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

[enrious]

For some people, letting the dice roll without fudging is the most fun; fudging is unfun. So the idea that a DM will fudge for or against them to make things more fun is contradictory. It's basically saying, "I'm going to add just enough unfun to make the game fun."

Bullgrit

Out of curiosity, do you recognize that the opposite position is equally valid?

"For some people, letting the dice roll with a degree of fudging is the most fun; not fudging is unfun. So the idea that a DM will not fudge for or against them to make things more fun is contradictory. It's basically saying, "I'm going to add just enough unfun to make the game fun."

 

[enrious]

If I may add a bit of advice to the non-fudgers, stop insisting on treating every single individual DM who does as part of a hive-mind collective when it comes to fudging.

Fully 75% of the passive-aggressive or not passive-aggressive posts I've seen regarding fudging don't apply to me - the situations presented are silly, immature attempts at taking 20 on Craft (Strawman).

It sorta helps your credibility if you listen to the people who fudge tell you when/why they would/wouldn't than if you just make up your own criteria because they aren't falling into your pigeon-hole.

 

[Elf Witch]

I generally do not fudge. In my bi-weekly dungeon crawl game, all rolls are open and even the most excruciating run of player bad luck (see: last session) sticks. The stuff they can't see -- hit points and abilities -- I maintain 99% of the time. I must slip up now and again.

In my Jade Regent campaign, which has a totally different feel than the dungeon crawl game, I still try not to fudge, but I let the players have access to Hero Points. Let them fudge. In addition, I am much "nicer" -- i.e. I tend to give them more hints and warnings so they can make informed decisions. Once they decide, though, we play it straight most of the time.

Now a question for the fudgers: say the BBEG fails his save in round 1 and you let it slide. Now the players have burned a major ability (presumably). Do you give it back to them? What about if the BBEG ends up killing a couple PCs -- they wouldn't have died if you didn't save him in round 1, so do you fudge for them in turn (thus creating a self perpetuating fudge cycle)? Do you remain consistent in fudging? if not, how are your players able to make informed decisions about which challenges to tackle versus which ones to avoid? What happens when the PCs make a real choice -- say they want to get 1 more room in, even though they kn ow they are low on resources etc...? Do you fudge for them then, modifying the encounter behind the door to reflect their weakened state?

See, these are all complex questions with cascading consequences depending on the answers. IMO, it is better to stop the problems in the first place by NOT fudging, either on die rolls or encounters. If the PCs press on, and there's a difficult encounter awaiting them, so be it? I might fudge or ignore random encounter rolls as feels appropriate, and I will certainly alter "set" encounters based on the *actions* of the PCs, but "easing up" (or "bearing down"; luck and good play shouldn't be punished) seems less fun than the alternative.

I fudge but if the players used a big ability like a major spell and brought the BBEG down in one round then I would let it stand. What I might do to keep the encounter going is on the fly have a bunch of angry mooks come out of the woodwork to try and take revenge.

I often make up encounters on the fly and I just decide okay they have hit it enough down the bad guy goes.

My world is organic my players know this. I give them plenty of clues so they can make a judgement on if they have a chance of defeating something. There are dragons in my game they fought one at second level and won but they have also run from an ancient dragon they stumbled upon.

Like I said I fudge but if my players at third level decide to take on an ancient dragon then I figure they are choosing to commit suicide by DM and I will oblige them.

 

[Elf Witch]

And I'm no less tired of being told that I don't care about my players or my campaign if I don't fudge the dice.

I'm don't think I'm being passive-aggressive about anything. Straight up, I think fudging, directly or indirectly, *inappropriate language removed*. I've played with referees who fudge and it kills the fun for me.

And I don't feel bad about holding that opinion. I'm neither asking nor expecting anyone to agree with me, but I'm not going to pretend that I think, "Oh, y'know, it's all good," when I believe it's an incredibly lazy practice that creates really bad habits for both referees and players.

This is why I am beginning to get really annoyed with what you are saying. I have not read anyone saying that if you don't fudge you don't care about your players or your campaign.

Those of us who do fudge have said why we do it and that this is the way our group likes to play. No judgement is being made on how anyone else likes to play.

But you keep using really negative words like rigging and calling us lazy and telling us we are basically bad players who are creating more bad players. So you are being judgmental and deciding that other groups play the game wrong.

 

[Janx]

In the other thread, Elf Witch gave 2 examples where she fudged to spare the life of a PC. One the player had a long night of bad luck AND had recently gotten some depressing medical news.

The other where a player had just lost 1 PC, and had rolled up his replacement PC, only to have it killed in 2 rounds of crits. Basically thwarting all his work and investment when he was sitting out. The player even thanked him, obliquely for sparing him if he had fudged it, because he was feeling pretty frustrated right at that moment.

They seemed to me to be good examples of justifying a Fudge to spare ruining a person's day. Note, I said person. Because that's what players are, and sometimes this stuff is personal to them.

Would Shaman, Exploder Wizard not fudge in these situations and ruin a person's day?

 

[JamesonCourage]

If I may add a bit of advice to the non-fudgers, stop insisting on treating every single individual DM who does as part of a hive-mind collective when it comes to fudging.

So my stance as a non-fudger of "it's not fun for some people" is pigeonholing you? My stance of "if you like it, go for it" is somehow offensively grouping you all together?

Here's some advice from this non-fudger: stop grouping us all together, and assuming our views are the same. We're not a part of a hive-mind collective or anything. As always, play what you like

 

[Elf Witch]

In the other thread, Elf Witch gave 2 examples where she fudged to spare the life of a PC. One the player had a long night of bad luck AND had recently gotten some depressing medical news.

The other where a player had just lost 1 PC, and had rolled up his replacement PC, only to have it killed in 2 rounds of crits. Basically thwarting all his work and investment when he was sitting out. The player even thanked him, obliquely for sparing him if he had fudged it, because he was feeling pretty frustrated right at that moment.

They seemed to me to be good examples of justifying a Fudge to spare ruining a person's day. Note, I said person. Because that's what players are, and sometimes this stuff is personal to them.

Would Shaman, Exploder Wizard not fudge in these situations and ruin a person's day?

I think the important part of of this is realizing you are dealing with a person like Janx said. And maybe because I am female and I have been brought up to make sure my guest are happy and comfortable when I am hosting I find myself doing this in my game. It is about being a good host. I see part of my job as DM is making sure my players have a good time.

That does not mean always saying yes to their wants or always saving their PCs from harm but it does mean reading them and making a judgement call as to what will best enhance their gaming experience.

And sometimes things change on what was agreed upon. For example we all agreed to play in a game with no raise dead and we had some character deaths and replacements PCs. But then one session I lost my PC who I had been playing for two years and another player lost his PC with those two dead there went any connection with the beginning of the game. The new characters didn't have all the knowledge of all the clues and things that we had done.

I was miserable so was the other player we sent a dozen emails back and forth trying to come up with new characters we could get enthusiastic about. But we both knew they would pale and not really be what we wanted to play.

Unknown to us the other players were writing the DM telling him that they were worried about impact it would have on the game to not to find away to bring back at least one of our dead characters.

Now yes we had a social contract we all agreed upon at the start of the game and the DM would have been well in his right to say tough this is what we agreed on. He wanted a non cheesy game and saw raise dead as cheesy. But he was also a good DM who wanted his players to enjoy the game so he worked out away to raise both characters in a non cheesy way.

My point is as a DM you need to be flexible and realize that things can change both in game and in real life. My roommate who DMs does not usually fudge if the dice say you die you die, but she fudged in one session for a player whose fiance's cancer had taken a bad turn she made a judgement that killing his PC that day would not enhance his fun.

 

[Elf Witch]

So my stance as a non-fudger of "it's not fun for some people" is pigeonholing you? My stance of "if you like it, go for it" is somehow offensively grouping you all together?

Here's some advice from this non-fudger: stop grouping us all together, and assuming our views are the same. We're not a part of a hive-mind collective or anything. As always, play what you like

I don't think he is painting everyone with this broad a brush. I have not seen any of us who support fudging lumping you all in the same boat.

But there are some of the non fudgers who are doing this.

 

[enrious]

I don't think he is painting everyone with this broad a brush. I have not seen any of us who support fudging lumping you all in the same boat.

But there are some of the non fudgers who are doing this.

Oh, I was - to demonstrate a point, which he rightfully called me on.

Every single one of us as DMs are unique DMs, whether we fudge or don't, whether we roll in the open or not, whether we can pull off a non-annoying English accent (or Southern accent if the DM in question is English).

Every single one of us are unique, save that some of us fudge and some don't. And those who do have a set of circumstances and degree unique to each.

 

[Elf Witch]

Oh, I was - to demonstrate a point, which he rightfully called me on.

Every single one of us as DMs are unique DMs, whether we fudge or don't, whether we roll in the open or not, whether we can pull off a non-annoying English accent (or Southern accent if the DM in question is English).

Every single one of us are unique, save that some of us fudge and some don't. And those who do have a set of circumstances and degree unique to each.

Well I see what you were trying to do but I still maintain that some posters are lumping people who fudge as being all the same without any nuances. Of course I will admit this subject tends to get my back up because words like cheating, rigging not playing the game right tend to get tossed around.

Look how often the statement was made of if you fudge why bother to use dice at all. Talk about going to an extreme.