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

[Janx]

First, that sounds pretty cool.

But let me stop you for a minute, please define "plausible" such that it differs from a lowering of hidden hit points, stats, or rolls of the dice.

Thank you.

It sounds like [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] fudged the cost of Raise Dead with this NPC to be zero.

As for plausible, I'm guessing the case is to give the PCs a break through NPC action (being nicer or moving dumber), or creating in-game content that helps the PCs and does not contradict any other facts of the game.

For instance, the next chest the party searches has a healing potion in it. It wasn't in the notes, but the GM put it there to be nice right then. If it's plausible to be there (because sometimes chests do have healing potions), then he's fudged game content in favor of the player.

Assuming my definition of fudging by game content manipulation is correct, this is why I call the whole concept of not-fudging into question. Because the GM is ultimately making all this stuff up. Either on the fly, or on paper first. Unless he systematically generates it (random tables?), the human bias (good and bad) is at play behind the GM screen.

 

[S'mon]

Rigidity is not inherently bad.

Indeed. I'm an Ullsterman; for us rigidity is the highest virtue.

"S'mon says NO! to fudging!"

 

[S'mon]

First, that sounds pretty cool.

But let me stop you for a minute, please define "plausible" such that it differs from a lowering of hidden hit points, stats, or rolls of the dice.

Thank you.

Plausible within the established game world reality. Changing hp once a creature has entered play is changing established in-game reality. So is changing dice rolls, once rolled. I guess that's the red line for me. I might declare "Your PCs are knocked out" without rolling any dice, eg as the start of an adventure, but I would never fudge dice rolls to ensure PCs were knocked out. I'm big on consistency of the game world.

 

[S'mon]

It sounds like [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] fudged the cost of Raise Dead with this NPC to be zero.

Treona still used 500gp of components to raise the PC. It is not established in the module whether she has raise dead components on hand, AIR. I decided she was using the last of the once-wealthy Kiris clan's resources to effect the 'raise'. There were good in-game reasons for her to do this.

 

[enrious]

Plausible within the established game world reality. Changing hp once a creature has entered play is changing established in-game reality. So is changing dice rolls, once rolled. I guess that's the red line for me. I might declare "Your PCs are knocked out" without rolling any dice, eg as the start of an adventure, but I would never fudge dice rolls to ensure PCs were knocked out. I'm big on consistency of the game world.

Ok, but just to clarify - we are talking about an imaginary world in which the players and player-characters aren't fully knowledgeable?

I guess I'm trying to understand drawing a line in Schrodinger's Gameworld, when from my perspective, it's just as arbitrary as people who fudge dice rolls, hit points, etc. are accused of being.

I'm honestly trying to understand - as I said before I doubt we're really that different as DMs - the difference may be degree, but I doubt it is kind.

 

[S'mon]

Ok, but just to clarify - we are talking about an imaginary world in which the players and player-characters aren't fully knowledgeable?

Yup. But I know.

Also, I think that fudging can be a slippery slope, it can easily become detectable, and it can ruin the game for many players. As a player I can tolerate it as long as I still have plenty of freedom of action (ie no fudging to maintain railroad plot), but I know players who absolutely won't tolerate it.

 

[S'mon]

To me, there's a difference between fiat (fine) and fudge (bad). I think many people see them as equivalent.

 

[JamesonCourage]

From the Urban Dictionary:

Pedantic:

I'm sorry but I don't care how you try to spin the English language to making someone as rigid if they swear to be flexible, it severely fails the smell test.

My reply was also called semantics. In reality, I believe it is context.

Indeed, Jameson you said earlier that you would "brainstorm" ways to ameliorate the circumstance/situation described above (and one that may cause other DMs to fudge) - apart from degree, where is that any difference in kind of alteration to the game that is so vehemently denounced by the no-fudging crowd?

I would brainstorm up cool ideas for a new PC, help find a cool background for them, think up ways to work their character in, try to help them be very happy mechanically with the new PC, etc. I'd brainstorm for that sort of thing. So, if that wasn't clear, I apologize. As always, play what you like

I think i'll side with the mathematical answer. More options = more flexible.

See, this is true. However, it's not what The Shaman was commenting on. That's the point I was trying to make. Do you get where I'm coming from? I have no real investment in this conversation, but I didn't like seeing him getting piled on when when statement was 100% correct (kinda... thanks Umbran....). As always, play what you like

 

[Elf Witch]

ah, the trap of semantics.

"I will never eat cake and I condemn those who do" is a rigid stance.

"I will never not eat cake" is like a double-negative (actually, it probably is). Sure, it has the word Never in it. You got me.

But there is a difference in those 2 statements. The Cake hater has narrowed the field of choices. If he was a politician, you can bet his platform is the banning of eating cake. The are being restrictive in what they consider acceptable behavior.

The latter position is saying that they will avoid being restrictive. Sure, it uses the word never, but the implication is that they will not take a restrictive stance.

So, the use of the word NO and NEVER are indicators, but there's more to it.

I will never let people of your demographic vote is a rigid and restrictive position.

I will never support barrng people of your demographic from voting is no really rigid.

Yes, from the sense that they won't budge from their stance, but no in the larger picture of what the stance represents, which is the enfranchising of a group of people.

That's the difference. That which condemns another group's preference is rigid. That which commits to condemning another group is not rigid.

Honestly James, I expected you to get that distinction. It is precisely why you put "As Always, play what you like" Because while you have a preference, you imply with that statement that you do not wish to condemn or insult others that have an oppositional preference.

While we've all probably been less diplomatic at times in any of these threads, Shaman's words in this thread were much more restrictive and in fact insulting to those who disagree with his stance. All because of his choice of words.

Thank you for saving me the time to write this out because you put it far better than I could have.

I would like to add to the poster who said that by not committing to never fudge I was being rigid as people who say they will never fudge.

In a semantics game you win here is your cookie.

But in real life it is not the same thing as others have shown. As a DM I am reserving the right to make judgements on how to make the game enjoyable for my players. And to do that I feel that flexibility is called for. Say I one day have a bunch of players who want to always have the dice stand as they fall no matter what then I would choose not to fudge.

Being flexible allows me to tailor my game for the players at my table right then. Which is why I don't understand DMs who make statements of I will never do something.

As a player I don't want to play with a DM who does not roll behind a screen I have already explained why that is. So yes you could say as a player I am more rigid in my outlooks on what I want in the game I play in.

But there is a difference between being a player and a DM . I know that I never see myself as a player ever playing a dwarf I dislike them but as a DM I allow them in my game if that is what a player wants to play.

And no I was not saying that choosing not to fudge makes you a bad DM. I will clarify what I meant I believe that great DMs are flexible and open minded that their goal is to make the game as enjoyable as possible. I am not talking about just about fudging. In my opinion a DM who fudges after players have asked them not to is not being flexible they are being as rigid as A DM who never fudges even if his players would prefer it.

Earlier I used an example of a game that didn't have raise dead in it and for close to two years everyone at the table was okay with it but then things changed and the players went to the DM and said this is not working for us can we change it. Now a rigid a DM would have stuck to his guns and said no I don't like raise dead you all agreed to this so suck it up or leave the game. But he was a flexible DM and listened to his players and made an exception to make the game more enjoyable for all the players at his table.

 

[enrious]

To me, there's a difference between fiat (fine) and fudge (bad). I think many people see them as equivalent.

Thanks, S'mon.

I guess I'm still trying to figure out if it's a difference of degree or kind.


To me, it sounds like degree, but judging from your response, I take it you think it is a difference of kind?