Fudging for fun and profit.

[Jeff Wilder]

If you can see how I'm getting the "you have fun wrong" vibe from your "you guys should rethink this" comment, great. If not, I'll leave it be.

That's probably a good idea, because I have no idea where or how you're getting that. As Umbran did -- and pointed out that he did -- I'm simply suggesting the exploration of something folks may not have considered before.

 

[Umbran]

Why is it a bad thing if they do?

Exactly why it may be bad will depend on the particular bias that is being used. But, as a generality - it is use of metagame information that can oddly bend character behaviors.

For example, if the players discern that the DM has a bias against killing characters under certain conditions, it can lead to characters taking risks (or not taking them) when they otherwise wouldn't (or would). Depending on the pattern is dangerous - if they haven't fully discerned the pattern, or if the GM deviates from the pattern, they can end up dead. Just because the DM has a subtle bias against killing PCs doesn't mean you can willfully just walk off a cliff, so to speak.

I haven't had a situation in a long, long time in which I needed to alter a die roll to respond to the emergency, though.

That's nice. But you are not me. Your group(s) aren't mine. My contention all along is that good use of this tool depends on situation - including the group and DM.

You probably did. I think it's a different base, though.

In my experience, to those who rather vehemently oppose and jump on any scent of railroading, both notes seem to be required.

For the same reason I don't fudge the die results ... I believe it would lessen the players' enjoyment.

I know I am turning this around on you. Please bear with me.

Why would revealing the scenario information lessen the players' enjoyment?

As far as i can tell, in your calculations you didn't account for just how many "three roll groupings" there are in a typical game session.

Most such groupings are not consecutive to-hit rolls by the same monster. I went from worse than 1 in 8000 chances on the dice to roughly one in every hundred combats. I figured that was appropriate.

If not, well fine. Let's say that a candidate comes up every session. In my experience, this is far more often than reality, but let's just say it does. Once a session, I have to spend a second or two deciding if I want to fudge a roll. The cost over the campaign is still a pittance.

My contention is that there are ways of handling the exceptions that don't have the potential to do so much damage to the social contract between GM and players.

And if you are in a position where you have a social contract that doesn't bear it, then clearly it won't work.

That some social contracts wont' allow it is not an argument against the thing, in general. There's many tables at which alcohol would be unacceptable - that doesn't mean that beer at the table is bad in general. And some tables have issues with evil characters, inter-PC strife, or laptop use. None of these generalize - they simply inform that one needs to be wary of what your players' expectations and tolerances are.

And I think that the possibility of harming the social contract -- whether it's explicit or not -- is the primary reason that GMs that alter die rolls do so secretly.

I will tell you that this isn't my reason. I've learned to reserve myself some explicit right to drive the GM Fiat (not specifically so I can fudge rolls - mostly to weed out those who would otherwise rules-lawyer argue with me during play). So, my contract is not in question.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Again, I think we are in very nearly complete agreement. I understand that for some folks that divide seems quite broad -- as it does to me, in the atheism quote from earlier -- but in this case I can pretty much just shrug. If it works for you, it's very much fine with me. Since I'm not one of your players.

I know I am turning this around on you. Please bear with me.

Why would revealing the scenario information lessen the players' enjoyment?

Because armed with that information, it will be much easier -- to the point of triviality -- for the players to arrange triumph for their characters. Triumph that the characters haven't earned.

Again, this is the same reason that I don't alter the result of the dice I've chosen to roll to determine the outcome.

(It's worth noting, BTW, that I am tempted to fudge. This is one of the reasons that I roll in the open, which makes it a little more difficult to do.)

Out of curiosity, why is it that ignoring the result of a die roll in D&D seems to need to be a secret thing, but the transparency of it in M&M works fine? Or, to be more direct, if you're going to do it, why not just be completely open about it, including, if needed, explaining why and when you'll do it to your players?

 

[Umbran]

Rob Donoghue makes some interesting arguments here about the nature of how we use dice: specifically, the split between Oracle and Arbiter. I think there's a third potential way to use the dice: Brainstorm, wherein you fish about for an immediate suggestion, and if it seems inappropriate, you go with something as close to it as is workable.

Interesting point, and I believe there's some wisdom to it.

I'd hazard a guess that some folks prefer to use dice solely as arbiters, and others use them in a variety of roles, possibly in some ways Rob and I don't consider. (For instance, the psychological trick of rolling a die behind a screen that means nothing, but is meant to capture the player's attention and get them worrying.)

Yes, well, I use that last trick all the time - not just to capture their attention (though it does do that), but also simply to cover exactly when I'm rolling a die that has meaning - introduce noise into the signal. In my experience, if you only roll dice when there is something that needs to be determined, the players quickly learn when you're rolling saves against things they don't know about yet, or Spot checks, or what have yous, by context.

I also occasionally print out a list of random numbers from 1 to 20, and use that for all die rolls that aren't in active combat, checking them off as I go, again so that they cannot guess when I'm determining something that isn't obvious.

 

[Umbran]

Again, I think we are in very nearly complete agreement.

Yep. It does seem that the divide is pretty narrow.

Because armed with that information, it will be much easier -- to the point of triviality -- for the players to arrange triumph for their characters. Triumph that the characters haven't earned.

Again, this is the same reason that I don't alter the result of the dice I've chosen to roll to determine the outcome.

You don't alter the dice you roll, because if you do so it will be much easier for the players to arrange triumph for their characters? Or you don't alter dice because it becomes much easier for someone (presumably yourself) to arrange triumph for the characters?

(It's worth noting, BTW, that I am tempted to fudge. This is one of the reasons that I roll in the open, which makes it a little more difficult to do.)

Okay, here's an interesting slight difference in ways of looking at it, though maybe I'm looking at specific word choice too closely. Fudging is not a temptation, to me. It does not entice me. It doesn't feel good to me. I have never gotten a direct payoff from it. It is for me a calculated action ultimately for the benefit of my players.

You know for humans trying to lose weight, studies have shown that when people are on a diet that outright forbids desserts, subjects will tend to eat more desserts then when on a diet that allows them occasionally? Prohibition tends to create enticement.

I then have to wonder if (and it is an "if") there's a bit of that dynamic in this debate - those who absolutely forbid fudging seem pretty hard line against it, as if a single fudge would destroy something major, or be a slippery slope to doom. Those of us who allow it occasionally are more like, "Dudes, really, it's no big thing." Can it be that those of us who allow it on occasion feel less of an urge to use it than those who forbid it think they'd feel?

You asked earlier if some of us should reconsider the secret of our fudging. I'd like to play that back at you - you might want to reconsider the prohibition against it, in light of the above observation.

Out of curiosity, why is it that ignoring the result of a die roll in D&D seems to need to be a secret thing, but the transparency of it in M&M works fine? Or, to be more direct, if you're going to do it, why not just be completely open about it, including, if needed, explaining why and when you'll do it to your players?

I have played M&M a couple of times (what I've see is a good game!), but I've not had an opportunity to read through the book, so I don't know the details of the system.

I'm going to guess that M&M's fudging works because 1) It is a different fictional genre, and there are certain expected tropes the mechanic specifically supports (Dammit, you can't kill the villain yet! He isn't done monologuing!), and 2) it probably isn't unrestricted: the GM Fiat probably happens for certain types of rolls and/or there is a cost associated with the Fiat. this wouldn't be so much a GM Fiat as it is the villains having a resource pool they can call on, or the like.

I would not be surprised if, on the whole, M&M's GM Fiat is actually a losing game for the villain. If so, then the point of the transparency isn't just to serve honesty and protect the social contract, but to specifically point out that the PCs are gaining an advantage.

Could you fit something like that onto D&D? Certainly. Given how rarely D&D game calls for it, I return to the work vs benefit point.

 

[Pbartender]

Do I as a DM fudge the dice sometimes?

Maybe I do. Maybe I don't. If I did, I'd do it with a straight face and not tell you.

After all, what the players don't know the players don't know.

 

[Trihelios]

I don't fudge either, with one exception. If a player is having absolutely incredible bad luck and rolls something like their fourth one in a row, I'll often tell them to forget about that roll and reroll it.

I don't really know if that even counts as fudging, since I think fudging implies that it is done in secret. However that's the only time I'll use GM authority to over-rule the dice and I do it openly. NPCs and monsters do not receive the same benefit, their dice rolls stand.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Do you fudge the dice rolls?

Me, I let. . .

the dice fall where they may.

Um yeah, that.

And I expect (and prefer) the same from other GMs.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You don't alter the dice you roll, because if you do so it will be much easier for the players to arrange triumph for their characters? Or you don't alter dice because it becomes much easier for someone (presumably yourself) to arrange triumph for the characters?

Well, basically because triumph will be easier, and unearned. (Or, if I fudge against the players, harder than what they deserve.) So closer to the latter, but I was talking more about the result of altering die rolls rather than focusing on the actors in the comparison.

Okay, here's an interesting slight difference in ways of looking at it, though maybe I'm looking at specific word choice too closely. Fudging is not a temptation, to me.

Yeah, you're parsing too finely, and able to do so because I wasn't precise enough.

It's not the act of altering die rolls that has tempted me ... it's the act of producing what part of me believes will be a more desirable outcome. More dramatic, session-stretching (or -shortening), and so on. Fudging itself is pretty much anathema to me, which is why I don't do it.

I'm going to guess that M&M's fudging works because 1) It is a different fictional genre, and there are certain expected tropes the mechanic specifically supports (Dammit, you can't kill the villain yet! He isn't done monologuing!)

Maybe. I'd certainly be convinced by this if D&D were (usually) less super-heroic itself.

2) it probably isn't unrestricted: the GM Fiat probably happens for certain types of rolls and/or there is a cost associated with the Fiat. this wouldn't be so much a GM Fiat as it is the villains having a resource pool they can call on, or the like.

It's pretty much unrestricted. (It is literally called GM Fiat, BTW.) There's a small cost involved -- when you invoke GM Fiat, affected players are awarded a Hero Point -- as a signal to the players that, "Hey, the earned victory here is (probably) just being deferred, in the name of the story." All completely out in the open, and as a comic book geek from way, way back, I revel in the power the system gives me to make the game feel like a comic book.

I would not be surprised if, on the whole, M&M's GM Fiat is actually a losing game for the villain.

Well ... sort of. Just to be clear, I don't have that much experience with it yet, but as I've used it so far, what it's done is push dramatic resolution further away. That is, a villain was already in really bad shape, and probably on his way down, but by using Hero Points -- which do make the PCs incrementally stronger -- I can have the villain "stretch" his power set to do something cool, or decide that that last lightning blast caused structural damage which is threatening to bring a building down on civilians, and so on.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I generally let the dice fall, but I might fudge some stats, if the players aren't having much fun (like if the combat gets grindy, I'll drop some HP).