Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DMs, how do you fudge?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8593440" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Sure we do. It crops up in a much, much, <em>much</em> bigger field than TTRPGs, as already mentioned earlier in this thread: <em>video games</em>.</p><p></p><p>Video games contain computer opponents, and a significant chunk of them <em>cheat heinously</em>. This is not, strictly, because designers <em>want</em> the computers to cheat--it is rather that the very limited automated "AI" scripts cannot hope to keep up with more than an extremely inexperienced player. Designing these "AI" scripts (they really aren't artificial intelligences--they're waaaaay to simple for that) so they don't need to cheat is very hard. Only a few games I've ever played reach that point, e.g. Galactic Civilizations has some <em>really excellent</em> AI that can do some very long-range plays, truly earning the "intelligence" part of the term AI.</p><p></p><p>Game AI designers are pretty open about this: they say <a href="https://kotaku.com/the-three-or-more-or-less-laws-of-gaming-ai-5271733" target="_blank">"cheat wherever you can"...and also "never get caught cheating."</a> That's not just for show. Getting caught cheating can <em>really</em> upset your players. It can upset them to the point where they will not just stop playing your game, they'll actively campaign against it, trying to encourage other people not to buy it. Machiavelli might have been writing satire with <em>The Prince</em>, but his advice was still good there: "<em>Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated...</em>" Probably the only thing that inspires more hate in gamers overall than cheating (whether it be player cheating or AI cheating) is a pay-to-win cash shop.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I was very clear about this already. As soon as the creature enters the state of play, depending on what specifically the party is doing. Once the mini/token/etc. is on the battlemap (or has entered the combat if TOTM, etc.), they've entered play.</p><p></p><p>Also, you have taken me to a much, much greater extent than I said...even though I've been very clear about this several times in this thread. I didn't say DMs could do <em>nothing whatsoever</em>. I said they shouldn't do it <em>secretly</em>. Justify the changes. Make it diegetic. Make it something the players can potentially learn about...and, more importantly, <em>do</em> something about. You still have an enormous amount of creative freedom without needing to resort to fudging. This is not an issue of "never ever change anything." Nor am I saying "never make anything mysterious or unanswered." Instead, I'm saying, "if you change things, the players should be able to learn about and respond to that change." Give them exactly the same opportunity to discover the <em>in-the-world</em> aspects of what you're doing as they have for any <em>plot-related</em> stuff you're doing. You don't have to show them how the sausage is made, but you shouldn't tell them it's 100% all-beef sausage when it's 20% chicken hearts and 10%-30% vegetable protein.</p><p></p><p></p><p>There is a difference between "showmanship"--which is a matter of <em>performance</em>--and straight-up lying to people about what things they're doing or achieving. Plus, at a magic show, people actually consent to being deceived, they (almost never) actually play any part in the trick, and (most importantly of all) <em>have no skin in the game</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>[Citation needed.] Video gamers respond <em>exceptionally poorly</em> to any perception of "cheating" on the part of the AI in a game. This is an objective fact. Indeed, they respond so poorly even to the <em>perception</em> of cheating that some games are designed with slightly player-favoring RNG to prevent the rare, but statistically completely possible, runs of success for the AI or failure for the player. (I've been dealing with a bit of this myself lately in a game--I was having chains of five consecutive "severe failure" events, when the game explicitly says this should only occur 15% of the time, meaning getting a string of 5 consecutive failures should only happen about one in every 13169 attempts...and this was happening on my <em>third</em> attempt at this event chain.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>I feel like I'm missing something with this anecdote. That is, I understand what you've said, but I don't see what you're going for with it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay but...hear me out...</p><p></p><p>What if you just didn't? You wouldn't need to deceive them. Then it wouldn't be <em>possible</em> to "spoil the illusion." It wouldn't be <em>possible</em> to take away the endorphin rush or ruin the tension. The tension, the win, the endorphins--they would all be <em>real</em> (for, y'know, an appropriate definition of "real" that allows for us being nerds pretending to be elves and half-demons and quarter-flumph ex-vampires.)</p><p></p><p>A magician's trick is not suddenly made pointless when it turns out the trick was <em>real all along</em>. Indeed, to reveal that it was <em>actually real</em>, rather than merely a known and tolerated illusion, usually enhances the experience greatly.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, I can certainly tell you that is <em>not</em> me. I do enjoy well-done tactical combat, but my true love is the roleplay angle. I <em>adore</em> a really good setting and context where I can realistically examine how my character would react to things and play through their struggles and moral choices. That's why, in the DW game I run, I've told my players not to worry about character death. Even if their characters die, that just means a new adventure for trying to bounce back from that death, possibly with yet further revelations as a result of their afterlife journey. Because the <em>real</em> challenges, the <em>real</em> victories and defeats, lie in the choices they make. The mistakes and the oaths, the alliances and betrayals. Challenging the numbers on their character sheet is easy. Challenging the <em>player</em> with choices where <em>only they</em> can decide what the "right answer" is...THAT is what is beautiful to me, as both DM and player.</p><p></p><p>And yet, I still vehemently oppose fudging.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You're committing the same error as the above: assuming that the <em>only</em> possible way to change things is secretly. It's not, and never has been. Sure, don't shout from the rooftops "I AM MODIFYING THIS MONSTER!" But you can make your changes diegetic, observable, accessible to the characters. The players may fail to capitalize on that accessibility, that's perfectly fine. But if you did at least make a good-faith effort at that accessibility, go ahead! Change literally anything that is reasonable to change, if it should lead to better results.</p><p></p><p>Again, I gave an example earlier in this thread of doing exactly this thing. I can control difficulty <em>without needing to fudge.</em> The extremely slight increase in difficulty is more than compensated for by, as noted above, turning it from magic trick to magic truth. And even then, I have not really needed to modify things that much--though some of that, I admit, comes from me being willing to <em>let</em> a fight be "disappointing" or "too strong" if that's what results.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8593440, member: 6790260"] Sure we do. It crops up in a much, much, [I]much[/I] bigger field than TTRPGs, as already mentioned earlier in this thread: [I]video games[/I]. Video games contain computer opponents, and a significant chunk of them [I]cheat heinously[/I]. This is not, strictly, because designers [I]want[/I] the computers to cheat--it is rather that the very limited automated "AI" scripts cannot hope to keep up with more than an extremely inexperienced player. Designing these "AI" scripts (they really aren't artificial intelligences--they're waaaaay to simple for that) so they don't need to cheat is very hard. Only a few games I've ever played reach that point, e.g. Galactic Civilizations has some [I]really excellent[/I] AI that can do some very long-range plays, truly earning the "intelligence" part of the term AI. Game AI designers are pretty open about this: they say [URL='https://kotaku.com/the-three-or-more-or-less-laws-of-gaming-ai-5271733']"cheat wherever you can"...and also "never get caught cheating."[/URL] That's not just for show. Getting caught cheating can [I]really[/I] upset your players. It can upset them to the point where they will not just stop playing your game, they'll actively campaign against it, trying to encourage other people not to buy it. Machiavelli might have been writing satire with [I]The Prince[/I], but his advice was still good there: "[I]Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated...[/I]" Probably the only thing that inspires more hate in gamers overall than cheating (whether it be player cheating or AI cheating) is a pay-to-win cash shop. I was very clear about this already. As soon as the creature enters the state of play, depending on what specifically the party is doing. Once the mini/token/etc. is on the battlemap (or has entered the combat if TOTM, etc.), they've entered play. Also, you have taken me to a much, much greater extent than I said...even though I've been very clear about this several times in this thread. I didn't say DMs could do [I]nothing whatsoever[/I]. I said they shouldn't do it [I]secretly[/I]. Justify the changes. Make it diegetic. Make it something the players can potentially learn about...and, more importantly, [I]do[/I] something about. You still have an enormous amount of creative freedom without needing to resort to fudging. This is not an issue of "never ever change anything." Nor am I saying "never make anything mysterious or unanswered." Instead, I'm saying, "if you change things, the players should be able to learn about and respond to that change." Give them exactly the same opportunity to discover the [I]in-the-world[/I] aspects of what you're doing as they have for any [I]plot-related[/I] stuff you're doing. You don't have to show them how the sausage is made, but you shouldn't tell them it's 100% all-beef sausage when it's 20% chicken hearts and 10%-30% vegetable protein. There is a difference between "showmanship"--which is a matter of [I]performance[/I]--and straight-up lying to people about what things they're doing or achieving. Plus, at a magic show, people actually consent to being deceived, they (almost never) actually play any part in the trick, and (most importantly of all) [I]have no skin in the game[/I]. [Citation needed.] Video gamers respond [I]exceptionally poorly[/I] to any perception of "cheating" on the part of the AI in a game. This is an objective fact. Indeed, they respond so poorly even to the [I]perception[/I] of cheating that some games are designed with slightly player-favoring RNG to prevent the rare, but statistically completely possible, runs of success for the AI or failure for the player. (I've been dealing with a bit of this myself lately in a game--I was having chains of five consecutive "severe failure" events, when the game explicitly says this should only occur 15% of the time, meaning getting a string of 5 consecutive failures should only happen about one in every 13169 attempts...and this was happening on my [I]third[/I] attempt at this event chain.) I feel like I'm missing something with this anecdote. That is, I understand what you've said, but I don't see what you're going for with it. Okay but...hear me out... What if you just didn't? You wouldn't need to deceive them. Then it wouldn't be [I]possible[/I] to "spoil the illusion." It wouldn't be [I]possible[/I] to take away the endorphin rush or ruin the tension. The tension, the win, the endorphins--they would all be [I]real[/I] (for, y'know, an appropriate definition of "real" that allows for us being nerds pretending to be elves and half-demons and quarter-flumph ex-vampires.) A magician's trick is not suddenly made pointless when it turns out the trick was [I]real all along[/I]. Indeed, to reveal that it was [I]actually real[/I], rather than merely a known and tolerated illusion, usually enhances the experience greatly. Well, I can certainly tell you that is [I]not[/I] me. I do enjoy well-done tactical combat, but my true love is the roleplay angle. I [I]adore[/I] a really good setting and context where I can realistically examine how my character would react to things and play through their struggles and moral choices. That's why, in the DW game I run, I've told my players not to worry about character death. Even if their characters die, that just means a new adventure for trying to bounce back from that death, possibly with yet further revelations as a result of their afterlife journey. Because the [I]real[/I] challenges, the [I]real[/I] victories and defeats, lie in the choices they make. The mistakes and the oaths, the alliances and betrayals. Challenging the numbers on their character sheet is easy. Challenging the [I]player[/I] with choices where [I]only they[/I] can decide what the "right answer" is...THAT is what is beautiful to me, as both DM and player. And yet, I still vehemently oppose fudging. You're committing the same error as the above: assuming that the [I]only[/I] possible way to change things is secretly. It's not, and never has been. Sure, don't shout from the rooftops "I AM MODIFYING THIS MONSTER!" But you can make your changes diegetic, observable, accessible to the characters. The players may fail to capitalize on that accessibility, that's perfectly fine. But if you did at least make a good-faith effort at that accessibility, go ahead! Change literally anything that is reasonable to change, if it should lead to better results. Again, I gave an example earlier in this thread of doing exactly this thing. I can control difficulty [I]without needing to fudge.[/I] The extremely slight increase in difficulty is more than compensated for by, as noted above, turning it from magic trick to magic truth. And even then, I have not really needed to modify things that much--though some of that, I admit, comes from me being willing to [I]let[/I] a fight be "disappointing" or "too strong" if that's what results. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DMs, how do you fudge?
Top