My DM just told me he fudges rolls....

[Mark CMG]

Yeah. I do. You didn't really address the context of my post, though, so if you have thoughts on it, I'm open to them.

Someone saying they are open and actually being open are two different things sometimes. Pointing out that you consider applying "Rule 0" to be a "cheat" was a way to point out that we have some bit of a divide in our approaches to the game and understanding of how RPG rules systems work. Further, your use of the word "cheat" suggests that there is an adversarial relationship between GM and other players in an RPG, which I further do not believe, therefore the idea that a facilitator of a game could "cheat" acts as a non sequitur in RPG discussions with me, as it is a foreign idea, unrelated to RPGs in my estimation.

So, the point is (though I think you already understand this), the GM cannot cheat because the GM is neither an adversary nor bound by the guidelines of a game system. If a GM feels something has gone awry, with the rules or the dice, the GM makes an adjustment. Is it possible that it can be done more elegantly? Sure, maybe even quite often. But despite the GM being the introducer of conflict for the characters, the GM is not in conflict with the players, and so cannot "cheat."

 

[olshanski]

I far prefer non-fudging games. Part of the pleasure for me is in estimating the chance of success, analyzing the risks, and then taking calculated risks.

If I figure that I have an 80% chance of killing an opponent on my hit, but if that fails, the opponent has a 30% chance of killing my character... I have to decide whether to flee or stay and fight.

If a DM is fudging rolls, it throws my calculations out the window and the game loses a lot of the appeal.... (at least the combat portions of the game.)

If a climactic big-boss battle ends "anticlimactically" in 1 or 2 rounds, I don't mind. If a wandering group of peons gets lucky and rolls a lot of critical hits, and the party rolls poorly, resulting in the deaths of 1-2 party members on an "inconsequential" encounter, that is also fine. If the party is TPKed because the DM didn't balance the encounter properly, that is also fine. I'd much rather have all of the above rather than a fudging DM. I will not play in a game if the DM is fudging.
How do I know if a DM is fudging? I like to see all rolls in the open with no screen. If a roll is hidden I assume the DM is fudging.

I understand that many people like to fudge rolls, and many players like to play in games where the DM is fudging. Its not to my taste and I feel very strongly about it. I'd rather not play than play with a fudging DM.

 

[Plane Sailing]

But, again, modifying behavior is just another form of fudging.

If you or the writer of the monster description initially wrote that creature as "fighting to the bitter end", you're arbitrarily changing those preset behaviors because having it wipe the PCs is no fun. You've fudged. Even if that "preset" wasn't there, you're fudging when you arbitrarily make that decision based on what's convenient (for the PCs, for the story, for the fun, whatever) rather than what is the most brutally efficient.

But you're not a bad GM for that. In fact, you're probably a good GM, since you're attempting to maximize everyone's fun but not TPKing the party because of a bad choice on your part or a run of bad luck on theirs.

But, yet again, you're still fudging.

Clearly we are on opposite sides of an opinion here. I don't consider that fudging at all - I consider it being a good GM who is able to react to situations well (the reason why I prefer a human GM to a computer any day of the week and twice on Sundays).

I consider it a strange approach to assume that anything that was written down at one point must be chiselled in stone as if it were the laws of the Medes and Persians. I treat everything written down as guidelines or defaults, but subject to variation depending upon the situation.

Of course, it is only a reasonable technique if the behaviour is rational - and if a PC falls into a swarm, or is being devoured by an ooze, there is nothing more that can be done than if they fell into a pool of lava!

Players in my games expect creatures of animal intelligence or higher to behave as rationally as is appropriate (and in a module that is normally highly different to the boring and irrational 'always attacks and fights to the death' which was littered everywhere through Keep on the Shadowfell, for instance!)

Cheers

 

[Dausuul]

How do I know if a DM is fudging? I like to see all rolls in the open with no screen. If a roll is hidden I assume the DM is fudging.

That's an entirely unwarranted assumption. There are plenty of non-fudging-related reasons for the DM to hide die rolls. Furthermore, as I pointed out above, a DM rolling in the open can still fudge quite easily.

If non-fudging is important to you, here's what you do: Define what you mean by fudging, then ask the DM not to do it. If the DM agrees, you're good. If not, don't play. If the DM agrees but you think s/he's going to fudge anyway, why are you playing with a liar?

 

[Plane Sailing]

If the party is TPKed because the DM didn't balance the encounter properly, that is also fine.

Out of interest, does this suggest you prefer a system where all encounters are balanced to give the party a tough enough time before the encounter is defeated? Do you never play in 'status quo' style games were the bandits live on this hill, the dragon lives on that mountain and the rats are in the sewers, and the PCs find that they have a variety of 'easy', 'moderate', 'hard' and 'pretty impossible' encounters (as was certainly suggested in the 3e DMG, I don't know whether the 4e DMG had anything to say on the matter)

How do I know if a DM is fudging? I like to see all rolls in the open with no screen. If a roll is hidden I assume the DM is fudging.

So if you want to search for traps, you want to see the roll out in the open - how do you know whether you searched and failed, or there were no traps? You are creeping up on someone, and you think he hasn't heard you but actually he has, and he is waiting to ambush you; can't happen if all rolls are public. Some rolls have to be behind screens, otherwise even failure gives you information you shouldn't have!

Just curious.

 

[Lord Crimson]

Clearly we are on opposite sides of an opinion here. I don't consider that fudging at all - I consider it being a good GM who is able to react to situations well (the reason why I prefer a human GM to a computer any day of the week and twice on Sundays).

I agree that it's a sign of good GMing.

I just can't understand why "stacking the deck" via the decisions you do or don't make as a GM is any different than "stacking the deck" by ignoring numbers that sabotage enjoyment of the game.

In one case you're foregoing a roll because the result would be inconvenient. In the other, you're choosing to ignore elements of said roll that exceed the parameters you wanted/expected.

In both cases, moderation is called for. Because extreme abuse of either results in railroading.

But one isn't more or less legitimate than the other.

I consider it a strange approach to assume that anything that was written down at one point must be chiselled in stone as if it were the laws of the Medes and Persians. I treat everything written down as guidelines or defaults, but subject to variation depending upon the situation.

That's not what I'm saying. In fact, if you take my whole post, you'll see that I'm against that very thing.

My point is that your interpretation and/or selective use of those guidelines is, in fact, fudging the game in certain ways.

If the "rules" are just guidelines, why are dice rolls being given this "written in stone" status? Shouldn't the dice also just be guidelines?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Someone saying they are open and actually being open are two different things sometimes.

I would appreciate it if you would never try to rewrite my motives. If I say I'm open to your thoughts, I am. Please do not say otherwise. Thank you.

Pointing out that you consider applying "Rule 0" to be a "cheat" was a way to point out that we have some bit of a divide in our approaches to the game and understanding of how RPG rules systems work.

I understand completely what you were pointing out. Of course, I'm using the same language that the 3.5 DMG did. It has a section on "DM Cheating and Player Perceptions". It goes on to talk about "you really can't cheat" because of Rule 0, but the wording is present for a reason: some player's view it as cheating. That's the point of the title, after all.

Which is what I commented on in my post, and what you kinda glossed over. People have different views on it, and my group's social contract definitely differs from yours. However, the point was exactly that. Some types of fudging are seen as such cheating to certain groups, and not to others. It'll differ from group to group. Saying, "it's never cheating" is definitely a viable view on it, but saying "it's never cheating to any group at any time, no matter what they think" is pretty unacceptable, to me. I assume you don't think that's the case.

Further, your use of the word "cheat" suggests that there is an adversarial relationship between GM and other players in an RPG, which I further do not believe, therefore the idea that a facilitator of a game could "cheat" acts as a non sequitur in RPG discussions with me, as it is a foreign idea, unrelated to RPGs in my estimation.

I don't feel like an adversary, I feel like an arbiter. I feel like I'm not on the player's side, nor the NPC's side. To that end, it's especially important to me that I don't cheat. I don't favor the PCs or NPCs when it comes to rolls, ideas, innovative gambits, and the like. They both follow the same rules, and fudging one way or another makes the game less enjoyable for my players.

Can't you see how being as close to impartial as possible would be important to some players (my players feel they've only really "earned it" with this style of play)? And how that means it's very important to not be adversarial, but also try never to fudge?

So, the point is (though I think you already understand this), the GM cannot cheat because the GM is neither an adversary nor bound by the guidelines of a game system.

I guess we'll agree to disagree here? I mean, as a strong believer in house rules, I'm pretty much okay with a "this is cheating" clause being in any game as part of the social contract.

If a GM feels something has gone awry, with the rules or the dice, the GM makes an adjustment. Is it possible that it can be done more elegantly? Sure, maybe even quite often. But despite the GM being the introducer of conflict for the characters, the GM is not in conflict with the players, and so cannot "cheat."

I guess that's your view. I can say it doesn't hold true for my group, and while it seems like you're making an objective statement, I can only assume you're only speaking for your group and those that agree with you. Because, if it is more broad, I can say that I disagree, and that you're wrong. As always, though, play what you like

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't feel like an adversary, I feel like an arbiter. I feel like I'm not on the player's side, nor the NPC's side. To that end, it's especially important to me that I don't cheat. I don't favor the PCs or NPCs when it comes to rolls, ideas, innovative gambits, and the like. They both follow the same rules, and fudging one way or another makes the game less enjoyable for my players.

This is how I view things. I am there as a referee. For some groups this is an important part of the fun and fudging detracts from their enjoyment. It isn't for everyone. But it is a perfectly valid approach to the game.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Query for those who do: Do you also allow your players to fudge their die rolls at will? Or are you the only person at the table capable of figuring out what would be "fun" for people?

As I do not go out of my way to look at every roll of the dice my players throw... my answer is 'Yes, absolutely.' I have no idea if they ever do or not, and really don't care... and thus I fully expect that any of them might have done so at some point or another. If one of them has missed their attack four rolls in a row and has gotten really annoyed/pissed off about it, and that fifth time they hit... maybe they fudged, maybe they didn't. Don't know, don't really care. The game for us is about having fun... and if fudging the roll makes them feel a little bit better and feel like they are contributing to the fight... so be it. I can work around anything they do as need be. I don't feel this game is a competition-- me vs the players-- so there's no reason for me to worry about it.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Take the best of both. Turn the need for fudging into a consumable resource used in the open.


Call it action points or fudge points, but give players a significant number of points to spend towards plot control so that bad rolls don't wreck the fun in a vital scene. But can also be used to turn acts of normalness into awesomeness.

Trailblazer's action point system is a good example of this. Characters get a number of points per level, spending one allows modification of your own d20 rolls by adding a 1d6 (or larger), or cause foes to reroll successful rolls, boost AC, etc. Players can conserve action points (fudge points) for very significant moments, or can use them up like ammunition. The party could pool some points from each character's stash that could be used for any player in dire need.

I can't imagine a game would need that many action (fudge) points per character level. It's all in the open, and the fudging can simply be a resource to consume!