DM Cheating

[eyebeams]

I'm going to reiterate my earlier point that if you're going to define "fudging" so broadly as to encompass everything GMs are given responsibility for in most well-known RPGs, and now even include material from the publisher, then any meaningful discussion is going to be impossible.

That's an absurd rendering of my position. On the other hand, it does speak to my point that lots of fudging/"cheating" is really hidden, and that many systems simply incorporate an identical process.

Adjudication (i.e., applying the ruleset) is not fudging. Adjudication is the GM's job.

This implicitly postulates some objective way to render rulings, delinked from play as it happens, that not only does not exist but probably can't exist. I've seen lots of D&D games. DMs screw with rules interpretations on the fly to affect outcomes *all the time.* In fact, I would say that this way of doing things is *more* common than making objectively correct rulings. There is even a tradition of player empowerment when it comes to controlling the narrative. It's called "rules lawyering."

There is *no* difference between this and fiddling with a d20 roll to change the outcome, except that I guess people can pretend they beat some kind of objective challenge if the situation gets screwed with instead of the die roll.

Fudging, as I am using it, is when the GM applies the ruleset and then ignores the results, overtly or covertly, in order to apply their will. "I think it would be cooler if X happened, so I'll just pretend I rolled a 20."

Well, the problem is that the thrust of your argument doesn't hold when you explain *why* fudging isn't desirable. If it isn't desirable by your rationale, then many typical things in games are also undesirable.

The other problem with your argument is that it is incoherent regarding what actually happens in games. You have said that a well designed system won't need fudging because it will always output good stuff. But this assertion just isn't true. The best a system can due is provide a trend that looks good over time when it comes to a subset of the things participants might do. Unfortunately:

* You cannot derive expectations for how individual instances of play will turn out from these trends. It's a fallacy to believe you can assess a system's robustness this way. Therefore, you can't make any coherent claims about whether a system "needs" fudging, because you don't know what the output will be in a single instance or a chain of instances. Yes, it is part of the fun to see where the die go -- but the source of that fun is incompatible with making anything but fairly week predictions about what *will* happen -- and I doubt that *any* game can be run coherently without some predictions.

[D&D has a neat dodge for this by making things increasingly deterministic as you go up in level -- the bonuses increase to a point where the actual dice roll becomes less important outside of a certain range.]

* It is impossible to fully playtest any traditional general purpose RPG system. There's a reason they don't lay off R&D people once the design is done. There are just too many possible interactions between elements.

Keep in mind that this is different from games where there is a problem with the procedure and no good indicators about where or what to roll.

To paraphrase something awesome Mearls once said, a good rule is one that makes play more fun than it would have been without it.

My corollary would be that every rule that does that has the potential to be no fun as well. The only difference, in the end, is that somebody wrote it down, invoking a social convention that makes the outcome feel better to participants.

 

[Doug McCrae]

There is *no* difference between this and fiddling with a d20 roll to change the outcome

One's against the rules and the other isn't.

 

[hong]

There is *no* difference between this and fiddling with a d20 roll to change the outcome, except that I guess people can pretend they beat some kind of objective challenge if the situation gets screwed with instead of the die roll.

Well, if we're going to pretend anything, I guess it's either that or pretending to be elves.

 

[Campbell]

Traditional RPG theory clearly separates the social contract and game system rules. I, however, disagree with this assertion. I believe that game system rules, including house rules, are a very real portion of the social contract, forming the underlying basis for play and formalizing what would otherwise be implicit in the absence of those rules. In relation to this assertion, I see very real benefits involved in formalized fudging mechanics like Mutants and Mastermind's Hero Points. They formalize the handling of imperfect results elsewhere in the system in a way that is readily apparent and transparent to the participants of the game, in a way that is unusual for more traditional games. They say ' Look. We realize that sometimes you'll need to go beyond the usual results. Here's a framework that you can use to deal with that stuff.' I also admire that such fudging frameworks usually prompt players to become stakeholders in the gameplay narrative in a less narrow way than is usual.

 

[buzz]

You have said that a well designed system won't need fudging because it will always output good stuff.

Actually, I never said this.

What I said is that, if you find yourself fudging results consistently, it probably means that either the ruleset isn't helping you to get the play experience you want, or else the ruleset isn't helping you get the play experience it promised (which is what I would generally term "bad design").

Ergo, if what you want is a coherent "story"(e.g., PCs only die when it's dramatically appropriate), playing a ruleset focused on tactical challenge is probably not going to give you what you want.

I don't buy the "No ruleset can provide that reliably, so you need to fudge" argument because I've played RPGs that do provide it reliably. Play Polaris and you will end up with a tragic fantasy story where your PC dies at a thematically appropriate moment. Play GURPS, and it ain't gonna happen unless you ignore the rules. Similarly, Polaris isn't going to give you tactical challenge, but D&D is going to rock at it.

This is why I'm happy playing D&D as-is. I'm not looking for anything beyond what D&D was designed to deliver. Start fudging rolls, and you've just negated all of the effort I've put in to building my PC, learning the ruleset, and thinking strategically about my actions.

My corollary would be that every rule that does that has the potential to be no fun as well. The only difference, in the end, is that somebody wrote it down, invoking a social convention that makes the outcome feel better to participants.

I don't think your corollary and Mearls' assertion can co-exist. If a rule makes the game less fun, then it's obviously not simultaneously making the game more fun.

 

[buzz]

In relation to this assertion, I see very real benefits involved in formalized fudging mechanics like Mutants and Mastermind's Hero Points. They formalize the handling of imperfect results elsewhere in the system in a way that is readily apparent and transparent to the participants of the game, in a way that is unusual for more traditional games. They say ' Look. We realize that sometimes you'll need to go beyond the usual results. Here's a framework that you can use to deal with that stuff.' I also admire that such fudging frameworks usually prompt players to become stakeholders in the gameplay narrative in a less narrow way than is usual.

I have some mixed feelings about "fudge points," but I basically agree with you 100%. Formalize the process, and spread the love around the table.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

No Fudge = Thrilling

Do you feel the DM should cheat in the PCs favor?

Absolutely not. Genuine fear of character death makes the game more interesting.

Also, are you answering as a DM or a player?

Both.

-Samir

 

[eyebeams]

One's against the rules and the other isn't.

Few people play D&D by the book, even when they say they do, so this doesn't have much practical weight. I've seen many supposed by the book, dice on the table games where the DM influences the story with rules judgments that are debateable or outright wrong.

 

[eyebeams]

Actually, I never said this.

What I said is that, if you find yourself fudging results consistently, it probably means that either the ruleset isn't helping you to get the play experience you want, or else the ruleset isn't helping you get the play experience it promised (which is what I would generally term "bad design").

Okay. Except that expressed this way, what I'm saying also applies. No system guarantees the output it advertises without incorporating the functional equivalent of fudging anyway.

Ergo, if what you want is a coherent "story"(e.g., PCs only die when it's dramatically appropriate), playing a ruleset focused on tactical challenge is probably not going to give you what you want.

I don't buy the "No ruleset can provide that reliably, so you need to fudge" argument because I've played RPGs that do provide it reliably. Play Polaris and you will end up with a tragic fantasy story where your PC dies at a thematically appropriate moment. Play GURPS, and it ain't gonna happen unless you ignore the rules. Similarly, Polaris isn't going to give you tactical challenge, but D&D is going to rock at it.

Polaris is essentially formalized fudging. Your statements are interesting, however, since they come from a perspective that explicitly *limits* the possibilities of game systems for the sake of only using them in a strictly formal fashion. It consciously ignores the elements that can emerge from a more relaxed playing style. In other words: It tells people to limit the kind of fun they can expect, which basically sucks. I particularly loathe this "cut off your nose to spite your face" theory of game design.

This is why I'm happy playing D&D as-is. I'm not looking for anything beyond what D&D was designed to deliver. Start fudging rolls, and you've just negated all of the effort I've put in to building my PC, learning the ruleset, and thinking strategically about my actions.

By your statements, it's seems more accurate to say that you've learned to love D&D by lowering your expectations.

I don't think your corollary and Mearls' assertion can co-exist. If a rule makes the game less fun, then it's obviously not simultaneously making the game more fun.

Okay. I guess AoOs don't exist then.

 

[shilsen]

Absolutely not. Genuine fear of character death makes the game more interesting.

For some people. For me, a lot of the time genuine fear of character death (or, more precisely, genuine fear of permanent character death) actually makes the game less interesting. I'm much more interested in having the possibility of defeat and serious repercussions for character errors/failures, and death is only one among many possibilities to that end, as well as - IMNSHO - one of the more boring. So in my games I've generally taken death in general and permanent death in particular out of the equation unless the player wants it.