Fudging for fun and profit.

[Marx420]

Hello everybody, long time lurker first time poster.
I was wondering if anybody else here has the player's roll all the dice as I do, I find this increases engagement by a considerable margin (Defense rolls when it's not their turn, attacks on monsters defense against spells [spectacularly funny fumbles here at times], rolls to see how tasty dinner was) and increases transparency to the absolute maximum without allowing for metagaming.

I still roll behind the screen for all things outside the player's purview, but sometimes I let them watch me roll for treasure when I'm feeling lazy and want to watch their lucky "rituals" for hilarities sake.

I also usually have a Co-DM or my sister to "audit" my performance/scrupulousness and add that layer extra layer of accountability that justifies the game as an entity unto itself. For mortality issues I keep the spare chars round, as if fairness is given prime precedence I find very few people distraught over losing their alter egos.

Anyone else operate similarly or am I just weird? I wholeheartedly agree with posters who would feel the game is cheapened by this "fudging" but can understand the angst of DM's whose cherished villain is put on the ropes far too early, but in these cases I make use of DM Fiat ala M&M and repay my impingements on "reality" with action points or the equivalent.

 

[LostSoul]

See, I don't see the DM as an impartial arbiter only. I see D&D as a collaborative game, with the players and DM shaping the story. Forcing a DM into the role of purely writer and arbiter (unless that's what he chooses), is denying the DM the creative control to influence the direction of the story. If the Players have the right to shape the story during play, why doesn't the DM?

The DM plays the NPCs, he decides when to call for rolls, what rolls are needed, and a whole bunch of other things. That's a lot of creative control during play.

 

[Dykstrav]

The DM plays the NPCs, he decides when to call for rolls, what rolls are needed, and a whole bunch of other things. That's a lot of creative control during play.

This is an important distinction. Just because a DM makes all his own rolls openly and doesn't fudge on them doesn't mean that he's a hide-bound dictator who follows all the rules to the letter. Whether or not he wants to "cheat," he still decides what rules he's going to follow to the letter and what rules he's going to abstract or ignore.

 

[Umbran]

You've got your ends mixed up. Why the need to mess with the dice-roll not up front but behind a screen?

For the same reason I don't hand them all the maps and statblocks for the monsters and all the room descriptions before play begins.

Maybe that's because you know very well that the common word for it is not so sweet as "fudge".

I honestly don't know what word you're referring to here. The implication that it is something "not sweet" - so something sour, nasty, or distasteful?

If your intent is to suggest that fudging rolls is effectively doing something sour or nasty distasteful to your players - please just stop. I am not receptive to One True Wayism, or insulting implications.

If that's not your intent, I think I need you to explain more what you mean.

Why not let the players do it themselves as often as they like?

There are other games that allow basically what you're talking about, where the duties of making such decisions are shared around - most folks around here seem to think those games are not so much RPGs as "collaborative storytelling". The distinction isn't important for us at the moment.

We are talking about playing D&D (or other games with an explicit DM, GM, or referee role) - there's a specific division of labor and roles here. There's a ton of stuff the DM is expected to do that the players don't get to do.

 

[Umbran]

Anyone else operate similarly or am I just weird?

I've seen other folks around here talk about having their players roll almost all the dice, so that's no unheard of. If the dice are being rolled in the open, they can be rolled by the DM, the players, or a machine - it hardly matters.

The auditing for scrupulousness and accountability? That seems to me to be a little farther out there. It seems to me to imply a level of personal distrust - I need a third party audit to trust you to play well with me? At that point, I think I'd just go look for a different GM to play with.

 

[Cadfan]

I wholeheartedly agree with posters who would feel the game is cheapened by this "fudging" but can understand the angst of DM's whose cherished villain is put on the ropes far too early, but in these cases I make use of DM Fiat ala M&M and repay my impingements on "reality" with action points or the equivalent.

Emphasis added.

It sounds to me like you've replaced unofficial fudging with official, codified fudging rules.

Which kind of gets to one of the weird parts of these debates. Some game systems have built in mechanisms by which the DM can adjust die rolls he doesn't like. Is this different from unofficially adjusting die rolls the DM doesn't like?

 

[Nagol]

Emphasis added.

It sounds to me like you've replaced unofficial fudging with official, codified fudging rules.

Which kind of gets to one of the weird parts of these debates. Some game systems have built in mechanisms by which the DM can adjust die rolls he doesn't like. Is this different from unofficially adjusting die rolls the DM doesn't like?

One difference is the explicit and implied contract in the play group.

I try to choose games that match the hoped for play experience so that the play group's expectations match my own. Many who purport to use the technique attempt to keep the use of it secret from the group.

If the mechanisms are built into the game, then the play group has agreed this is acceptable behaviour by picking that game engine. If the game engine has no such mechanism, the group could easily have a different expectation for appropriate DM behaviour.

 

[Mark Chance]

It sounds to me like you've replaced unofficial fudging with official, codified fudging rules.

Which kind of gets to one of the weird parts of these debates. Some game systems have built in mechanisms by which the DM can adjust die rolls he doesn't like. Is this different from unofficially adjusting die rolls the DM doesn't like?

It is for me because I go one step farther. My players use a ruleset that has them make almost all dice rolls themselves combined with another ruleset for Action Points. Now, if a die roll needs to be fudged, the player who needs the fudging can spend an Action Point to do it himself.

 

[Ariosto]

I honestly don't know what word you're referring to here.

Cheating. It is indeed distasteful to some game players. In fact, it is frowned upon in most of the games that people play. Learning simply to accept the results of rolls and rules is a fundamental lesson of such children's exercises as Chutes and Ladders and Candyland. A sense of the activity as somehow wrong is in fact a common (to put it conservatively) motivation for concealing and misrepresenting interference with the results of dice, cards, spinners, etc.. There is no great stretch entailed in the observation!

What, then, would be the consequence, which you so wish to avoid, of players discovering the manipulation?

I am not receptive to One True Wayism, or insulting implications.

Then maybe you don't mean to insist that yours is the One True Way, or to imply any insult toward people who do not share your opinion. And maybe you will choose not to attribute such intent to others.

For the same reason I don't hand them all the maps and statblocks for the monsters and all the room descriptions before play begins.

For the same reason I do not fudge rolls in secret? Maybe some more specific description would be more illuminating.

We are talking about playing D&D ...

I do not agree that it follows that the players must be prohibited from "fudging". The logic is especially hard to follow from having the DM "fudge". If you set out to decree what practices "are not D&D", then I am afraid you light your own petard.

There's a ton of stuff the DM is expected to do that the players don't get to do.

Well, what is expected of the DM is the very issue here on which we disagree.

I hope you will choose to accept that it is as okay for me to prefer that the dice not be "fudged" as it is for you to prefer that they should be "fudged", that your game is your concern and my game is mine.

 

[Ariosto]

It sounds to me like you've replaced unofficial fudging with official, codified fudging rules.

It looks to me as if one can do without the term "fudging" when one is simply playing by the rules. A great many people, playing a great many different games, seem to have gotten by that way for some centuries.

One difference is the explicit and implied contract in the play group.

That is, to my mind, precisely the critical difference.