And as it turns out "fudging" is a synonym with "cheating," "lying," "fraud," and "dishonesty." You are just endorsing a rose by any other name... And while the sense of "cheating" may not apply to your authority as GM, it does not erase the others that do apply, such as being dishonest, unethical, or playing falsely. So how is this not what @
Hussar referred to as a "feel good" semantics game?
But you
are being dishonest and fradulent; that is literally the definition of what "fudging" is. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too just because you dislike feeling morally offended by use of the word "cheating" to describe "cheating."
Umm, just because that's a synonym for the word, doesn't mean that's what I'm doing. Perhaps "fudging" is the wrong word? How about altering?
Because, I'd like you to explain just how, when my players know that I might use this rule, and they all agree that the rule is OK, and they are welcome to know exactly when I use it if they'd like, that I'm being dishonest, unethical, playing falsely, or being fraudulent.
How about some specific rules. These aren't necessarily from any particular game, we'll say they are house rules.
Lucky: Some characters and monsters have a lucky die. At any time, they can choose to roll a lucky die if they don't like their original roll. This alters the result of the original die roll.
Inspiration: Some characters and monsters have an Inspiration die. They can choose to roll an Inspiration die if an ally rolls poorly. This alters the result of the original die roll.
Death: The DM can opt, if the circumstances warrant (their discretion), to impose another serious consequence instead of death should the dice indicate it is so. This alters the result of the original die roll.
Circumstances: The DM can apply bonuses or penalties to the die roll should circumstances warrant. Anything that might grant advantage or disadvantage can potentially alter the roll. This can be applied before or after the roll, and the amount of modification is up to the DM, but is typically between a -5 and +5. This alters the result of the original roll.
Narrative: This is similar to death and circumstances. The DM can, at any time, and at their discretion, alter the results of the die for the benefit of the fiction/narrative. This should not be used to seriously injure or kill the PCs, but it should not eliminate consequences either. Being fair also means being fair to the monsters.
All of these are rules that alter the dice, and they have specific guidelines and/or triggers as to when they occur. The fact that in some cases the guidelines are very broad do not alter the fact that they; 1) Are rules; 2) Alter the die rolls; 3) are not dishonest, fraudulent, or unethical; 4) are not cheating.
The major difference between something like Lucky and the DM altering the result of the dice is that the DM has a lot more latitude in making the decision. They have been given permission to look at the circumstances as a whole (oops, I made this too difficult; Oops, it's too easy; Oops, this would kill a player's favorite character in a non-fun way; wow, my dice are brutal tonight; this result would be far more interesting in the fiction) to make those decisions. The player facing rules are usually based on limitations so as not to alter the balance between players/characters.
Yes, it means that the DM is granted more power over deciding what is "best" for the game in the moment. I totally get that there are a lot of people that don't want to grant them that much power. Fair enough. But that doesn't suddenly make following the rules at my table cheating. It just means that you choose to use different rules than we do.
Cheating is doing something that is not within the rules. We misuse the word all the time, and that's part of the problem. For example, you'll find lots of articles on "How to legally cheat on your taxes." It's not cheating if it's legal. Proper wording would be "Maximizing your use of tax loopholes."
My exact point has been that the wrong term is being used, and if "fudging" is the same as "cheating" then it too is the wrong term. Although I'm not fond of the term, DM Fiat is far a more appropriate term than cheating. And Gary's term (overruling the dice) is better than fudging.
Why? Because cheating. That is, actually playing dishonestly, lying to the other players, and breaking the rules to gain benefits is (and should be) universally condemned. It's wrong. And lumping GMs that are using a rule openly, honestly, and the full approval of their players is wrong. They are not part of that group.
This has nothing about being a "feel good" semantics game (although as Gene Simmons said, "I'm not anti-semantic"). The terms being used are flat out wrong. You're calling me a dishonest, lying, fraud when I've done none of those things. I'm open and honest about the rules we follow, and the scope and implementation of those rules. A rule that allows a DM to alter the results of the die by "DM discretion," simply has an very open set of triggering circumstances.
In this case, the dice are there to inform the DM and help adjudicate resolution. If the results are inappropriate (at the DM's discretion), then they are overruled. The example of changing death to something else is a prime example. The circumstances (which he described in detail, and extended to player attachment to characters), indicate that if it is inappropriate for
this roll to result in death, then change it.
Although I'm sure I'll get a lot of disagreement, the DM opting to not require a roll is really the same thing. The rules call for the PC (or the DM) to roll the dice to do something like search for secret doors. Again, this is an example Gary calls out. The advice (which is sound) is that the DM should just skip rolling the dice, especially if it leads to something "exciting." The point in time that the DM overrides the rules is irrelevant. If he doesn't think about it, rolls a secret door check, and then realizes that they really should find that secret door anyway, then he overrules it after the roll (which has the same effect as adding a modifier to the roll to ensure success).
Combat is not a special case. The DM rolls two criticals in a row, and decides the PC target doesn't deserve that much punishment in this encounter. So he alters the result. Changing it from critical to not critical is the same as changing it from 20 to 19. I've called this out in my games. "Wow, just rolled another critical. That seems a bit harsh." Although in my case, I often choose to let the player decide the consequences. I've used my discretion to decide that it's not an appropriate result, i.e. I've altered or "fudged" the roll. But the player can decide what's an appropriate substitute consequence/punishment.
I'm fine if you and your table agrees that cheating is okay, but I just hate the song-and-dance evasion about fudging not being GM cheating.
I don't think that sentence exists in isolation, but is instead couched in a section on the GM choosing to roll dice for the players. So that sentence does not appear to be about fudging but about the GM being able to control pacing and perspective through deciding when, how, and who can roll dice.
Furthermore, I don't think that Gygax advocates changing the die result when it comes to a character death. Instead, he appears to be advocating a prototype for a fiction first approach, such that the consequences and interpretation of the die results should follow from the fiction. The dice roll itself does not change; its imparted meaning within the context of the rules does. This idea becomes more explicit in Fate, for example: if you - as a player or GM - "take out" an opponent, then you get to dictate what happens to them: e.g., death, captured, injured, etc.
XP for this. Because it is this sentiment that truly lies behind the first formulation that actually referred to itself as "Rule Zero" (3rd Edition):
Rule Zero was "check with your dungeon master."
Yes that sentence is in the middle of a section that mentions rolling the dice for characters, but the words he chose are far more inclusive, especially in the context of the entire section and the fact that in that section he only later singles out one die roll as a roll that should never be changed. More importantly, there's a vastly different thing between rolling the dice for the players, and
overruling the dice (again, "fudging").
So if the dice indicate death (because that's the only option in the rules), and he advocates altering that result to something else, how is that
not altering the result of the dice (i.e. "fudging")? You're supposed to die. The DM decided you didn't.
The fiction first approach is "fudging" or altering the dice enshrined in rules. At least that one specific example. It's taking what Gary (and others) recognized, and codifying it in a different way. White Wolf went one direction, Fate and other games addressed it in a different manner. It's recognizing that a valid reason for the DM altering the results of the die is for the narrative. Instead of saying you have every right of changing it, they suggest that other options are valid besides just death. By providing other options and suggestions, it still leaves it up to the GM's discretion as to what the result is, but the guidelines are more specific, and the circumstances are more limited. Many of the games take it farther and put the control in the hands of the players too.
The thing is, this sort of flexibility, the recognition that there are other alternatives, is something I like about many of the more modern game systems. I also find that I was already giving the players a lot more control over the fiction, and that codifying that made sense too. That's something from a lot of the story now approach I like, even if I don't like the overall mechanics.
If most of the time the dice work just fine, and the rest of the time the DM can make an informed judgement call and address it on the fly, that works just fine. In reality, my players get to "fudge" the dice too. For the same reason - fiction first. For example, it's tied up in our critical hit and miss rules. If you score a critical hit, you decide the hit location, and often the results of that hit. The DM might make some of that decision, and I do have mechanics written to help as well. But most of the time we skip the mechanics and go with what is right for the moment. If the player rolls a critical miss, they decide what that means. Again, I have guidelines about the sort of thing that might happen, but they decide and I, as the DM, approve (and really, so does the table). Sometimes it means that nothing different happens. It's just a miss, or just a hit.
But I also think that DM discretion is there for a reason. I'm taking the responsibility to make this game exciting, fun, challenging, etc. for the players and the characters. If I find that I'm missing the mark, then I reserve the right to use whatever means I need to get it back on track. With the table's permission, of course. The more I've been studying how we play, the more I see it's a blend of all sorts of different rules approaches that have been developed over the years.
How is any of this lying, fraudulent, or dishonest? So no, it's not just a "feel good" discussion and not just semantics. I believe that the assertion that what we are doing is dishonest or fraudulent to be wrong.
