In what other games is fudging acceptable?

[Iosue]

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.

Oh, really?

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition DMG, page 110:

In many situations it is correct and fun to have the players dice such things as melee hits or saving throws. However, it is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players. You might wish to do this to keep them from knowing some specific fact. You also might wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining. You do have the right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"

Mentzer Basic Set DM's Book, page 16:

The dice included in this set are all you need to play DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® games. Whenever two or more events could occur anda decision is needed, or whenever a variety of results is possible, dice may be used to randomly select a result. Experienced Dungeon Masters may select results instead of rolling dice.

EXAMPLE: A character with 3 hit points is hit by a monster with a normal sword (damage 1-8). Death could easily result -- through no fault of the player's, merely a random result of the Hit roll. To keep the character alive as long as possible, the DM rolls for damage -- but ignores the result, and announces that 2 points of damage were done. The character retreats and the game continues.

Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition DMG, page 15:

Rolling behind a screen lets you fudge if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you might want to change the second critical hit to a normal hit, or even a miss. Don't do it too often, though, and don't let on that you're doing it, or the other players feel as though they don't face any real risk -- or worse, that you're playing favorites.

I don't have copies of OD&D, 2e or 3e, but it wouldn't surprise me to see such comments in their DMGs as well.

 

[S'mon]

Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition DMG, page 15:

This is the thing - most players don't want their PCs to die, but most D&D players do want the possibility of death/failure; it's the possibility of defeat which makes success possible. And IME most players who find out their DM fudges are very disappointed, even to the point of quitting the game in some cases.

The 4e DMG (and Mentzer) advocates lying to the players, taking an illusionist approach where the players don't realise what is going on. I'd rather just be honest, seek to create a fair challenge (whether by encounter or by environment), and let things resolve naturally, so that success or failure is always genuine.

Ironically, 4e D&D is probably the easiest iteration to run without fudging.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Isn't this more like a cocked/leaning die, or the die falling off the table? In my experience do overs are generally used for malfunctions. I mean, we'd call a do over for the wiffleball going into that darn tree again, but probably not when Jack's hit scores four runs.

In golf, you wouldn't call a do over for a hole in one, right? If someone hits a hole at par +10, is anyone going to say, "Just write down par +2." Right?

If counting strokes in golf is "a good walk spoiled," is rolling dice in D&D "a good story spoiled"?

Bullgrit

Look up the origin(s) of the term 'Mulligan'. Just about the only thing agreed upon is that started as a golf term (and most likely involved a man named Mulligan).

Not apropos of anything, really - because D&D isn't a competitive sport, but a shared activity.

Some folks have a better time if the GM fudges his dice now and again - my players have asked me not to roll my dice out in the open, they want me to be able to fudge. I can't say that I have fudged any rolls in the past year, but the players trust me to do so if I think that it will make the game more fun.

Then again, my dice are generally ornery and misanthropic, willing to mess with the fates of heroes and villains alike.

The Auld Grump

 

[Stormonu]

Need another example? Contemporary videogames! Once the business need to keep sucking quarters out of players was removed, save points and unlimited resurrection became pretty much standard operating procedure. Unlimited do-overs! Again, a different way to determine lameness, because the game structure is different.

Gotta spread XP, yadda, yadda.

Don't forget Game Genies or left, right, up, down, up, down, A,B,B,A.

Also, fudging in golf is called Mulligans, and might be called "handicaps" in other games.

 

[Jhaelen]

What other games are there in which fudging by one or more participants is acceptable and fun?

Well, first of all: every cooperative game.

Even in competitive games there's situations where fudging is widely accepted:

- if there's a significant disparity in player skill; rather than ruthlessly crushing the novice player, the experienced player will often allow the novice player to take back bad moves, etc.

- in games with very complicated rules: some games are so hideously complicated that even pro players make mistakes (as in: false assumptions) fairly often. It's considered good style to point these out and allow your opponent to reconsider.

- when investigating 'what if' scenarios: if a game ends early or one of the players forfeits, the result is often ignored and rolled-back to see what would have happened if a different move had been made.

 

[delericho]

What other games are there in which fudging by one or more participants is acceptable and fun?

Monopoly. It seems to crop up almost invariably that the first time someone is about to go out of the game, another player (often the person to whom they're paying rent at the time) will either lend them money or just let it slide.

This is somehow seen as more fun, despite making an already-too-long game either longer, and despite causing the losing player to spend the next several turns just scraping along the bottom with next to no chance of turning things around, rather than just putting them out of their misery and having done with it.

But then, that seems to be Monopoly's lot - an okay-but-not-great game that gets hit with endless house rules and fudging with the intent of making it 'better' but the effect of making it sooo much worse.

 

[prosfilaes]

Well, first of all: every cooperative game.

Er, no? If we're playing Pandemic or Arkham Horror, I'm not likely to have any patience with fudging of any sort. I assume you're thinking of different games than those, because I've never seen any evidence that anyone fudges at cooperative board games.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

Hobo/Elf Witch: I sincerely don't know why you found my comments patronizing, but apologies.

I'm not telling people what to do or how to play. I'm just pointing out that there is a difference between enjoying games of chance and enjoying "winning" games of chance. If I know a friend doesn't like olives and he ends up with olives on his plate, would it be patronizing to tell him, "Dude, you might not want to eat that..."? The point is not to tell him what to do or how to do it, it's to help prevent an unpleasant experience.

Can you play with fudging? Sure. As was mentioned, several people do. The question is: What's the point? Really, honestly: Why roll dice if you will only accept positive outcomes and ignore negative outcomes? Possible answer: The DM made the encounter too hard and that's not fair. Shouldn't every encounter have the possibility of failure? If yes, what's the difference? If not, what's the point?

 

[Akaiku]

Really, honestly: Why roll dice if you will only accept positive outcomes and ignore negative outcomes? Possible answer: The DM made the encounter too hard and that's not fair. Shouldn't every encounter have the possibility of failure? If yes, what's the difference? If not, what's the point?

The difference is in the details, of course!

For many, the WHY and the HOW of the win is an interesting thing to explore, even if the actuality of the win is a set conclusion. Who killed the ork? With what? Did the ranger arrow him or did the cleric call down the wrath to fry him or did the psion go all Scanners on him? This is the question the dice answer, not "Is there going to be a session after this?"

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

When I was younger, I thought crafting the story was the most important part of DMing. As I have gotten older, I've shifted away from this. I reserve the right to fudge a roll, but I rarely, rarely do these days. If I want a chance for failure or success, I call for a die roll. If I already know the outcome, I won't call for one.

If you don't want the dice to influence the game, don't roll them.