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

[enrious]

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

Thanks for the clarification.

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

I see where you're coming from, but IMO, by arguing "Hey, you're both being rigid - one in rigidly no and the other in rigidly open to anything," then it's like you stopped one logical conclusion too short.

In other words, an artificial stoppage to artificially bolster an argument.

 

[Janx]

Ultimately, the OT was about the OP hearing from his DM that he has a fudging policy.

a) awful nice of the GM to think of explaining his practice. not everybody even thinks of this.

b) freaking out about a little fudging is a bit extreme in my opinion. I think there are worse problems the GM could have, like railroading.

c) understanding the areas he fudges should be part of the decision. I don't mind a fudge to fix a glitch, but I wouldn't want a fudge to thwart my PC's success. I'd also prefer you designed the encounter right and fair, rather than jacked with making it easier/harder. In fact, if something's supposed to be harder, foreshadow that and don't pull a surprise, it's +10 levels over you.

The OP made it sound like the DM's fudge policy might be broader that glitch fixing. That's certainly a red flag and if there were any others that'd be a criteria to avoid the game.

 

[S'mon]

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

Yes, I think the mindset and implications are different. I don't count making raise dead available as fudging. Fudging is used to mean changing the results of dice rolls, post roll. I don't like doing that. I don't use a DM screen; everything in the open. Yet I suspect I could still run a game that Elf Witch would enjoy; where eg non-dramatic PC death was very unlikely.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Not accepting random rolls of dice to be fudged mid-combat or chaning of hp/ac/gear is what sucks. I don't care if dm rolls from his random table some encounter and doesn't want to run it and rolls again. Those tables aren't meant as strait-jackets for dm but inspirational tool. Anyone most dm:s arent giving their monster random tables and other things like to for players to consult.

Dm's making some random rolls for nothing just to make players wonder, is also no-issue. I don't like games where everyone is requesting to know what dm is rolling for.

Fudging random results is kinda bad habit that tends to grow. Because, for story, luck sometimes just sucks. I know few dm:s who change stuff all the time, way to blatantly. End result was that couple of players started to cheat as well.

So why do you roll when you don't really want to? There are other ways around pc deaths, mishaps, action points are good. Maybe give them to few npc:s too. But this is matter of discussion with your group.
Then altering random rolls woudn't feel as cheap. (And woudn't be.)

 

[Hassassin]

Codifying fudges

I've been thinking about codifying fudging explicitly (instead of implicitly like rule 0) into the rules. Presumably at least some who don't like fudging would be fine with it if it was done within a set of rules, since then it wouldn't seem like "cheating".

The two main uses/consequences of fudging in combat are to 1) helping PCs stay alive and 2) helping NPCs stay alive. The reasons for the two are often different, but that's the mechanical part. ("Alive" can also mean "up and fighting".)

For the first there is a widely used mechanic for it: action/hero points. However, they often become just another resource that players take into account when making decisions. This is especially true if you can use them for something else than surviving an otherwise lethal situation.

A "fix" for that could be to have, lets call them fate points, that would not be known to the player. The initial number of them could be rolled (e.g. 1d4-1 so you wouldn't know if you have any) and kept by either the DM or another player. They would only affect the game in a limited way.

For the latter you could have fate points for NPCs, but that doesn't quite work. Instead, I'd give major NPCs an ability that prevented them from dying in the first round or two in exchange for some cost. The cost should be something that benefits the PCs about as much as the NPC dying. In D&D I could have the ability either return the NPC to full hp and give the PCs double XP or return the NPC to 1/4th hp and give them 1.5x the XP.

 

[Janx]

So why do you roll when you don't really want to? There are other ways around pc deaths, mishaps, action points are good. Maybe give them to few npc:s too. But this is matter of discussion with your group.
Then altering random rolls woudn't feel as cheap. (And woudn't be.)

That would have seemed like the most obvious answer. Shaman asked the question a few miles upstream. Somebody answered it.

the GM rolls because he thinks he wants to. He hasn't fully considered all the possibilities or dismisses the unlikely possibility.

Then he rolls a 20 on the first attack of the round. Then he confirms the crit. Then he rolls a whopping max damage. And a PC would be dead if he announced the total.

there are times where this happens and the GM will go with it and announce the total and the PC is dead. There are other times, where the GM now considers other factors and decides to give the PC a chance and makes the damage be less.

the GM probably always rolls dice because that's how you keep the presentation layer to the players the same. It would definitely break immersion in you present 2 situations that are identical but presented differently (why isn't he rolling any dice now?)

the GM rolls dice because that's what the normal rules say to do. Roll to-hit. Roll a save. It's only when an extreme outcome comes up that he's surprised and considers ignoring the result.

It's not rocket science. Not all GMs have perfect adventure designs, perfect foresight and perfect execution. So they get surprised and adjust as they think they need to.

I also wouldn't call it cheap. Every one I play with (under all the GMs) knows the GM may fudge. We may even know when the GM has spared us (one of them asks "how many hitpoint did you have?"). it doesn't bother any of us.

Maybe its because we don't see it as some great victory over a monster as a result of dice rolls that reduced his HP to zero. In fact, killing monsters to me is just a side activity. My real victory is not the dice rolls, but seeing good plans succeed and NPCs outsmarted. Yes, some dice rolls may happen in there, but you can tell when your success is because you had a really good idea and not just because you rolled really well (or the GM fudged a result).

 

[JamesonCourage]

I see where you're coming from, but IMO, by arguing "Hey, you're both being rigid - one in rigidly no and the other in rigidly open to anything," then it's like you stopped one logical conclusion too short.

In other words, an artificial stoppage to artificially bolster an argument.

I disagree to an extent, as The Shaman's point seemed to be that by taking a "never" stance, it made it more fun for his group. This is something that Elf Witch indicated makes someone miss a sign of being a "good" GM.

See, she said:

I will never commit to the I will always or I will never do something as a DM. I believe a sign of a great DM is one that is flexible enough to realize that always and never can really suck the fun out of the game.

In her own post, she goes on to say that saying "never" can really suck the fun out of a game, and that it's the sign of a great GM to be flexible enough to realize that. The thing is, saying "never" to fudging enhances the game for The Shaman, or for myself. Implying that being more flexible in options leads to a more fun game is simply not objectively true, in any sense.

That's the point. So, again, that's why I said:

It's not a matter of options, it's a matter of rigid views. I mean, if the GM says "I will never rule out using laser guns, spaceship, pop culture references, and inserting NPCs of real life celebrities into this campaign" is more flexible than one who doesn't, but the group may not want that. By committing to a view of "I will never do that," the group will have a more enjoyable play experience.

It's like the difference between playing "only core" and "anything goes" in 3.X or 4e. Some people will say (or imply), "if you play core only, it's because you're easily overwhelmed by options" or the like. I've played core only, and as someone who designed his own 350-page RPG based around player options, I can easily shrug this criticism off.

It's not about options, it's about the rigidity of the viewpoint. See the difference? It's not semantics, it's context of The Shaman's statement.

It's not a matter of options. It's just not. If that's not clear by now, I doubt I can make it more clear. Thanks for the civil discussion, but if this doesn't clear it up, perhaps we'd better just call it a day, and agree to disagree. As always, play what you like

 

[Elf Witch]

Not accepting random rolls of dice to be fudged mid-combat or chaning of hp/ac/gear is what sucks. I don't care if dm rolls from his random table some encounter and doesn't want to run it and rolls again. Those tables aren't meant as strait-jackets for dm but inspirational tool. Anyone most dm:s arent giving their monster random tables and other things like to for players to consult.

Dm's making some random rolls for nothing just to make players wonder, is also no-issue. I don't like games where everyone is requesting to know what dm is rolling for.

Fudging random results is kinda bad habit that tends to grow. Because, for story, luck sometimes just sucks. I know few dm:s who change stuff all the time, way to blatantly. End result was that couple of players started to cheat as well.

So why do you roll when you don't really want to? There are other ways around pc deaths, mishaps, action points are good. Maybe give them to few npc:s too. But this is matter of discussion with your group.
Then altering random rolls woudn't feel as cheap. (And woudn't be.)

Why is it that some people who don't ever fudge think that those of have done do it because we don't like to roll dice?

It seems a little extreme to me to have this view. Most of the DMs I know who sometimes have fudged have done it very rarely. Myself I have done it twice out of thousands of rolls.

What you are talking about where DMs change things all the time and this leads to players cheating is not what most of us are talking about. DMs who do that do it to protect their NPCs or the story and it is so obvious that the players resent it and I don't blame them.

I would never do that to my players I would never fudge to protect my NPCs if the players kill them in one round so be it. I have knocked down how many HP my BBEG have when I think the combat is dragging on to long and I can see boredom starting to creep in. I have also said when a player has done a great deal of damage in one blow and the NPC is at -6 you killed him because it is more dramatic then just letting him bleed out or having to slit his throat.

I would never fudge or change something against the players when I do it, it is always in favor of the PCs. I also don't do it to protect a story or as a railroading tool.

 

[Elf Witch]

Yes, I think the mindset and implications are different. I don't count making raise dead available as fudging. Fudging is used to mean changing the results of dice rolls, post roll. I don't like doing that. I don't use a DM screen; everything in the open. Yet I suspect I could still run a game that Elf Witch would enjoy; where eg non-dramatic PC death was very unlikely.

I am sure you could run a game I could enjoy. Fudging a dice roll is not the only way to accomplish things.

We were playing in the Sunless Citadel and my PC got ripped to pieces by a troll because of the mistakes two other players made. We to low level to be able to afford a raise dead and there were no priests around who were high enough level to do it.

The DM threw into the treasure a raise dead scroll and the party cleric had to roll to be able to cast it since it was a higher level spell for him. He made the roll and I was raised.

Later I was running the module for another group and realized that he had thrown the raise dead scroll in because there was no treasure in the module that had one. He put the scroll in to give me a chance to be raised.

I also played in a game where the party got TPKed and the DM had a god agree to raise us if we agreed to do a quest for him.

There are many tools in the DM tool box to accomplish changing a negative outcome if they feel it is in the best interest of the game.

 

[Elf Witch]

I disagree to an extent, as The Shaman's point seemed to be that by taking a "never" stance, it made it more fun for his group. This is something that Elf Witch indicated makes someone miss a sign of being a "good" GM.

See, she said:

In her own post, she goes on to say that saying "never" can really suck the fun out of a game, and that it's the sign of a great GM to be flexible enough to realize that. The thing is, saying "never" to fudging enhances the game for The Shaman, or for myself. Implying that being more flexible in options leads to a more fun game is simply not objectively true, in any sense.

That's the point. So, again, that's why I said:

It's not a matter of options. It's just not. If that's not clear by now, I doubt I can make it more clear. Thanks for the civil discussion, but if this doesn't clear it up, perhaps we'd better just call it a day, and agree to disagree. As always, play what you like

Look I have clarified what I meant on this that I was not just talking about fudging when I said being flexible is a sign of a great DM. I pointed out that being flexible could also mean not fudging because your players don't like it. Being flexible could be hating elves and usually not allowing them as a race in your game but having a player really jonesing to play one so you make an exception this one time. I can not possibly envision everything that may come up in future games which is why I won't lock myself into saying I will never do something.

I would also like to point out that I have never criticized DMs who don't fudge or who choose to roll in the open because that is how their players like the game. I have not used words to describe their DMing styles as lazy or making bad players or cheap. Yet several people here can't seem to accept that not all people play the game the same way.