate result to get a result someone likes better.

Yeah, I know. My point is merely that the conventions of a game are more guidelines rather than "laws"--if we all agree that the result is lame, then we can change the result, regardless of how legitimate it is. Your examples aren't really exactly what I had in mind, because I doubt I'd get very many people to agree that those results were lame, but you're on the right track conceptually, at least.

In roleplaying games, and in D&D at least in particular, this is explicitly stated as a core tenet of the game.

I think that there's two issues here, one of which I imagine I'm in the minority, and the other I imagine that I'm not.

1) My take on a game--any game--is that it's supposed to be a fun time between friends and family, most of the time. Being too rigid about the rules, at the expense of other considerations, defeats that purpose, thus making the whole point of playing a game moot.

2) Roleplaying games have a number of features that cause them to be different than any other type of game (which is also true of sports, board games, card games, and other types of games, but that's neither here nor there). Thus making comparisons and contrasts between RPGs and other games is of dubious utility. In other words, it doesn't really matter if any other game has this feature. If it's unique to RPGs, well it isn't the only feature that would be, after all.

All that said and done, I don't really consider myself much of a fudger. In fact, back when those GM Merit Badges thingies were all the rage, I picked the "I roll my dice in the open" merit badge to describe my GM style. I don't literally do that all the time, just for convenience, it's easier to roll them right there in front of me, which means on my side of the screen, but I'm also not very secretive about my rolls, if I'm standing or whatever (which is frequent during combat) then I'll roll them openly, and if anyone asks I'll tell them what the roll was, usually. That said, I still reserve the right to alter anything that needs altering to enhance the experience for the group. And I expect other GMs to do the same. In my group currently--where I'm not running right now anyway--our GM is quite open about what he's fudging, in fact. He believes that the modules he's running are rather poorly designed and if run as is will result in multiple TPKs--at least for the way we play the game, which isn't always the most tactically savvy. So in the middle of combat that's going badly, he'll stop and complain loudly about encounter design, and then make a big show of using some form of fiat to make the encounter be a little more fair, if necessary. I neither see this as bad nor wrong--in fact, if he didn't do this, I'd probably consider him a bad GM. If you can't balance encounters to get--on average--the result you anticipate--including adjustements needed on the fly--then you're not a good GM. Sure, I wish he'd do it a bit more discretely, frankly, but it's not a big deal to me either way.

As I mentioned in the other thread, though--it's also a little hard to define exactly what fudging is with my GMing style. Although I do have some pregenerated stats and monsters, naturally, at least 50% of the challenges and combats that I run for my players tend to be on the fly. There isn't a target DC except what I set on the fly for that Jump check, or whatever. There isn't an AC except what I pull out of my hat when the first PC makes a roll to hit him. There isn't a hit point total on these bad guys, because I just whipped the whole thing up on the fly--so combat stops when I feel like it's time to stop. I'm a big fan of Schrodinger's stats. (A lot of people will try to tell you that you can't run 3e/3.5 that way, but I'm living proof that that's not true. Although, again, that's neither here nor there.)

How exactly do you fudge anything in that environment? Bad rolls are still bad rolls and their results are obvious. Good rolls are still good rolls, and their results are obvious. It's only in the mediocre rolls where it really matters... but again, if I'm making up the targets on the fly anyway, then conceptually, do they really matter? You could certainly make an argument that they don't.

That's why I say that RPGs are different than any other kind of game. The dice are still important, and having that element of randomness is still crucial to my enjoyment of the game. But at the same time, I refuse to become a slave to dice results. Dice rolls are a guideline to actual in-game results more often than not, not an immutable law of physics.

 

[Umbran]

I'm curious if this notion of some fudging makes for a better game experience is unique to RPGs or if it exists in other games.

I think I can give you an analog. You'll hear it on probably any and every playground in the USA: "Do Over!"

In pretty much any childhood game, if something happens that's particularly lame, someone will cry, "Do over!" And, often enough, the thing is done over. Sometimes the Do Over is abused, by someone who just doesn't want to lose. But other times it is quite legitimate - you're playing wiffleball where you can, and the dang tree gets in the way again, and it turns your potential home run into a stupid foul, or what have you.

Now, in RPGs, the do-over is usually done by the GM, without the playground negotiation, but the concept is the same.

Or, how about "winter rules" golf, which aren't actually so much a rule, as an agreed upon tradition of when you can fudge where your ball landed. A limited form of adult, "Do over," really.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't really like fudging in any activity.

 

[rogueattorney]

I think I can give you an analog. You'll hear it on probably any and every playground in the USA: "Do Over!"

In pretty much any childhood game, if something happens that's particularly lame, someone will cry, "Do over!" And, often enough, the thing is done over. Sometimes the Do Over is abused, by someone who just doesn't want to lose. But other times it is quite legitimate - you're playing wiffleball where you can, and the dang tree gets in the way again, and it turns your potential home run into a stupid foul, or what have you.

Now, in RPGs, the do-over is usually done by the GM, without the playground negotiation, but the concept is the same.

Or, how about "winter rules" golf, which aren't actually so much a rule, as an agreed upon tradition of when you can fudge where your ball landed. A limited form of adult, "Do over," really.

In both of your cases, the "do over" is openly expressed and agreed to by all the participants. They are not done in secret.