Can the GM cheat?

[S'mon]

In the campaign I describe in the OP, dice were less important than the players coming up with creative solutions to problems. Many encounters could simply be brute-forced by the two super-human PCs. But the other PCs often came up with solutions which were, for lack of a better word, "cool." And when cool solutions are offered by the PCs, I often would not even require a die roll.

Neither would I - I'd say "Given your advantages you can Take 10 and succeed automatically". That's not fudging IMO. Fudging refers to changing the results of die rolls without informing the players that a particular die roll is being ignored/modified, yes?

 

[S'mon]

I'm curious. If the explicit social contract is in place such that the players at the table are ok with fudging behind the screen such that it isn't "mischief", then what is the point of rolling behind the screen? Is there some inherent value to the theater of the ritual of "behind the screen rolling and verbalizing the outcome or revealing it like a magician" that would be diminished by, say, establishing a "GM mulligan (or 2...or 3) per session" and then rolling out in the open?

Presumably the uncertainty is beneficial? I once had a GM who said "I fudged like crazy to keep you alive in that encounter!" Yes, we knew that already - but saying so really rubbed it in. Don't do an EL+9 encounter in 3e and expect PCs to win!

 

[Bagpuss]

Was Lando his replacement character? Guess the player left in a huff for a few sessions.

 

[pemerton]

I think most people find that unexpected events including NPC deaths can strengthen rather than derail the narrative, because in an RPG the narrative is created in play, not pre-scripted.

Agreed.

Even when a GM follows the formal rules strictly, each time they assign something like a situational modifier, they're inserting their judgment in the task-resolution process. For that reason, I don't see a lot of difference between giving a player +4 bonus to an action and just assigning by fiat a percentage chance to succeed, ie doing an end-run around the formal rules, when convenient and/or appropriate.

To me, this is quite different from fudging dice. You are stating a chance of success (be it read out of a rulebook or stipulated ad hoc) and presumably the players can now spend their resources (items, spells, etc) to improve those chances - and then roll their dice!

I think fudging on task resolution dice rolls is bad practice and I would not do it myself.

Agreed. I think it is using dice for task resolution, but then not using them, is the issue here.

In the Council of Thieves game I ran, the witch PC tried to scry on a particular NPC. She didn't have any of his personal effects and didn't know him so her chances were low. Still, she had the crystal ball and was willing to give it a try. Her target made his saving throw so she failed. She wanted to improve her odds so she managed to get more information on him and a personal possession, all very useful for undermining his save. Now, suppose I still managed to roll a successful saving throw? How meaningful had her choices been? How meaningful would they appear to her?

In order to make her choices meaningful (and reward a good plan), I resolved to edit that die had it come up with a successful save.

An alternative here is the Burning Wheel approach - the original die roll stands, and then the player generates enough bonuses to turn the initial failure into a success.

Nothing is written solid in a good RPG. And chance events DO happen. But timing is everything in a good story.

This is why I prefer a system that reliably delivers good pacing by following the rules.

The most common technique I employed was adding hp to bad guys who otherwise would have been one-shotted by the two uber players

<snip>

The second-most common technique I used was soft-balling a roll against the weaker players.

<snip>

The least common method of "dice-massaging" or fudging was when what was supposed to be a particularly challenging encounter wound up being a snooze fest because of poor luck on part of the bad guys.

It really seems to me like you could benefit from a system that will deliver these sorts of results by following the rules, rather than requiring departure from them. As I mentioned upthread, I think MHRP might fit the bill.

I am also of the opinion that there are few things more disruptive to a story than continuous player deaths.

<snip>

I will fudge dice rolls whenever I feel that it is not just bad planning on the part of the PCs, but rather rotten luck with the dice that leads to a PC death - in the interest of story coherence and immersion.

As a solution to this I prefer a system where rotten luck can't lead to PC death - eg because players have Fate Points they can spend to make their own luck.

If you are going to roll dice and cannot accept an outcome of those dice that's pretty much a case of rules/group mismatch. If the rules allow for PC death and that's not an acceptable result than you are using the wrong rule set. At least that's how I look at it.

Agreed.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Except that the dice can also take away any meaningful impact of player decisions because the random generation isn't affected by them. The odd of success might be improved, but in a single trial, any efforts spent to do so may fail, leading to no difference in outcomes from the player's point of view.

I disagree. Information has value. That I increased my odds of success and still failed affects how I value that information in future decisions. Was I unlucky or is my current course of action more difficult than I thought? By fudging the die you are clouding the information and thereby making future decisions more difficult to evaluate. Which, in my experience, results in fudging begetting further fudging.

To use an investing analogy: if a company is providing me with faulty or misleading financials, how can I be certain in my evaluation of the company? I am forced to correct for the possibility that the information I have is inaccurate. Well, the same is true if I, as a player, discover that the DM is fudging the die. I self correct and assume that the encounters are, in fact, more difficult than the DM is representing. This results in a number of unintended consequences, namely, I act more conservative in my approach.

 

[Jhaelen]

I think this is a great example of the benefits of fudging. I think it is absolutely acceptable to reward players for preparation and well-executed plans.

In such a case I simply wouldn't roll at all. If I as the DM have decided that the player prepared and executed the plan in such a brilliant way that I want to reward her in some way, I'll simply do so.
What's the point of rolling the dice if I've already decided about the outcome? This is, imho, not an example where fudging is required or beneficial.

A roll would only be necessary if, e.g. I wanted to randomize the degree of success. I.e. while success is guaranteed it might range from marginal (introducing minor complications) to exceptional (something beneficial beyond a simple success happens). However, in such a case you're generally better off granting an ad-hoc bonus to the roll that will ensure success.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Seldom. It's usually anti-climatic. Luke Skywalker does not die to stormtrooper fire. I know he could in a dicey game. He could roll unlucky (or the stormtrooper could be very lucky), and yes, you could make a story around it, but it usually kills off more story than it generates.

Also, dice have a tendency to have this happen more than once in a campaign. If I did make a story arc about the random death of a character, I wouldn't want to do it twice.

Not everyone plays rpgs with the intent of storytelling, so concerns of plot, pacing, etc. are meaningless.

Here's a question - if it really is different strokes for different folks, does it necessarily qualify as mischief?

It's mischief/cheating if the GM hasn't told the players that he will be fudging when he deems it appropriate. If he has told his players that he reserves the right to fudge in the interests of eg a good story, then it's not cheating/mischief.

Yup. Fudge all you like, but if the players are duped into believing that it isn't happening then its pure mischief.

In such a case I simply wouldn't roll at all. If I as the DM have decided that the player prepared and executed the plan in such a brilliant way that I want to reward her in some way, I'll simply do so.
What's the point of rolling the dice if I've already decided about the outcome? This is, imho, not an example where fudging is required or beneficial.

A roll would only be necessary if, e.g. I wanted to randomize the degree of success. I.e. while success is guaranteed it might range from marginal (introducing minor complications) to exceptional (something beneficial beyond a simple success happens). However, in such a case you're generally better off granting an ad-hoc bonus to the roll that will ensure success.

Exactly. Good input from the player should be rewarded and if the plans are brilliant enough and there isn't anything unbeknownst to the player that would hinder success its ok to forgo rolling the dice and just declare a logical outcome. The game as a whole doesn't need to become a slave to random die rolls.

 

[Umbran]

I'm curious. If the explicit social contract is in place such that the players at the table are ok with fudging behind the screen such that it isn't "mischief", then what is the point of rolling behind the screen?

Well, say you aren't fudging. Do you just plaster the monster stats out in front of the players before the fight begins? No? Why not? If you are playing 100% by the rules, rolling in the open, why not just give them the exact monster stats too?

The basic answer is the same - that information would tend to influence the player's choices. The characters don't have that meta-information. The players have an easier time making in-character choices, rather than meta-game choices, if they don't have that information.

 

[Manbearcat]

Well, say you aren't fudging. Do you just plaster the monster stats out in front of the players before the fight begins? No? Why not? If you are playing 100% by the rules, rolling in the open, why not just give them the exact monster stats too?

The basic answer is the same - that information would tend to influence the player's choices. The characters don't have that meta-information. The players have an easier time making in-character choices, rather than meta-game choices, if they don't have that information.

So its primarily to avoid metagame math extrapolation and the "fudge curtain" aspect is just a side effect. That makes sense.

I'm not a "No" to your above rhetorical question so I'm not a good example of this. I'm have 0 metagame aversion. I have no problem with player's extrapolating math as they're eventually going to sort it out anyway in a round or two (at most). I let them know their target numbers (defenses and DCs) immediately. I have no problem with them using out of character logic to improve our/their experience and trust them to do so. Sometimes in boss fights I want cool abilities to be a surprise (like a nasty aura or an action triggered by a condition) but for the most part, I want them to have all of the metagame tools possible to facilitate clear communication regarding mechanical resolution (to get it handled quickly and efficiently), rules interaction and fictional positioning from both their character and out of character perspectives.

 

[Umbran]

So its primarily to avoid metagame math extrapolation and the "fudge curtain" aspect is just a side effect. That makes sense.

A combination of that, and more generalized metagame strategizing, which can be less about the specific math, and more about higher-level expectations.

I'm not a "No" to your above rhetorical question so I'm not a good example of this. I'm have 0 metagame aversion.

Fair enough. You got the logic, which was what mattered.