Do you "save" the PCs?

[Fifth Element]

No....good prep and an appropriate ruleset is.

This doesn't work when dealing with something unexpected, which to me is when fudging most often comes into play. In such a case, "you should have prepared for the unexpected occurrence" is not helpful.

 

[Reynard]

This doesn't work when dealing with something unexpected, which to me is when fudging most often comes into play. In such a case, "you should have prepared for the unexpected occurrence" is not helpful.

But I think the rules set you use and the prep you do informs you for the "unexpected". IOW, if you choose to use a "swingy" system, fudging "swingy" results is an inefficient means to deal with the problem of potential disastrous die rolls. Better would be to modify the swinginess out of the rules, or include meta-rules (like Hero Points or whatever) or some combination thereof.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Folks keep pointing out a couple of things I wanted to comment on:

(1) Good DMs don't fudge often, and

(2) Players don't want to know when a DM is fudging.

The problem when you combine these things is that they add up to, "The players don't know how often the DM is fudging, and can assume it's constant."

Maybe I'm an extreme case as a player, but when a DM hides all rolls (and a rarely fudging good DM still has to hide all rolls, right?), I simply assume the DM is fudging whenever and wherever he wants to do so. The enjoyment of the game is significantly lessened for me. For this purpose, perception might as well be reality.

Some folks will say it's about "DM trust," but that's a nebulous term. I can trust a DM in every other way, but it's difficult to trust that a DM isn't fudging constantly when all rolls are secret; and all rolls must be secret even if the DM is fudging only very occasionally.

Here's a concrete example, from early in 3E:

Our third-level group was ambushed at night, without armor, by a wyvern. Our 12 Con fighter failed two poison saves (a total of 6d6 Con damage). Our DM, a guy that I believe held as his only goal our enjoyment, rolled the damage (like all other rolls) behind the screen and announced 11 points of Con damage.

We, as players, exchanged glances, and everybody at the table was thinking exactly the same thing: "A big pile of fudge." I said it out loud, joking-but-not. The DM, to this day, insists that he rolled 11 on 6d6, and he very well might have. It's certainly possible. But to this day, not one of us believes him.

His game, although it continued through RttToEE, went, with that session, from a tense game in which we knew our PCs could die, to a game where we just assumed that if the DM could secretly save us, he would.

Not nearly as much fun ... and we don't even know for sure that he fudged!

I've rolled every combat and damage roll in the open ever since. Perception matters, at least to a significant number of players.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This doesn't work when dealing with something unexpected, which to me is when fudging most often comes into play. In such a case, "you should have prepared for the unexpected occurrence" is not helpful.

An occurance prepared for cannot be that unexpected. I don't think that creating spontaneous content when the game moves in an unforseen direction is really fudging. Changing a result that occurs in the game simply because it conflicts with an expected outcome IS fudging.

Why would death in a game set in such a hazardous environment ever be completely unexpected?

 

[Raven Crowking]

This doesn't work when dealing with something unexpected, which to me is when fudging most often comes into play. In such a case, "you should have prepared for the unexpected occurrence" is not helpful.

Just to be clear: Disagreeing with your opinion doesn't mean that I don't think that you have a right to your opinion, or that I disrespect you as a person.

What you've said here, I concede, should allow the DM to "fudge" in a way: The DM should be able to fill in parts of the world "on the fly" based upon what he knows about the parts of the world already filled in.

For example, if you need to know the Orc Chief's name, or the City Guard's name, it is (in a way) "fudging" to make that information up. This is especially true as the "illusion of reality" of the milieu is best served by pretending that the information was already known.

Likewise, when the players head off into unknown (undeveloped) territory, the DM must not only decide what is there (preferably based upon the reality of the campaign milieu), but must behave as though it was already there, or the "illusion of reality" will suffer.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with making several small lairs that can be placed when needed to facilitate this type of problem; I know that there are people who think that this is too much "fudging". However, once "what is there" is decided, I don't think that the DM should backtrack.

I certainly don't think he should fudge rolls.

I think that the desire to fudge rolls stems, almost exclusively, from the idea that the "DM knows best" and/or "the DM determines the desired outcome". IMHO and IME, players don't want to know that the DM fudges not because "drama" is harmed, but because (specifically) the "illusion of consequence" is harmed.

I will certainly grant that damaging the "illusion of consequence" can and will damage any feeling of drama that is occurring. As I said upthread, I have firsthand experience of the same.

I also tend to think that the experience of drama over the long term is more important than the experience of drama over the short term. I.e., if you fudge now, the PC lives, and the short-term experience of drama is satisfied. But, because the player figures out that you are fudging, the long-term experience of drama (and therefore, the many future short-term experiences of drama) is hurt.

Worse, trust in the DM is hurt. Players start doing, as noted upthread, "silly things" to see just how far they can push it.

Maybe your Bluff skill is just waaaayyyyy higher than mine, but IME and IMHO, sooner or later players always figure out that the DM is fudging. Just as, sooner or later, players & DM always figure out if Joe Player is cheating on his die rolls.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

I've rolled every combat and damage roll in the open ever since. Perception matters, at least to a significant number of players.

Open rolling has both good and bad points. The good parts you pointed out quite well. Open rolls blatantly let the players know that the dice have real meaning.

On the bad side open rolls give away too much information that may turn combat into even more of a boardgame. A player may make decisions based on probabilities known after seeing the rolls rather than on what is actually happening.

A player may decide to break off combat if he/she sees how low a number is needed to hit them, the damage range and quick calcs life expectancy in rounds. In the actual game the DM could be rolling poorly and the monster is scoring fewer hits. If this were rolled openly the player would know that extreme luck is the reason for the good fortune and withdraw while the character would run from a fight he/she was winning for no apparent reason.

"Guys that monster saved on 4, lets get out of here."

" Umm. With an average damage roll you will be dead in 2.65 rounds. Assuming average damage we will drop that thing in 6.4 rounds. We're toast."

Metagaming is even uglier with such intel in the players hands.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

On the bad side open rolls give away too much information that may turn combat into even more of a boardgame. A player may make decisions based on probabilities known after seeing the rolls rather than on what is actually happening.

[...]

"Guys that monster saved on 4, lets get out of here."

While this does sometimes happen, I don't necessarily consider it a bad thing. (Sometimes it is. Not often, in our games.) I just consider it the PCs realizing that they're throwing everything but the kitchen sink at someone, and not fazing him, and then using that info to make in-character decisions.

In my last M&M game, the heroes went up against a villain with a high Will save. When she rolled a 4 and I described the PC's mental attack as "shattering against a diamond wall," the description was just icing on the cake ... the players -- and characters -- already knew that mental attacks weren't the way to go.

In other words, why does it have to be meta-gaming? Why can't the PCs be making in-character judgments? "You know, that's the second time I've avoided getting impaled because the bad guy slipped on a wet cobblestone. This might be a good time to leave, before my luck runs out."

 

[Umbran]

Why does the GM's role include fudging? I see the GM as the provider of the game world reality. Fudging to save a specific PC would make me wonder if they trust what they have created.

I'd like to return to a prior note about how these arguments go for a moment. Some folks may view this as well-thought-out or well stated. To me, this stands as one of those statements that could well make one wonder if you really respect the other side.

You see, it is based upon the idea that the fudging GM has a weakness - either the creations are not to be trusted (is a weak craftsman), or the GM lacks confidence (has a flaw of character). When the answer to your wonderment has been given several times over the course of this and previous threads, and you don't seem to have gotten it.

Taking P-cat's earlier statement as an example - he noted that he sits down with some bare notes. His in-play modifications (fudging) aren't because he "doesn't trust" his creation. They are because his act of creation isn't complete before runtime.

His process (and view of the act of GMing) does not hinge on the idea that his "creation" is done and ready to bear weight before play begins. His model is one with the GM as an active participant in a process that goes on throughout play. The tools he may choose to use to finish assembling "his creation" in situ may be fundamentally different than yours.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Umbran,

We all have weaknesses; we all have strengths.

I would be cautious indeed about assuming that a perception that "X is a weakness" or "X is used to compensate for a weakness" somehow implies disrespect of the other side.

After all, we all have weaknesses, and we all devise means of compensating for them, just as we all have strengths, and we all devise means of catering to them.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

I think that the desire to fudge rolls stems, almost exclusively, from the idea that the "DM knows best" and/or "the DM determines the desired outcome".

That's a biased phrasing. How about "DM knows more about what's going on in the game" and/or "DM bears more responsibility for the enjoyment of the game"?

Maybe your Bluff skill is just waaaayyyyy higher than mine, but IME and IMHO, sooner or later players always figure out that the DM is fudging. Just as, sooner or later, players & DM always figure out if Joe Player is cheating on his die rolls.

I stated upthread that I know my players know I fudge. There's no secret there. Umbran and Janx discussed it with their players explicitly. Why make a point that was rendered moot pages ago?

You're still assuming we're fudging without player consent or knowledge. I have stated that's not the case.