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

[Rogue Agent]

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!

Right. I think it boils down to motivation: If an NPC changes their plans or outlook because the situation suggests that they should, that's not fudging. If an NPC changes their plans because you, as a GM, want the change the outcome of the encounter, that's fudging.

Or to put it another way: Is the GM throwing the game so that the PCs would win when they should have lost? That's fudging. Is the GM cheating the players so that the PCs lose when they should have won? Also fudging.

The actual techniques employed (changing dice rolls, shifting target DCs, adding reinforcements, conveniently "forgetting" that the NPC has a fireball they could use to finish the group off, etc.) is, IMO, irrelevant.

 

[The Shaman]

Right. I think it boils down to motivation: If an NPC changes their plans or outlook because the situation suggests that they should, that's not fudging. If an NPC changes their plans because you, as a GM, want the change the outcome of the encounter, that's fudging.

Or to put it another way: Is the GM throwing the game so that the PCs would win when they should have lost? That's fudging. Is the GM cheating the players so that the PCs lose when they should have won? Also fudging.

The actual techniques employed (changing dice rolls, shifting target DCs, adding reinforcements, conveniently "forgetting" that the NPC has a fireball they could use to finish the group off, etc.) is, IMO, irrelevant.

Worth repeating.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Start fudging your own rolls. Tell him when he stops, you'll stop.

 

[Umbran]

I disagree, but that's okay. To me, if someone says they're going to do something (or not do something) explicitly, and then they purposely go against what they said, most people consider that lying. In the context of a game, I think it's fair to call that cheating. The dictionary definitely supports my thoughts on this, too.

Hm. See below...

That still meets my definition: "2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game" and "b : to violate rules dishonestly". In your example, the GM is breaking (new tournament) rules when he alters play. If there is an agreement not to, he's also violating rules dishonestly. I feel my definition does not suffer from your counterexample.

The point was that it deals with the issue without having to keep pointing at a definition. I'll try to explain why that's important in a moment.

I just personally don't feel I like have any real holes in my understanding or argument.

The hole, at least in this one small corner of the discussion, is that in human communication, "technically correct" doesn't always equate to "right".

You keep pointing to a technical definition, and say by your definition, you're right, so you're right. But, if you step up to someone and call them a cheater or a liar, what comes into mind isn't *your* technical definition, but the common one, with a rather different set of connotations. The hole is that you don't get to set the definitions that get used.

On top of that, whether you intend it that way or not, what you're doing is a commonly used form of passive-aggressive rhetorical judo. A word is known to have emotional connotations. The speaker swaps around technical definitions, so that while the word technically still applies, the emotional connotations don't, but the word continues to carry them regardless.

 

[Dice4Hire]

While I do not commonly fudge rolls, it does happen on occasion to make the game work better. I love my d20s, but sometimes they are a bit too contrary.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

My opinion is that most DM's fudge rolls and that's fine, just don't tell the players and don't do it ALL the time.

I have done it on occasion to make things more interesting and add some more edge-of-your-seat scenarios happen. A bit of drama and chaos in the fight with the BBEG is awesome, especially if there is danger involved. The way I do it is if the PCs are way over-powered then I amp up the BBEG a bit on the fly and allow him to hit the PCs more often with a fudged hidden roll, or if the PCs are almost to a TPK due to really bad rolling on their parts along with my miscalculation of how hard I made the fight, I'll fudge rolls to have the bad guys missing more or doing less damage to the PCs, usually it's a correction on my part that I have to adjust the difficulty setting one way or the other to account for my own mistakes. It's the DM's job to keep the campaign running and this is just another function of it.

If you don't personally do fudging as a DM, that's your choice, but as a player just go with the flow and have fun with the campaign and story, don't get caught up in what the DM is doing behind the screen just pay attention to what your character is doing.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The hole, at least in this one small corner of the discussion, is that in human communication, "technically correct" doesn't always equate to "right".

Ah, my Achilles' heel. Well, two, actually. I am so used to being right, and, as a writer, so used to words making me so.

You keep pointing to a technical definition, and say by your definition, you're right, so you're right. But, if you step up to someone and call them a cheater or a liar, what comes into mind isn't *your* technical definition, but the common one, with a rather different set of connotations. The hole is that you don't get to set the definitions that get used.

I do understand your point, but in a written medium, I find using definitions help clear up thoughts in a discussion. When I say "breaking the rules is cheating" and I get back "that's an overstatement", my first reaction is to say, "no, it's not." And, it's not. But, in terms of productive discussion, if I think in terms of literal definition, and you advocate your case from a more casual, colloquial view, I think we're probably talking past one another on the original point I was trying to make.

I understand what you're saying here. I really do. I do, however, think it depends on where you're from, and how the word is used locally. I can't speak for the internet at large, but as I've said, my phrasing is not uncommon in my circles. I might very well be different from yours, or the country as a whole.

On top of that, whether you intend it that way or not, what you're doing is a commonly used form of passive-aggressive rhetorical judo. A word is known to have emotional connotations. The speaker swaps around technical definitions, so that while the word technically still applies, the emotional connotations don't, but the word continues to carry them regardless.

Well, I don't intend to strip it of emotional connotations. Some people consider fudging to be a form cheating, with all the emotional connotations that implies, even if the fudging is there to help them. If I'm playing the game of Life with my young cousins, and I give each person one million dollars instead of them losing $80,000, one of my cousins would object. She has before to people playing to help her (when she can spot it). She's only five, but she's pretty sharp.

Does she get upset? Well, she gets disappointed, but she'll accept it (she's good at following what an adult says to do). However, my players do indeed have an emotional reaction if they find out I save them or help them (or hurt them for that matter) through fudging. I definitely did not hope to strip out the emotional connotations with my use; indeed, they're pretty vital to what I'm trying to convey.

I do get where you're coming from, Umbran. And I'm not saying that my experience is near universal, when it comes to player views, personal views, or colloquial usage of definitions. What I do intend to do, however, is show that some players view fudging as "cheating", and that saying so isn't an overstatement at all. It has just as much emotional charge as the "normal" usage of "cheating". As always, play what you like

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Right. I think it boils down to motivation: If an NPC changes their plans or outlook because the situation suggests that they should, that's not fudging. If an NPC changes their plans because you, as a GM, want the change the outcome of the encounter, that's fudging.

Or to put it another way: Is the GM throwing the game so that the PCs would win when they should have lost? That's fudging. Is the GM cheating the players so that the PCs lose when they should have won? Also fudging.

The actual techniques employed (changing dice rolls, shifting target DCs, adding reinforcements, conveniently "forgetting" that the NPC has a fireball they could use to finish the group off, etc.) is, IMO, irrelevant.

If the creature the DM created bases it's decision upon the environment the DM created it is legitimate.

If the creature the DM created bases it's decision upon the DM's will it is illegitimate.

Is this your theory?

I have a saying I use all the time to friends, colleagues, and employees: You never know what somebody else is thinking...you might think you do; but, you never do.

 

[Hassassin]

If fudging is cheating, is rolling the dice just to keep the players unaware of something (when there's nothing to decide) also cheating?

In my opinion fudging is just a point between the two extremes of "I already know what happens, but I'll still roll the die" and "this will be completely decided by the die roll".

 

[JamesonCourage]

If fudging is cheating, is rolling the dice just to keep the players unaware of something (when there's nothing to decide) also cheating?

What rule is that breaking? Is there an expressed social agreement that this doesn't happen?

In my opinion fudging is just a point between the two extremes of "I already know what happens, but I'll still roll the die" and "this will be completely decided by the die roll".

I'm glad you have a group that works for you, and a way that works for your group. I love how I can be in the minority (apparently) and the hobby is mutable enough for me to play, too. As always, play what you like