As a GM, How Often Do You Fudge Dice Rolls?

[TarionzCousin]

Hippos are tough and slow in any kind of traditional fantasy RPG.

Oh yeah...?

 

[Zak S]

Because it doesn't, and I'd say probably cannot, exist.

If it merely doesn't exist--that's simply a time problem. IF you have enough time to create it--you do. And if you don't--you don't.

As for "cannot"--what makes you think that? There are many systems which allow for slightly altered rules when a player or GM deems them dramatically appropriate and many others which have less swingy math than D&D. And more are made every day.

What facts make you make the very pessimistic statement that no system which could fit your groups needs without fudging could ever be produced?

 

[Hussar]

If it merely doesn't exist--that's simply a time problem. IF you have enough time to create it--you do. And if you don't--you don't.

As for "cannot"--what makes you think that? There are many systems which allow for slightly altered rules when a player or GM deems them dramatically appropriate and many others which have less swingy math than D&D. And more are made every day.

What facts make you make the very pessimistic statement that no system which could fit your groups needs without fudging could ever be produced?

Well, the situation where the dice are bizarre outliers would be a good one. You typically don't need to make rules for 1 in 10000 situations, even though they will crop up from time to time. Or rather, it's simply not worth the bother.

 

[Zak S]

Well, the situation where the dice are bizarre outliers would be a good one. You typically don't need to make rules for 1 in 10000 situations, even though they will crop up from time to time. Or rather, it's simply not worth the bother.

"Or rather it's simply not worth the bother" is much the same as saying "I don't have time".

If you'd say that, you'd answer:

"Theoretically, if there were a rule or procedure that guaranteed that you could use an entire ruleset as written and _never have to fudge_ while still enjoying the same playstyle you currently enjoy--would you use it?"

With: "Yes, I would, though if you ask me to do it myself I wouldn't take the time to do it".

I am asking: If it was zero cost to you (in time or effort) would you prefer an otherwise identical ruleset that didn't have this 1-in-1000 loophole? Sounds like you're saying yes and agreeing with my point.

 

[billd91]

As for "cannot"--what makes you think that? There are many systems which allow for slightly altered rules when a player or GM deems them dramatically appropriate and many others which have less swingy math than D&D. And more are made every day.

What facts make you make the very pessimistic statement that no system which could fit your groups needs without fudging could ever be produced?

No game is going to be able to read the temper of the table on the fly. And that would be one of the criteria for fitting my group's need without GM intervention.

 

[Zak S]

No game is going to be able to read the temper of the table on the fly. And that would be one of the criteria for fitting my group's need without GM intervention.

It's like math: you see a random sequence of numbers, but then a few years later a mathematician comes along who has a formula that shows that it isn't actually random.

So far I see no compelling reason (feel free to provide one) you couldn't cut the situations in which you need to fudge down to a describable set or sets and then create exceptions around that set.

 

[Umbran]

So far I see no compelling reason (feel free to provide one) you couldn't cut the situations in which you need to fudge down to a describable set or sets and then create exceptions around that set.

Yes, well, you haven't provided a compelling reason to do do that systems work. Nor have you provided a compelling reason to search for a reason that will compel you. So, we are probably even on that score

 

[Zak S]

Yes, well, you haven't provided a compelling reason to do do that systems work.

Nor do I need to, because my whole point is
"Time permitting this is a good idea".

So proving that time is always permittingisn't part of my thesis.

My question is "If this cost no time or effort, why wouldn't you do it as it provides x marginal advantage"?

(And then, as a subsidiary question applicable to one response, "Why do you think this would be impossible?")

You can ask a question of your own and I'll answer it. Of course.

Nor have you provided a compelling reason to search for a reason that will compel you.

Well if you're talking about an idea on the internet with strangers, it's presumably because you want to…talk about the idea on the internet with strangers. You are under no obligation to reply.

 

[Umbran]

"Time permitting--it's the best for everybody" is different that "its the best for everybody".

So far the only reason any fudger's really given not to have a range of rules for different situations is, essentially, lack of time to fix the rules.

I am not sure that is factually correct.

I myself noted that, not just as a matter of time, there is a matter of skill: we are not all game designers. Individual game masters may not be capable of producing rules of appropriate quality.

I also noted that GM errors or misjudgments in preparation might call for a fudge at runtime, and such issues do not call for a fix in the rules at all, as the rules operate as desired, it is the content that is flawed.

In addition, the system may perform better in an "unfixed" state with an occasional fudge than in a 'fixed" state. "Fixing" the system has two basic paths - one in which the system becomes crufty with special cases, or one in which the core mechanic is altered so that the edge cases no longer happen, but he core no longer behaves in the same way as it did previously - and neither of those may be superior from the player's point of view.

And, there's always the issue of unintended consequences. A systemic fix may have consequences less desirable for a given group than the results of a fudge.

YOu have not invalidated challenge by making the game easy--you have invalidated challenge by failing to incentivize players attempts to take game situations as a challenge.

If fudging is not common, then the players do not lose incentive, as they cannot tell when it will happen. In many cases, the GM does not announce the specific point at which it has happened, so that the players cannot detect any pattern (if any exists - if you are correcting an error in prep with a fudge, then there is no set pattern for the players to see.

Also, as noted previously, "challenge" is not always the primary need. Sometimes one needs valid challenge, sometimes one may need other things, and in those other cases, I really don't care about invalidating the challenge. In cases (which may be momentary) where rules-challenge is not the primary need, then fixing the rules is not called for, and is, in fact, contraindicated.

FATE-based games wind up as a good example of several of these points. A goodly part of a session may consist of improvised elements that come about as a result of player action or GM inspiration at the table. These are not pre-planned, and balanced stats for these elements simply do not exist before play, such that the level of challenge is not easy to plan. Moreover, for most of these elements, "challenge" in a rules-based tactical combat sense isn't the primary goal. While they do add to challenge, in general, but their primary purpose is to increase the complexity of the game situation, and for thematic purposes as well

 

[Zak S]

I am not sure that is factually correct.

I myself noted that, not just as a matter of time, there is a matter of skill: we are not all game designers. Individual game masters may not be capable of producing rules of appropriate quality.

Then (honest question) why are they game masters? That's part of GMing: picking what rules to engage and how.

I also noted that GM errors or misjudgments in preparation might call for a fudge at runtime, and such issues do not call for a fix in the rules at all, as the rules operate as desired, it is the content that is flawed.

What's an example of "Content" in this context that isn't "rules"? Like if you chose a monster that's too powerful then you essentially chose a set of numbers that are too high.

In addition, the system may perform better in an "unfixed" state with an occasional fudge than in a 'fixed" state. "Fixing" the system has two basic paths - one in which the system becomes crufty with special cases, or one in which the core mechanic is altered so that the edge cases no longer happen, but he core no longer behaves in the same way as it did previously - and neither of those may be superior from the player's point of view.

Why are you positing only those two options (both of which have obvious downsides)?

If fudging is not common, then the players do not lose incentive, as they cannot tell when it will happen.

As soon as it happens even one time, the players are always aware it could happen again.

They don't have to predict when a fudge us coming, they just have to feel that there are sometimes outcomes the GM will force and that makes their choices matter that much less.

Once you know a GM is capable of fudging, you know you don't ALWAYS have to try as hard as you can.

Also, as noted previously, "challenge" is not always the primary need.

It need not be primary.

My proposal was:

Assuming the change has no cost at all (in time or effort) why not change the rule and close the loophole? The loophole need not be a primary concern for that to be a question worth asking.

sometimes one may need other things,

What's an example?

FATE-based games wind up as a good example of several of these points. A goodly part of a session may consist of improvised elements that come about as a result of player action or GM inspiration at the table. These are not pre-planned, and balanced stats for these elements simply do not exist before play, such that the level of challenge is not easy to plan. Moreover, for most of these elements, "challenge" in a rules-based tactical combat sense isn't the primary goal. While they do add to challenge, in general, but their primary purpose is to increase the complexity of the game situation, and for thematic purposes as well

Yeah, so to ask the same question a third or fourth time:

Why not play (say) FATE then?

Like: D&D is set up to have certain math and certain challenges. If you don't want that math or those challenges, why not play one of the many many other games which are fantasy games but don't involve those things?