Do you "save" the PCs?

[Fifth Element]

I am not sure what "class of people" you are referring to, so I can't really answer that.

DMs who fudge, presumably.

We simply disagree as to what the set of "If fudging is good for your game" consists of. I tend to believe it is (for all intents and purposes) an empty set.

Fudging is good for my game. Period. It increases the enjoyment that I and my players derive from the game. Your belief is therefore rebutted.

In order to dismiss this rebuttal, you must assume that you know better what my group enjoys than I do. That would be a very arrogant assumption, given that you've never met me or anyone I play with, much less actually played with us.

This is the uphill battle to which Umbran referred. You have decided that since you don't enjoy fudging, anyone who says they do must be mistaken, or simply not realize that their game would be better if they played your way.

The alternative to this, of course, is to accept that fudging increases the enjoyment that a not-insignificant number of groups derive from their games. Given the evidence of that provided in this thread (if you would care to read it), I'd suggest you consider accepting that not everyone enjoys gaming in the same way you do.

Not at all. The ultimate authority is the DM. If the DM decides to roll the dice, and then decides to fudge, he is undermining his own authority.

So if he instead decides to roll the dice, but still allow himself the ability to fudge after the dice have been rolled, that would be fine? You're setting completely arbitrary limits on what the DM can and cannot do with his authority. There's no reason why it cannot extend beyond the "roll the dice" point, other than you saying so. There's no reason why the DM can have complete control of the fantasy world up until dice are rolled, but then must subjugate his authority to the dice when rolled. Many people play that way, but there's nothing saying it has to be that way.

 

[Reynard]

So if he instead decides to roll the dice, but still allow himself the ability to fudge after the dice have been rolled, that would be fine? You're setting completely arbitrary limits on what the DM can and cannot do with his authority. There's no reason why it cannot extend beyond the "roll the dice" point, other than you saying so. There's no reason why the DM can have complete control of the fantasy world up until dice are rolled, but then must subjugate his authority to the dice when rolled. Many people play that way, but there's nothing saying it has to be that way.

I think it is important to remember that no one that I am aware of, on either side of this argument, is suggesting that their opinion is the OneTrueWay, but rather that they have preferences. So, while it may seem like a strange and arbitrary line to draw, I think a lot of us "anti-fudgers" do in fact "limit" the DM's authority at changing die roll results mid-combat for the express purpose of altering the outcome either in favor of or against the PCs. This is, as they say, a No-No, a Thou Shalt Not, a kicked out of the DM Union offense. We set up the game and the scenario. We establish the ground rules and the particulars. We create the challenges and arbitrate disputes. But we do not, under any circumstances, change a crit to a whiff to save a PC (or a NPC -- anti-fudging extends to the bad guys, too).

And, of course, there's likely a legion of anti-fudgers who totally disagree with me on one, some or all of the above, and fidgers who agree in parts.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

In order to dismiss this rebuttal, you must assume that you know better what my group enjoys than I do. That would be a very arrogant assumption, given that you've never met me or anyone I play with, much less actually played with us.

Not so. Unless RC is now or is expecting to be in your game then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist for him. RC could simply feel that he wouldn't enjoy your game as much if you fudge than if you gave up the practice. What you and your group enjoy is meanigless to his enjoyment.

 

[Nagol]

I think it is important to remember that no one that I am aware of, on either side of this argument, is suggesting that their opinion is the OneTrueWay, but rather that they have preferences. So, while it may seem like a strange and arbitrary line to draw, I think a lot of us "anti-fudgers" do in fact "limit" the DM's authority at changing die roll results mid-combat for the express purpose of altering the outcome either in favor of or against the PCs. This is, as they say, a No-No, a Thou Shalt Not, a kicked out of the DM Union offense. We set up the game and the scenario. We establish the ground rules and the particulars. We create the challenges and arbitrate disputes. But we do not, under any circumstances, change a crit to a whiff to save a PC (or a NPC -- anti-fudging extends to the bad guys, too).

And, of course, there's likely a legion of anti-fudgers who totally disagree with me on one, some or all of the above, and fidgers who agree in parts.

I don't think it's particlarly arbitrary. As a DM, I don't lie to the players. The NPCs may lie. Situations can appear different from actuality, but I attempt to provide as a clean a glimpse into the world as is possible.

Part of the world is indeterminate until the dice result appear. The probabilities are generally knowable by the players (if not outright known). That the probability distributions exist in their current state is because I and in many cases the wider group have accepted those outcomes are acceptable through acceptance of the game's ruleset and the situation the character find themselves in.

The players make choices with the knowledge of potential outcomes -- effectively placing bets that their resources, tactics, and abilities will carry them to safety and success. Let us see how well they gambled in an honest game.

 

[Imaginary Number]

Unless RC is now or is expecting to be in your game then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist for him. RC could simply feel that he wouldn't enjoy your game as much if you fudge than if you gave up the practice. What you and your group enjoy is meanigless to his enjoyment.

This is true, but it doesn't address Fifth Element's point. RC asserted that the set of possible games that are improved by DM fudging is "empty," i.e. that no such game exists, regardless of whether RC is playing in it. Fifth Element responded that, yes, his game indeed is improved by judicious use of fudging as one of the many tools available to the DM in running the game. When faced with this sort of contradictory anecdotal evidence, the response throught the thread generally has been that DMs who fudge are playing wrong and don't know it, don't know that their players don't like it when they fudge even if the players say they do, and are lying untrustworthy liars to boot. If everyone simply agreed that fudging or not fudging was merely a matter of playstyle preference that is irrelevant to people who don't share a preference, I don't think this thread would have gone on this far.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think it is important to remember that no one that I am aware of, on either side of this argument, is suggesting that their opinion is the OneTrueWay, but rather that they have preferences.

I disagree. Stating that you have a preference, and that those who do not share your preference are doing so because of a personal weakness or lack of ability as a DM, and that those who do not share your preferences are in fact hurting their games by not sharing your preferences, is not a mere statement of preference.

So, while it may seem like a strange and arbitrary line to draw

I have no problem with arbitrary lines. All lines drawn in D&D rules are arbitrary, since it's a made-up game. I have an issue with arbitrary lines being presented as natural and obvious.

Not so. Unless RC is now or is expecting to be in your game then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist for him. RC could simply feel that he wouldn't enjoy your game as much if you fudge than if you gave up the practice. What you and your group enjoy is meanigless to his enjoyment.

That would be an incredibly charitable reading of his post, one which I am not inclined to give at this point. His argument seems to be (based not only on that post but the entire thread) that no games are improved by fudging, for anyone. Not just him. If he were simply talking about his personal preferences at this point, my response would be "Yes, I realize that. And?"

The players make choices with the knowledge of potential outcomes -- effectively placing bets that their resources, tactics, and abilities will carry them to safety and success. Let us see how well they gambled in an honest game.

It will never be an "honest game" because the DM sets the groundrules to begin with, and controls with fiat everthing up to the point of the die roll. You might not intend it here, but this quote can be read to imply GMs who fudge are dishonest, with all the negative implications of the term. That has been asserted at various points in the thread, and it's as untrue now as it was then.

 

[Nagol]

It will never be an "honest game" because the DM sets the groundrules to begin with, and controls with fiat everthing up to the point of the die roll. You might not intend it here, but this quote can be read to imply GMs who fudge are dishonest, with all the negative implications of the term. That has been asserted at various points in the thread, and it's as untrue now as it was then.

If I look down at a die and say "I rolled a 10" when the die is plainly showing a 20, I am being dishonest. Whether the game engine confers that authority is immaterial. The same holds true if I say "It hit for 5 damage" when the dice are showing a critical for 20.

I have no difficulty with the concept of arbitrary changes to die rolls on the part of the DM if (a) the player group has explicitly agreed to the use and (b) the DM calls out the correct result and then changes it. In that case, the DM is being honest and is merely exercising in a clear manner power granted to him.

 

[Imaginary Number]

If I look down at a die and say "I rolled a 10" when the die is plainly showing a 20, I am being dishonest. Whether the game engine confers that authority is immaterial. The same holds true if I say "It hit for 5 damage" when the dice are showing a critical for 20.

I have no difficulty with the concept of arbitrary changes to die rolls on the part of the DM if (a) the player group has explicitly agreed to the use and (b) the DM calls out the correct result and then changes it. In that case, the DM is being honest and is merely exercising in a clear manner power granted to him.

Say I look down at my adventure notes and see that a pack of 10 ghouls is in room 15. I decide when the players get to room 15, however, to reduce the number of ghouls to 5 if the party seems low on resources, or to increase it to 15 if they've not been challenged much to that point. This is also being dishonest in the sense that the number of ghouls the party fights differs from the number written in my notes. But I think most people would agree that making such an adjustment is within the scope of the DM's authority.

With respect to your second point, I'm with you that the player group should agree as a general matter whether the DM has the authority to alter die rolls -- the variety of strong opinions on the issue expressed in this thread suggests that's a good idea. But I don't see why part (b) is absolutely necessary. For example, Umbran above stated that his group doesn't want him to let them know if he fudges a die roll; my survey of my players on the issue got results identical to his. If the group wants the DM to announce when fudging occurs, fine, but my guess (based on an admittedly small sample size) is that most players who are OK with DM fudging also don't want to be told when the DM does it.

 

[Fifth Element]

If I look down at a die and say "I rolled a 10" when the die is plainly showing a 20, I am being dishonest.

And if you don't normally tell the players what you rolled on the die....?

The fudge can be that you applied an ad hoc penalty to the attack roll, or made a mid-fight adjustment to the monster's attack bonus. You can fudge even if you use the result of the die roll itself.

I have no difficulty with the concept of arbitrary changes to die rolls on the part of the DM if (a) the player group has explicitly agreed to the use and

Great, we've got that covered in this thread already.

(b) the DM calls out the correct result and then changes it. In that case, the DM is being honest and is merely exercising in a clear manner power granted to him.

Why would the DM call out the result if he's planning on changing it? That's not how fudging works, in my experience.

"He hits AC 27, does that hit?"
"Yes, dammit, that's going to drop me!"
"Oops, well then let's say he only hits AC 22. That's a miss, right?"

That's not how it happens.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

No kidding. Did you notice this isn't a courtroom?

Did you know that logic and rules of credibility don't stop in the courtroom?

I know precisely what you're saying, it's just incredibly arrogant. Since my experience doesn't mesh with yours, you assume I'm wrong about my experiences

Let me just ask you straight out, because I want to know if you're a liar or not. Do you, yes or no, sometimes believe that someone is wrong if they tell you something that is completely alien to your experience? I know, I know, "we're not in a court room." But, really, try.

Because either you're as "arrogant" as I am -- as everybody in the world is, when it comes to "somebody else's word against our own experiences" -- or you're a liar. Period. I'd like to know which.