Ilbranteloth
Explorer
Agreed. Because in order to arrive at an answer we would have to first determine if every rule in every situation in this game produces the 'correct' result. Or from a different perspective, a 'fair' result.
That is also basically impossible to answer before determining what fair is. What are we trying to accomplish with the rules? The way they are written, most of us would probably agree they are relatively fair most of the time. But using a d20 as the primary design element is more likely to provide 'unfair' results than a pool of dice, for example. It can certainly be more exciting, but a 20th level character that dies because of a failed climbing check doesn't seem inherently 'fair' for example. At least not to a lot of people.
So the best we can do is have a discussion about under what circumstances fudging is acceptable to most people when playing this particular ruleset. There will always be a few that say 'never,' and that's fine.
For me, the purpose of the rules is to provide a bit of impartial randomness to determine the outcome os situations that usually have far more (known and unknown) variables than we can account for. I like the rules to be able to reasonably model what I would expect in a magic-capable fantasy world based on our world.
Some places where this fails for me (which is where I add house rules) are things like injuries, disease, and other maladies that have a significant impact for a longer amount of time than hit points simulate. But that's an actual change to the rules. We are looking solely at whether or not, once the rules are in place, if that die roll, that 'impartial randomness' is sacred and should never be questioned.
I think it should. Occasionally. One example is a mistake or miscalculation made by the DM. One could say that this is just part of the world, 'fate' if you will, but others feel that a mistake made on the part of the DM shouldn't penalize the players or their characters.
Another situation would be the absurd. That 20th level character that rolls a '1' on their climb check, and doesn't have a safety net (like feather fall) to save them. In the current rules, a '1' isn't automatic failure for a skill check, but this is an event that could happen (Strength drained character for example). One could argue that this is a situation where it is again set up by a 'mistake' of the DM. That is, if you aren't willing to accept the consequences of a failed check, then don't make a check. Even if that consequence is that you don't think it's possible for them to fail the check.
Another thread is perhaps helpful here. In that thread, a character is reduced to a '0' Intelligence by an intellect devourer, but isn't killed. There is no mechanism in the rules to regain the Intelligence outside of magic the party doesn't have, and might not have for several sessions. The DM won't allow a second character, since this one hasn't died, so does the player just hang out at the table to several sessions, or do they 'fudge' a solution (assuming that the paladin and cleric in question won't willingly kill the character).
The consensus in that thread is that the player should be provided an option to play, whether that's changing the state of her character, or some other means (like a second character). Many suggest that the situation shouldn't have existed to start, that is a DM mistake. Other than the original post, I don't think anybody advocated that 'them's the rules, so deal with it.' So there is some tolerance to change (fudge) the situation to make it workable.
So the question that most likely applies to most groups is not whether or not fudging of any sort is allowed or not, but to what extent? Should the players know that the fudging occurred? Does it fundamentally change the quality and enjoyment of the game? Why?
There's another way to look at it. Suppose that the table rule is no fudging. Period. Now, you come across a situation that the rule doesn't account for. You follow the rules religiously (no fudging), and then decide after the fact to change the rule. This is the approach generally taken by professional sports. But if the rule is going to change, because the inadequacy of the rule is recognized by the group, why not make that change immediately, or at least 'fudge' things to make it acceptable and work out the details afterwards? It's not a competition, and we aren't trying to maintain the integrity of performance statistics from one decade to the next. Is this really necessary?
For D&D, and more specifically the OD&D, BECMI, 1st, 2nd, 5th and to a large degree the 3rd editions, I'd say no. Why am I pulling out those editions specifically? Because the basic underlying concept of the game includes that of the DM as a referee, to make judgement calls, interpret the rules, and apply them. The DM has the authority to override the results if they determine they do not fit.
Of course, for Original D&D and BE(CMI) this was largely out of necessity. There are just a lot of things that aren't covered in the rules, and the DM has to wing it. As 2nd and 3rd edition added more and more rules, it simultaneously made it more difficult to wing it (because you might contradict a rule, or upset balance), and reduced the acceptance for the DM overriding an existing rule or fudging because it's, well, against the rules.
Another factor that has come into play with the complexity of the rules is that there are a lot more rules for the players now. Through 1st edition in particular, the expectation was that the DM knew the rules, and would handle that side of things. The players needed to know their spells, AC, and hit points. They didn't even have the attack matrices originally. So they just rolled and asked 'did I hit?' Now that the players know more about the rules (in some cases more than the DM), and the rules often require interpretation, there are questions about how those rules are interpreted, and the players and the DM don't always agree.
Mistrust of the DM is more likely to occur when players think the DM is singling them out, that that remarkable string of attacks and hits against their character isn't fair and the DM must be picking on them. Perhaps a DM fudges by adding a few more creatures, or bumping up hit points because they determine that an encounter is way too easy. Not my preference, but I could roll with it. On the other hand, a DM bumping up an attack roll by a monster would be unacceptable, cheating, and a good sign that the DM has a 'me against them' attitude. This is the type of circumstance that makes groups roll all dice in the open. But that approach also takes away some unknowns (was my Perception or Investigation check high enough that I know there is nothing there, or did I just roll poorly?), but it also makes it much harder, although not impossible, for the DM to fudge. He can still change stats, add or remove monsters, etc. but if that creature just scored a critical on the last character standing and the only one who can stabilize and save the rest of the party, there's no changing that if the dice are in the open.
On the other hand, most people would consider 'fudging' by a player to be cheating, so why isn't it cheating for the DM? My answer would be that the DM has to manage an entire world's worth of rules and checks, and that sometimes, whether by DM mistake, poorly written rules, or other situations that aren't taken into account just prior to the roll create a result that is considered unacceptable by the DM.
Ironically enough, most of the actual fudging that I've seen is in the player's favor. So perhaps it's more of a question of whether it's fair between players, rather than fair to the game? To make sure the DM isn't playing favorites?
And I guess I don't really get that, because I've never been in a situation where the group felt that there was even the possibility that I'm singling somebody out or being unfair. Sure, there have been a player or two, as well as a few rulings, but the rest of the group have just said, no, there's no issue, and we're sticking with the way we play (with many of the rolls in secret).
So to me, the fundamental nature of the game requires some leeway on the part of the DM, whether that applies to dice rolls, or modifying encounters on the fly, is very situational. These are much less likely to come up in short casual play, and much more likely to be not only necessary, but important to the campaign for a long-running campaign.
Ilbranteloth
