It is a reference to a cheesy line from an old TV show.
Not necessarily in my view, but it depends on the context. For me it comes down to what has already been established and why the DM is making that choice. If the tactically proficient enemies suddenly start being not tactically proficient because the PCs are getting stomped, then that's something akin to fudging. If it was established that reinforcements appear at certain intervals or given certain triggers and then they don't show up at those intervals or when those triggers occur because the PCs are getting stomped, then that's something akin to fudging. I say "something akin to fudging" simply because I hold to the definition of fudging in an RPG context as ignoring die results. Easing up on good tactics or reinforcements thus isn't technically the same thing in my opinion, but it ends up having the same effect so I avoid this practice.Would y'all count the following as fudging: Changing the tactical prowess of the bad guys and the response of reinforcements based on how the combat is going?
I'm sorry, there are thousands of valid ways to enjoy our hobby, and as "just a game" is a completely valid one. There's even a well known description of a "beer and pretzels" game showing there's a whole category of people who enjoy it so, and that's just very casual "just a game" games, not inclusive of all of the people who play it as "just a game".Nobody said it was about learning a lesson. But you can learn lessons while playing it. And games are probably the best tools we have to teach and learn. There's a whole billion market about it. So the it's just a game thing doesn't hold.
Would y'all count the following as fudging: Changing the tactical prowess of the bad guys and the response of reinforcements based on how the combat is going?
All the other aspects that I'm putting forth are inherently part of games. Especially a game like D&D. Once again, to clear things up, I am not talking about learning concrete knowledge like learning to do math, or learn empathy (even though TTRPGs are also inherently good for that). I am also not talking about one person teaching someone else something.I'm sorry, there are thousands of valid ways to enjoy our hobby, and as "just a game" is a completely valid one. There's even a well known description of a "beer and pretzels" game showing there's a whole category of people who enjoy it so, and that's just very casual "just a game" games, not inclusive of all of the people who play it as "just a game".
It is not correct to assume it will always include other aspects like you are putting forth.
It's basically more interesting and elegant way to achieve the same thing.Would y'all count the following as fudging: Changing the tactical prowess of the bad guys and the response of reinforcements based on how the combat is going?
Which also is one reason why I find the extreme negativity some people have towards fudging off-putting. Some GMs may not be that experienced, or otherwise just not that good at gauging what enemy stats will achieve what results (an issue exacerbated by the CR system being practically useless.) So if they feel fudging is an useful tool for running the sort of game they want, they shouldn't need to feel ashamed for using it.One thing I noticed about my own fudging. I fudged a lot more often when I first started GMing. Often, it was a scramble to get the game working because of my inexperience. The more experienced I became with the game system, and being a GM in general, the less and less I resorted to fudging.
Some folks take a hardline, and I can understand that. There are several RPG methods and tools folks employ that I dislike on a conceptual level. I don't feel the need to explain their liking of such concepts by tearing them down personally.Which also is one reason why I find the extreme negativity some people have towards fudging off-putting. Some GMs may not be that experienced, or otherwise just not that good at gauging what enemy stats will achieve what results (an issue exacerbated by the CR system being practically useless.) So if they feel fudging is an useful tool for running the sort of game they want, they shouldn't need to feel ashamed for using it.
I think this is probably fairly common. And since new GMs lack the experience to eyeball the difficulty of an encounter (5e CRs are not helpful here,) a new GM should not feel bad for some on the fly adjusting. This is especially true if the players are new as well. Too many dead characters, especially in first few sessions, risk turning some players away from the hobby.One thing I noticed about my own fudging. I fudged a lot more often when I first started GMing. Often, it was a scramble to get the game working because of my inexperience. The more experienced I became with the game system, and being a GM in general, the less and less I resorted to fudging.
G.I. Joe!It is a reference to a cheesy line from an old TV show.
Surely it's a hell of a lot more applicable than housing, given, y'know, they're both games.The housing market is a much, much bigger market than TTRPGs ever hoped to be. Buyers hate when sellers cheat.
Yes, it's bigger. No, that does not make it directly applicable.
Okay. So every DM that fudges should be honest with its players that that will happen, and will be concealed from them whenever it does?With a TTRPG you are putting trust into an individual whom you are granting authority to craft a game for your table. If for a specific table that means fudging, it means fudging.
That isn't fudging, for one thing, and is almost exactly how I run my own Dungeon World game for adult players. I say "almost" because PC death can happen, but it will never be permanent and irrevocable unless that's what the player wants. There haven't been too many situations where it was much of a concern because I admit I tend to underestimate my players' characters, something I have been working to address. (The fight I mentioned earlier that was fully intended to be "too hard" was a test, to see how high a bard would be too high. Now I know, and can use that information to set bars that are slightly lower but still very high, should I wish to.)For instance I was running for my kids, niece and nephew. They were emotionally attached to their characters. I basically moved death off the table, and used what could be death to get them captured and need to be rescued or otherwise deeper into plots and bad situations.
That isn't fudging either. It's impossible to conceal "okay guys, you've won, I won't drag this out." Calling a fight when it has become completely hopeless for one side or the other is a perfectly legitimate tool for maintaining pacing, and is completely orthogonal to fudging, unless it is done in secret. I have no idea why one would want to, since that kind of secret doesn't add anything that just being honest wouldn't.In another game dice lie where they may, but a foe with 1-2 HPs left I may just kill off to end combat where it's a forgone conclusion - because there's no tension left at that point and the pacing of the game during our limited widow of play is more important of a tool for table enjoyment than the possibility that a resource (HP, spell slot, etc.) might be expended from the player's side.
That's like saying that commercial planes are a lot more applicable than housing to a discussion about cars, because both are transportation. I mean, yeah, it's true, but...Surely it's a hell of a lot more applicable than housing, given, y'know, they're both games.