AD&D DMG, on fudging

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Re-read what 5E wrote:If something appears to be random but isn't, then it's an illusion. If it's "clues" so "important" that the referee doesn't want them missed, then it's not about real choice anymore; it's about following the referee's breadcrumbs to the next encounter in the story.

But there's actually nothing WRONG with that approach IMO; that is to "railroad" the game but to disguise that fact to the players.

Say for example that players have a choice of A, B, or C for adventures and choose B. If only the DM knows that he has any sort of adventure planned or intended for B then to the players there is no difference. If the DM presents those same options but players choose A or C then the DM can often, without the players knowing he's doing it, simply have A and C lead directly to what he has planned for B.

Seriously, the DM does not need to have a half-dozen adventures prepared and ready to run because he's given the players clues to lead them to a half-dozen seperate adventures. All he needs to do is to get the PC's to start the one adventure he DOES have prepared - and make it seem like it was the players idea.

For the players, the ILLUSION of free will is functionally identical to actual free will. The objections to railroading a game comes up only when players can SEE THE RAILS. This is also (to bring it back around to the OP) both the advantage and the TRAP of fudging dice and results. If PC's NEVER die; if the dragon head on the chimera suddenly has a cold and no longer breathes, or the last blows never do quite enough damage to put a character down for good, then the rails are showing. But conversely if the frost giant lives one more round longer than he should and in so doing brings the excitement of the combat right up to the edge of disaster, well Mama, that's where the fun is. If the giant were to die one round sooner than he should and achieves the same result of fun at the edge of disaster then players aren't LOOKING down at the rails - they're just enjoying the ride. THAT'S what the DM wants to achieve.

 

[pawsplay]

But there's actually nothing WRONG with that approach IMO; that is to "railroad" the game but to disguise that fact to the players.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

For the players, the ILLUSION of free will is functionally identical to actual free will. The objections to railroading a game comes up only when players can SEE THE RAILS.

Which will happen. Period. They may not detect everything you do, but they will detect something you did. You can fool some of the players all of the time, and all of the players some of the time...

 

[Fifth Element]

But there's actually nothing WRONG with that approach IMO; that is to "railroad" the game but to disguise that fact to the players.

To be fair, I don't think The Shaman is actually saying there's anything wrong with it. It's clear (more than clear) he doesn't like it himself, and he's quite aggressive about it, but he's not saying it's wrong.

But on the other hand, his reading such that is the only thing I could be referring to is incorrect.

 

[Fifth Element]

Which will happen. Period. They may not detect everything you do, but they will detect something you did. You can fool some of the players all of the time, and all of the players some of the time...

I disagree that it will necessarily happen.

Beyond that, some players enjoy a railroaded storyline, at least some of the time. You can enjoy being along for the ride as long as you can do fun stuff on the train.

 

[pawsplay]

A certain amount of illusion is useful, even necessary, to get the game to work. An RPG is, after all, illustory itself. However, and this is a big however, illusion is not the object of the game (IMO, I suppose, although I will elaborate). The object of the game is a genuine emotional experience, a vicarious adventure. To do this, you need to do things:

1. Make the illusion seem real
2. Offer meaningful choices and consequences

Both of these goals can be advanced together by simply having the game world act "as-if" it were real to the best of your ability and practical limitatioms.

 

[Umbran]

Heh. Most D&D PCs are some variation of what we'd call insane anyway. I've had player character groups

1. Pick up all their stuff and leave; "Whew we're safe at least!"
2. Help blow up the planet; "It's for the best, really."
3. Save everyone; see The Tick's quote above
4. Try, but fail to stop the devastation and live through the aftermath; "Oops!"

(2) is the insane case, yes.

(3) and (4) are really the same as far as player choices go. Just in one case they succeed, in the other they fail.

If (1) can happen, then you just haven't hit the point where there stakes are high enough to force the issue. In D&D, there's a point where there's nowhere to go if you want to leave - eventually, the entire multiverse is at risk

 

[ExploderWizard]

But there's actually nothing WRONG with that approach IMO; that is to "railroad" the game but to disguise that fact to the players.

Say for example that players have a choice of A, B, or C for adventures and choose B. If only the DM knows that he has any sort of adventure planned or intended for B then to the players there is no difference. If the DM presents those same options but players choose A or C then the DM can often, without the players knowing he's doing it, simply have A and C lead directly to what he has planned for B.

Wrong? Not at all. A game? Not at all. Playing out the story the DM wants to tell? Exactly this.

 

[Bullgrit]

This may make the discussion even more muddy, but I don't consider this "fudging":

Picking a rumor/clue/info to give the PCs rather than rolling randomly (even if the module says to roll randomly).

Bullgrit

 

[Jeff Wilder]

My definition of fudging is apparently much narrower than I'd thought.

To fudge - (In an RPG) To alter an ostensibly random outcome after seeing the result and deciding that it is undesirable.

I'm pretty strongly on the DM's side, authority-wise, but fudging is the one thing I simply will not do.

 

[Scribble]

When I played Tennis, one of the big rules was don't argue with the line calls. Another was, once you make a call, stick to it don't change the call.

But in return we were told that if you realize you made a bad call then at some point in the future throw one to the person in return, to sort of make up for it.

Would you guys consider this a form of bad fudging?

What if say you realize that you've been picking on a character... Maybe you realize that an earlier disagreement manifested itself by you're being harsher on that character, so now you decide to ignore the fact that you rolled a 20, and not a 19...

Bad?

Or if you realize you actually made a mistake on a rules call, and it hindered the character. Had you made the correct "line call" the character probably would survive the crit, but now, because you messed up, they won't.

Is fudging the crit bad still?