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

[Umbran]

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

Because maybe they are good at the other parts of GMing, and they and their group don't really mind the occasional fudge.

Remember, if everyone's having a good time at their table, that is all that matters. Failing to meet your concept of what is proper or good for everyone isn't a real issue.

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.

As one possible example, yes. But, that choice was not necessarily governed by a rule that can be changed. Many games don't have a concept of rules for such. The guidelines D&D gives in various editions are all flawed, and nobody, including the designers, have been able to make them universally "fixed"

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

For two reasons: I only need a couple to prove the point that reasons exist. That's all I was aiming to do.

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

Not in practice, no. Yes, they are disincentivized if they figure out when and how they can rely on it happening. But rare, unpredictable fudging doesn't have that result.

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.

Again, that's not what happens in practice at the appropriate table. If the players are not really terribly stuck on the idea of challenging themselves against an objective ruleset, they wind up not caring.

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

Again (and perhaps the last time) no. If you cannot predict, then you still have to try. You can only slack off trying when you know the fudge is coming - do it any other time and you hose yourself.

My proposal was:

Assuming the change has no cost at all (in time or effort) why not change the rule and close the loophole?

That certainly isn't how you worded it before.

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

Why not play (say) FATE then?

As I said already - because the given ruleset may present appropriate results the overwhelming majority of the time on its own. Many feel you don't need to change to an different ruleset for an edge case here or there.

 

[Zak S]

Remember, if everyone's having a good time at their table, that is all that matters

I never contested this assertion.

Failing to meet your concept of what is proper or good for everyone isn't a real issue.

It's strange you would point this out, as it's obvious.

My question has nothing to do with demanding a standard be met. It is a question to find out the reason why someone does not employ a given practice or at least see its utility, not a demand to employ that practice.

As one possible example, yes. But, that choice was not necessarily governed by a rule that can be changed.

I still don't have an example of what you're talking about (bad "content" choice that isn't on some level a
"rules" choice) so I can't see what you mean.

For two reasons: I only need a couple to prove the point that reasons exist. That's all I was aiming to do.

Then my question remains unanswered:

Assuming there was zero cost to changing the rule that made you fudge (and it was possible), would you accept the change?

Pointing out bad fixes is irrelevant to that question.

Not in practice, no. Yes, they are disincentivized if they figure out when and how they can rely on it happening. But rare, unpredictable fudging doesn't have that result.

Then your observation does not match mine.

Which is fine.

You can only slack off trying when you know the fudge is coming - do it any other time and you hose yourself.

The point is if it's _ever_ coming (whether you know or not) the internal calculus of how often you have to try how hard slips down a notch. In practice, you never know when a fudge is coming, but you almost always know when you have a GM capable of fudging--which means you can be a little more lazy al the time.

It's like playing chess against a worse opponent--you don't know when they'll make a mistake, but you are not gripped with the same concentration as when dealing with a better chess player.


Again, that's not what happens in practice at the appropriate table. If the players are not really terribly stuck on the idea of challenging themselves against an objective ruleset, they wind up not caring.



Again (and perhaps the last time) no. If you cannot predict, then you still have to try. You can only slack off trying when you know the fudge is coming - do it any other time and you hose yourself.

My proposal was:

Assuming the change has no cost at all (in time or effort) why not change the rule and close the loophole?

That certainly isn't how you worded it before.

Regardless of how you interpreted my question before

Can you now answer this question please? I believe the answer will be interesting to both of us and perhaps surprising and fun to talk about...

Assuming the change has no cost at all (in time or effort) why not change the rule and close the loophole?

Not "Do you think it will be easy to change the loophole?"
Not "Is your first priority changing the loophole?"
Not "Do you think your game will fall apart if you close the loophole?"
Not "What are all the ways you might close the loophole wrong?"
Not "Do we call the loophole 'rules' or 'content' before changing it?"
but
Assuming the change to the game that would make it so you'd never have to fudge has no cost at all (in time or effort) why would anyone not change the rule (or accept a change to the rules from outside) and close the loophole?

 

[Umbran]

I never contested this assertion.

By repeated implication that there's some need to make changes when everyone's happy, you sort of have.

Can you now answer this question please? I believe the answer will be interesting to both of us and perhaps surprising and fun to talk about...

Assuming the change has no cost at all (in time or effort) why not change the rule and close the loophole?

No, I will not answer it, because it is a nonsensical hypothetical. If I assume things that cannot be reasonably expected to be true, then the answer does not apply to the real world. In more formal terms, it is the, "fallacy of unwarranted assumption". Several of the reasons you've been given are not about perfect theoretical situations, but are about practical reality, and so to understand the practices, you have to consider the practical situation, not just the theoretical.

It's like playing chess against a worse opponent--you don't know when they'll make a mistake, but you are not gripped with the same concentration as when dealing with a better chess player.

You may think it is like that, but the reality is more like playing chess against an opponent who is normally good, but may occasionally have a weak moment. If you let your guard down at any other time, you are making a grave error.

This is a matter of player psychology, and varies from player to player - what people think a practice means shapes their reactions, even when what they think is not correct. This is why, upthread, I noted that the practice is useful when your players are okay with it, and not otherwise.

 

[Zak S]

By repeated implication that there's some need to make changes when everyone's happy, you sort of have.

Incorrect: I never said you need to do anything.

I have said that, given x set of circumstances, it is best to do y. Need doesn't come into it. You need dice or something that does their job. You need players. Given most conditions, it is _best_ if you have something available for them to drink, but it is not necessary. Same here: if the time to do so is a given and it can be done at no cost it is best to close rules loopholes.

No, I will not answer it,

Oh well, I guess we'll never know what you actually think then.

because it is a nonsensical hypothetical. If I assume things that cannot be reasonably expected to be true…

1. Can you type what the impossible assumptions implicit in the question are?

2. If I said "If you could snap your fingers and a free pizza would appear, would you do it?" I am proposing a nonsensical hypothetical--but you can still answer it and we can use that as a baseline to talk about how much you would or wouldn't do for pizza. Even if you assume for some reason it is somehow impossible to close loopholes in a satisfactory way, you can still say whether closing loopholes would be a desirable outcome.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is, Zak S, changing the rules is not a "snap your fingers" proposition. There are always costs.

Let's say you're right and we make a system that is foolproof. Nothing the players can try isn't covered by the system. It's 100% airtight, a marvel of game design.

Now, you start playing. Remember, those that do fudge aren't doing it all the time, they're only spackling over rare occurrences, we'll say 1 die roll in 20. It's probably far fewer than that, but, hey, we're spitballing here. So, play begins and we run into one of those 5% situations where the DM would normally fudge, but, now, has rules to cover. Unfortunately, most DM's aren't gifted with a perfect memory, so, they stop the game to consult the rules in order to make the proper ruling. Now, this will be a good ruling, true, but, it also might be the same as the ruling a fudging DM might make, meaning that it's not always necessary. But, that rule will always cost time at the table.

3e is a perfect example of this. I've seen so many tables paralysed by the grapple rules which were extensive but didn't come up all that often at our tables. Thus, no one knew the rules by heart, so, we had to look them up virtually every time. Any system that uses any sort of attack matrix also falls into this category where you have to stop the game and consult tables every time an attack is made. GURPS suffers from this extensively, despite being a system that really does try to cover all the bases.

So, sure, you gain consistency because the same ruling is made every time. But, you lose in table pacing and it comes down to what a given table might find more important. Is it better to measure diagonals 1-2-1 or 1-1-1? 1-2-1 is far more accurate, true, but, slower. 1-1-1 is far faster. Which is better?

 

[Zak S]

The problem is, Zak S, changing the rules is not a "snap your fingers" proposition. There are always costs.

Whether or not there are, the discussion will go faster if you can answer whether or not you see closing the loopholes as desirable in itself and then we can go on to talking about what the costs are and whether they can be ameliorated.

So, play begins and we run into one of those 5% situations where the DM would normally fudge, but, now, has rules to cover. Unfortunately, most DM's aren't gifted with a perfect memory, so, they stop the game to consult the rules in order to make the proper ruling.

A rule that's harder to remember than the current rule has at least that mark against it--it is imperfect for that reason. It has, in that way, a cost. It therefore falls outside the scope of the question I asked.

The problem with various "costs" is something to bring up and discuss after knowing whether you even want the thing you might be "paying" for.

You don't answer "Would you want this if it's free?" with "But it isn't!" That's something you say after first establishing whether you want it. Which we still don't know because you still refuse to answer.

Again, I am not asking any of these questions yet...

Not "Do you think it will be easy to change the loophole?"
Not "Is your first priority changing the loophole?"
Not "Do you think your game will fall apart if you close the loophole?"
Not "What are all the ways you might close the loophole wrong?"
Not "Do we call the loophole 'rules' or 'content' before changing it?"

I am not asking for various catastrophizations about imaginary problematic rules that you can think up. That would be the next step after figuring out whether closing the loophole is desirable in the first place.

 

[Bawylie]

No I don't fudge die rolls anymore. No I would not want, accept, or employ a hypothetical costless "fix" that closes some loophole.

 

[Zak S]

No I don't fudge die rolls anymore. No I would not want, accept, or employ a hypothetical costless "fix" that closes some loophole.

If you don't fudge, then you are not a person to whom the question is directed

 

[Hussar]

Zak it's not a case of one rule being harder to remember. It's that there was no rule at all before and now you've added one. Even if you are only adding to existing rules you can't do so without making it more complicated.

This slowing down play.

 

[Zak S]

Zak it's not a case of one rule being harder to remember. It's that there was no rule at all before and now you've added one.

Incorrect.

Fudging a die logically means: you rolled a die.
Rolling a die usually implies: there was a rule.

For example "Roll d8 for damage from a longsword".

Now you may argue that any deviation from the RAW is hard for you to remember, in which case you're essentially saying "I would not accept a fix because I don't believe in hacks". Which: ok. But even then--let's say the next edition was good and you liked it and it happened to include the fix?

So I'm asking again if you can answer the question: if there were no cost to fixing the rule that you fudged so you'd never have to fudge: would you do it? It's a yes or no question.