AD&D DMG, on fudging

[Jeff Wilder]

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?

Absolutely. Make-up calls are an abomination.

Bad calls happen. It's part of the imperfect system of having human referees. In theory, bad calls for and against a player or team will even out.

Deliberately making a bad call is a corruption of the ethics of officiating.

 

[Scribble]

Absolutely. Make-up calls are an abomination.

Bad calls happen. It's part of the imperfect system of having human referees. In theory, bad calls for and against a player or team will even out.

Deliberately making a bad call is a corruption of the ethics of officiating.

So even if you realized that your bad call is directly responsible for the character dying you say it's better to let them die then just ignoring the crit?

I generally agree about the "make up" call part. (It always annoyed me in tennis actually because it seemed like a string of never ending bad calls...)

But I'm not sure in this particular scenario.

 

[Fifth Element]

Absolutely. Make-up calls are an abomination.

Bad calls happen. It's part of the imperfect system of having human referees. In theory, bad calls for and against a player or team will even out.

Deliberately making a bad call is a corruption of the ethics of officiating.

Very much agreed, when it comes to real-life sports or events.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

So even if you realized that your bad call is directly responsible for the character dying you say it's better to let them die then just ignoring the crit?

Actually, I didn't say.

If I literally cannot fix my screw-up other than in the (remarkably tiny) window of time following rolling the crit, I will tell the player: "I screwed up earlier, by doing this: <explanation>. That led to this situation, and I just rolled a crit against you, which I'm going to rule as a miss. You're up."

I've never had the need to do that, and don't anticipate ever having the need to do that. (Not because I don't screw up, but because there are so many better options and opportunities to fix a screw-up.) But if I ever do have to do it, it will be with 100 percent transparency. It will be open and honest.

 

[Umbran]

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

Ah. EW here seems to hold to a strict definition of "game" - one that focuses on the rules, win conditions, competition, and so on. This is not the only definition of "game" out there. Others can amount to, "an amusement or pastime", which the railroaded game may still fit (if it still amuses and passes time).

Absolutely. Make-up calls are an abomination.

Bad calls happen. It's part of the imperfect system of having human referees. In theory, bad calls for and against a player or team will even out.

Deliberately making a bad call is a corruption of the ethics of officiating.

If the play is focused on the competition and rules (like in EW's game above), I thoroughly agree. "Corruption of the ethics of officiating"... makes it all sound so formal and important, like major money or reputation depended on it, or something.

If you are playing what we might call a "friendly game", where the activity and companionship are a bit more important than the rules, then I am not sure I agree. Different game purposes call for different standards and forms of officiating.

Also, as a separate matter - if play is infrequent, you may not wish to rely on statistical variation to make things even out in the long run, because there is no long run.

 

[Scribble]

Actually, I didn't say.

My apologies? I guess I assumed from your disagreeing with the first part, and not commenting further on the second that you felt the same way about the second part, as you did about the first.

If I literally cannot fix my screw-up other than in the (remarkably tiny) window of time following rolling the crit, I will tell the player: "I screwed up earlier, by doing this: <explanation>. That led to this situation, and I just rolled a crit against you, which I'm going to rule as a miss. You're up."

I've never had the need to do that, and don't anticipate ever having the need to do that. (Not because I don't screw up, but because there are so many better options and opportunities to fix a screw-up.) But if I ever do have to do it, it will be with 100 percent transparency. It will be open and honest.

I'm not really trying to prove anything with this, or trap someone in a gotcha moment... Just curious really.

I think I pretty much agree with Umbran... Since it's not a competition, and just a bunch of people sitting around a table trying to have fun, I'm a bit looser on rules calls.

If I recognize I made a mistake earlier, and that is having a direct negative result on game play- I'll sometimes make it up to the player in another way. Sometimes that means ignoring the fact that the monster rolled a crit.

If by doing this I'm corrupting the ethics of officiating D&D... I guess so be it. I'd rather everyone at my table keep having fun then be the utmost ethical DM I guess.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Deliberately making a bad call is a corruption of the ethics of officiating.

So true.

Dang.

Failed my Wisdom check again.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I'd rather everyone at my table keep having fun then be the utmost ethical DM I guess.

So you believe that these are mutually exclusive. Okay. If I believed that they were mutually exclusive ... well, I might do things your way, or I might decide not to DM at all. Tough call.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm going to side with Plato and say that if you are a GM, the ethical thing to do is to be the GM you can be. Even if a call destroys your game, it's still "better" if you feel it's ethically impossible to do otherwise, since an unethical game is worse than no game at all. I'm not hinting at any interpretation of what has just been said, but I think Jeff Wilder's reservation should be noted. I can't see any possible contradiction of being ethical and running a good game, unless maybe you observe categorical imperatives that make the games themselves potentially unethical.

 

[Scribble]

So you believe that these are mutually exclusive. Okay. If I believed that they were mutually exclusive ... well, I might do things your way, or I might decide not to DM at all. Tough call.

Well I don't really have a "belief system" when it comes to D&D other then if it's fun, and it entertains the group it's the right thing to do. (Since it's a game, and ultimately has no real "consequences.")

So no- I don't really "believe they're mutually exclusive," any more then I "believe that they aren't mutually exclusive..."

It kind of depends on the circumstances.

If for some reason you feel the need to categorize me... go for it.