GMing: How to fudge NOT using the dice.

[soviet]

No, that's what you are thinking of. You can still fudge in story games if you ignore some mechanical result and instead insert your own preferred result.

If you look at the "succeed at a cost" result and decide, nah, it's "fail forward" instead, you have fudged the result.

The only requirement for you to have "fudged" is that you went around the system to change the outcome at the moment.

Pretending this is only about [meaningless category] versus [meaningless category] is just an attempt to denigrate one and elevate the other.

I guess it is possible to fudge story games but it's worth noting that i) a lot of the game texts explicitly forbid it and ii) stake setting (or in PbtA games, the move tables) make it more difficult for the GM to interpret particular results into different outcomes.

 

[SlyFlourish]

Over in the "roll in the open" thread a side discussion about GM fudging emerged. This thread isn't really meant to talk about whther fuding is okay. rather, I am interested in talking about ways that GMs can and do "fudge" things OUTSIDE of adjusting the results of the die rolls. In other words, ways that the GM can fudge even if all rolls are made in the open.

Let me just define the term "fudge" as I am using it here, so we are all on the same page: fudging is when the Gm chooses to adjust the success or failure of a PC or NPC in order to achieve some intention in the game. The simplest example is something like ignoring a crit the monster got on a PC in order to keep that PC alive, or ignoring a fialed save by the BBEG in order to keep the fight going/more interesting.

But here, I am talking about things other than those dice results based forms of fudging.

One that comes immediately to mind is the "quantum ogre" scenario, in which the PCs will (or won't, in some instances) meet the next encounter regardless of which path they take. This is usually though of more as illusionism or even railroading most of the time, but I think it moves into the realm of fudging if the GM makes the decision about the quantum ogre based on other factors, such as how well rested the party is, how much real world play time remains, etc.

What are your examples of non-dice based fudging, and do you feel differently about this kind of fudging than you do about dice fudging?

Also, let's try and keep this from descending into an argument about whether fudging is good or bad and leave that to the other thread.

I've often said "I don't cheat when rolling dice but I cheat everywhere else".

Some areas include:

• changing hit points of monsters
• Increasing or decreasing the amount of damage monsters do
• Increasing or decreasing the number of attacks a monster has
• changing monster abilities on the fly
• Adding or subtracting monsters during combat (new ones show up or some run away).
• Changing tactics – they get really smart or really dumb

I think the big question isn't whether to cheat or not but to ask why one might or might not. The reason we cheat is really important. Are we trying to make the game better? More fun? To shift upward and downward beats so the game is engaging instead of either being boring or frustrating? Those are good reasons. Punishing players or forcing the game to go a certain way you planned ahead of time isn't so great.

I also think its important to think of these "cheating" bits as dials that spring-load to the median. Just because I'm ok changing the things above doesn't mean I do it very often. I only do it when it's really going to make the game better and that's rare. The most common way I cheat is by lowering monster hit points so we can be done with a battle that overstayed its welcome.

 

[TheSword]

A few key ones I think are useful.

- Timely intervention of additional creatures that weren’t originally intended to be part of that encounter. Sometimes that is for pacing issues, sometimes for emphasis or drama.

- Granting additional abilities that weren’t originally noted. Sometimes this is logical extrapolation, sometimes you’ve just genuinely forgotten or misjudged.

- Changing stat blocks. Again sometimes this is because you just forgot you wanted them to be able to do something. Sometimes because you’ve misjudged something.

DMing is a tough job with many plates to keep spinning. Sometimes you need to cut yourself some slack.

 

[GMMichael]

If you write down there’s 15 orcs in the room, there’s 15 orcs in the room. Doesn’t matter how hurt the PCs are or how rested they are. Doesn’t matter if you wanted them to go into another room first. If all you wrote down was 2d6+3 orcs and want to wait until the PCs enter to roll, then you roll. End of. Deciding it’s 15 instead of committing to rolling is also cheating.

This is the simulationist view that Reynard is contesting. The idea that the game world exists without constant curation by the GM. There's no such thing, unless you're running a World of Warcraft server. There can be a rule set that tells the GM what's happening - Gloomhaven might fall into this category. But that game is not D&D, and I doubt it's the majority of available RPGs.

TL;DR the GM decides whether or not rules apply - not the other way around. Therefore, the GM can't cheat.

No, that's what you are thinking of. You can still fudge in story games if you ignore some mechanical result and instead insert your own preferred result.

If you look at the "succeed at a cost" result and decide, nah, it's "fail forward" instead, you have fudged the result.

The only requirement for you to have "fudged" is that you went around the system to change the outcome at the moment.

Okay - to "fudge" is then "to decide that GM-fiat trumps rules." This is kind of an awkward situation, since it's often the GM-fiat that allows rules to take effect in the first place.

The orc has a stat-block? Not unless the GM put an orc there.

There's a rule for falling damage? Odds are the GM decided that "you fall" is an outcome. (It is possible that a PC looked at a poor roll and decided "I fall" instead.)

The hierarchy of GM-makes-decisions, then rules-take-effect, sort of places GM decisions on top, doesn't it? When "fudging" is really an issue is when the PCs have some authorship of the story and the GM can undo or alter what the PCs have decided.

 

[billd91]

I don't think there is much to be gained from arguing the definition of fudging here, particularly, "Is prep fudging?"

I think it can be understood that fudging is (must be) done at the table in the moment. That is inherent in the definition.

I definitely think that changing on the fly something in the story, map or encounters (compared to what you had originally planned) falls into the fudging category.

So does this mean that low prep games, and these could be more narrative focused games or more traditional ones where the GM mostly improvises, are largely immune to fudging or are all fudging?

 

[Reynard]

So does this mean that low prep games, and these could be more narrative focused games or more traditional ones where the GM mostly improvises, are largely immune to fudging or are all fudging?

Probably. I don't want to say "definitely" because there is probably some corner case where the term "fudging" would apply, but I hate arguing around corner cases.

However, just because you are playing highly improvisational does not mean there can't be fudging. The definition I am using (and I think is broadly understood) is that the GM is changing an outcome or result that has already been established (for whatever purpose).

So, if you are running Shadowdark, which embraces a random and improvisational playstyle, and the random dungeon, encounter and monster generators pit the PCs against a seven headed dire chimerdra. Once the GM has started that encounter, the GM negating a crit behind the screen is still fudging. (As stated upthread, it feels fuzzy if not accepting those random generator results in the first place qualifies as fudging. I don't think so, but I can see arguments the other way too.)

 

[Li Shenron]

So does this mean that low prep games, and these could be more narrative focused games or more traditional ones where the GM mostly improvises, are largely immune to fudging or are all fudging?

Yeah I would say they are essentially fudging games, although on the other hand the DM may still roll dice and not fudge on those.

 

[aramis erak]

What are your examples of non-dice based fudging, and do you feel differently about this kind of fudging than you do about dice fudging?

Also, let's try and keep this from descending into an argument about whether fudging is good or bad and leave that to the other thread.

the most obvious (to me, at least) is whether or not I apply good tactical sense to their actions. It's not even quantum ogre... but it can be a "They broke morale" type situation. It's easy to step up, too, if I find them going too easily towards victory, for the NPCs to "get over the adrenaline and focus on killing their enemies"...

I'm more open to this mode, but my default is to hold back only a little.

Also, if enemies, especially orcs, drow, vikingr-ish types, or roman-emulations, are of slave taking cultures, surrender to being enslaved is often offered as a means of changing it from a TPK to an escape scenario...

 

[Zaukrie]

the most obvious (to me, at least) is whether or not I apply good tactical sense to their actions. It's not even quantum ogre... but it can be a "They broke morale" type situation. It's easy to step up, too, if I find them going too easily towards victory, for the NPCs to "get over the adrenaline and focus on killing their enemies"...

I'm more open to this mode, but my default is to hold back only a little.

Also, if enemies, especially orcs, drow, vikingr-ish types, or roman-emulations, are of slave taking cultures, surrender to being enslaved is often offered as a means of changing it from a TPK to an escape scenario...

I think tactics are an excellent way to fudge.

 

[Velderan]

While you do roll dice on random monster tables, it always felt a bit fudgy to me.

Same with a treasure table. But then again I have heard DMs say “I am not giving you THAT” after rolling to see what a monster has for loot.