Do you "save" the PCs?

[Piratecat]

There is no requirement for discussion. A single word is enough. "He rolled a 20. Fudge. 16. He misses."

Data point: this is how Mutants & Masterminds works. PC hits spectacularly well and you want to minimize the damage to your NPC? Toss a hero point. NPC needs to get away for comic book reasons? Toss a hero point. You want the NPC to automatically hit? Toss a hero point.

Building an "ignore the dice" mechanic into the game works pretty well, because the PCs can then use those hero points to reroll dice that they don't like.

 

[Ariosto]

Hussar, it is nothing other than a plain fact of life that the DMs are the ultimate authorities in their games, just as my Mom is the ultimate authority in her kitchen.

That is not changed by one iota when a DM follows the advice in the 1st ed. DMG to "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"

It certainly would not be any profound expression of a DM's authority to reject that advice on the basis of being cowed into submission to Hussar's browbeating!

"Talk about disempowering the DM," indeed.

 

[Ariosto]

And, there's been a fairly strong current throughout this thread to characterize fudging in this light. That if you fudge once, you must fudge all the time and that simply isn't true.

I do not see that.

I do not see the relevance of that, upon which advocates of "fudging" insist. Why should it matter?

"Well, there's Spam, egg, sausage and Spam. That's not got much Spam in it."

 

[Nagol]

Just like real life fudge, it's something that should not be used at every chance or opportunity. But, also like real fudge, it can be a good thing if done right.

Real life fudge = ick. Maybe that's the difference! Maybe we just don't like the name! /humour

 

[Nagol]

Data point: this is how Mutants & Masterminds works. PC hits spectacularly well and you want to minimize the damage to your NPC? Toss a hero point. NPC needs to get away for comic book reasons? Toss a hero point. You want the NPC to automatically hit? Toss a hero point.

Building an "ignore the dice" mechanic into the game works pretty well, because the PCs can then use those hero points to reroll dice that they don't like.

And the best part is it is done with player knowledge and agreement to the mechanic up-front and player knowledge of the event during play.

 

[Ariosto]

So, I reached down, (well virtually anyway) stood the PC's back up, took about half the baddies off the board, reduced the remaining baddies considerably in status and reran the encounter.

A pretty obvious example of fudging.

No. It's a pretty obvious example of playing a game again. Call it a "do-over" if you like.

In any case, the only reason it would be "obvious" that you "fudged" -- when you stated no such thing -- would be if we could just take it for granted because you always "fudge".

 

[pawsplay]

I was pointing out that my EARLY experience in the game was similar to what you stated yours was. I'm not about to go back and swim through the original post, but, you said when you started playing, PC's died like flies.

Thus the PAST TENSE part of what you quoted. It had nothing to do with how you play now.

I accept your word on that. Moving along.

 

[pawsplay]

And, there's been a fairly strong current throughout this thread to characterize fudging in this light. That if you fudge once, you must fudge all the time and that simply isn't true.

*discards Grandma-unfriendly metaphor, selects something else*

It's like finding out that when you gave someone a present and they said they liked it, they didn't. You will always wonder after that if they are sincere when they say they like something. You go from a situation in which you are disappointed once, to a situation where every success is tainted by doubt.

 

[Nagol]

*discards Grandma-unfriendly metaphor, selects something else*

It's like finding out that when you gave someone a present and they said they liked it, they didn't. You will always wonder after that if they are sincere when they say they like something. You go from a situation in which you are disappointed once, to a situation where every success is tainted by doubt.

That's one of the main reasons I always roll in the open. Players, by and large, have at best a middling grasp of probabiility and large population sample sizes.

There are enough low-probability results that I don't want the players to think I'm pulling my punches / fudging results when in fact, the dice results are wonky -- like the time a Colossal spider ate all 6 horses before attacking a PC -- even though the players were legal targets every round. Conversely, I don't want them to think I'm picking on someone like the time a PC fell off his horse, got a serious result, broke his arm, and came within an inch of dying (Aftermath system).

 

[Fifth Element]

And, there's been a fairly strong current throughout this thread to characterize fudging in this light. That if you fudge once, you must fudge all the time and that simply isn't true.

Agreed. I have called out RC on several occasions for doing just that (the paladin's player need not worry, since he knows his DM will fudge to save him, etc).

To me, fudging a result is just another tool in the DM's toolkit. It's a difficult tool to use, and not one that should get pulled out often, but, like any tool, it has its uses.

Again agreed. The DM has many ways to use his authority over the game. The firm line drawn between fudging and everything else is arbitrary.

Just like real life fudge, it's something that should not be used at every chance or opportunity. But, also like real fudge, it can be a good thing if done right.

Succinct.

It certainly would not be any profound expression of a DM's authority to reject that advice on the basis of being cowed into submission to Hussar's browbeating!

If there's any browbeating going on in this thread, it's the claims that DMs who fudge are untrustworthy or fearful that their creations are subpar.

There's a world of difference between "I do fudge sometimes, I find it more fun that way" and "I never fudge, I would find it less fun that way, and besides DMs who do it just don't know what they're doing."

It's like finding out that when you gave someone a present and they said they liked it, they didn't. You will always wonder after that if they are sincere when they say they like something. You go from a situation in which you are disappointed once, to a situation where every success is tainted by doubt.

This is a good illustration of a player who prefers that his DM not fudge, then finds out his DM is fudging and is upset about it. In games where everyone is cool with the DM fudging, of course, it's not applicable as an analogy.