Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How do players feel about DM fudging?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8599025" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I mean, I have been extremely clear, over and over, across every discussion here, that it is the active concealment, the intent that the players should not <em>even in principle</em> be able to discover it, that is the issue.</p><p></p><p>I have said, <em>repeatedly</em>, even from the very beginning of these threads, that changing or ignoring(/"replacing," as Ovinomancer put it) a die roll (for resolving a contested situation) or creature statistics (when it has entered play) <em>openly</em> is fine. Or that doing so <em>diegetically</em> is fine. Or that secretly doing so when it isn't a roll that resolves something, e.g. when rolling up a random magic item, is fine. All of those situations involve, as I have repeatedly said, the possibility that the player can learn about it and respond. They might fail to capitalize on that potential, or they might choose to do other things instead. But the potential is there. It is not there for fudging.</p><p></p><p>If you're going to take me and others to task over this, dude, you should have done so <em>thirty pages ago</em>. We've been entirely clear about this.</p><p></p><p></p><p>"I recommend either choice A, or (totally distinct) choice B," is not at all the same as, "I recommend choice A and <em>avoiding</em> choice A," which is likewise not at all the same as, "I recommend either choice A, or <em>avoiding</em> choice A." The first is the presentation of two choices that are mutually exclusive, but which are not logical antitheses of each other. The second is a contradiction, "A and not-A," while the third is a tautology, "A or not-A." It is perfectly reasonable to recommend two particular choices out of a varied set of possible options, as with your examples. It is not reasonable to recommend that someone both (for example) eat a dish <em>and</em> not eat that dish, because one cannot do both actions, and it is rather pointless to recommend that someone do A <em>or</em> avoid doing A, since that doesn't tell them anything they didn't already know. "You should either watch a movie, or <em>not</em> watch a movie" is not exactly <em>useful</em> recommendation, I think you would agree?</p><p></p><p></p><p>This, however, you are correct on. But that, again, changes the logical nature of the claim. "You should either do A <em>with these restrictions</em>, or avoid A." That's not "A or not-A," it's "(A <em>and B</em>), or not-A." That is, the statement could be condensed to, "You should not do A <em>unless</em> you also do B," which averts becoming a triviality. It would still be a contradiction, though, to recommend avoiding A, and also doing A so long as you also do B. That is, "(A and B) and not-A" is exactly the same as "(A and not-A) and B," because "and" associates. That is, just like addition, (A+B)+C = A+(B+C).</p><p></p><p></p><p>They're all in the open, and (presumably) diegetic. Being either in-the-open or diegetic is an absolute defense against any of my criticisms, as I have said repeatedly. I have also, over the course of this thread, allowed for another absolute defense: that the relevant things being changed have not actually entered play yet. E.g., a creature that has not yet acted nor been acted upon by any of the PCs while in combat, or an NPC that has not yet spoken/acted (whichever is relevant), nor been spoken to/acted upon (ditto) while in a non-combat scene, e.g. social or exploration.</p><p></p><p>Concealment alone is not enough to indicate fudging, since there are plenty of things concealed from players, such as maps, or the BBEG's plans (both of which are diegetic). Not being diegetic is not enough to indicate fudging, because something like "calling" a fight is usually non-diegetic but perfectly acceptable due to being in the open (though being diegetic is usually worth pursuing for other reasons.) The values having already entered play is not enough to indicate fudging, since I have explicitly given examples of stuff I've done which change those things, such as leveraging an established connection between summoned shadows and life-force to allow a creature to diegetically respond to player tactics (in this case, going nova on the big, bad shadow and ignoring the smaller but overall more dangerous secondary shadows) in a way that lowered the overall combat difficulty and changed the stakes.</p><p></p><p>It is only when it <em>is</em> concealed from the players, AND being non-diegetic (since if it's diegetic, it must at least in <em>principle</em> be discoverable by the characters), AND affecting things already entered into the play-space. If even one of these factors is missing, it isn't fudging. The act in question might still have problem cases or have some kind of plausible issue, but I'm not all that concerned with that, as that's a huge minefield of grey areas and interpretation.</p><p></p><p>To be really, <em>fully</em> clear, since this has evidently gotten lost, in order to be "fudging" as I (and it would seem others here) have defined it, the DM's action must be <strong>ALL</strong> of:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Concealed from the players,</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Non-diegetic, and</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Modifying values already present in the active play space.</li> </ol><p>If even a single one of these conditions is not met, then whatever one might call that particular DM action, it is not what I define as "fudging."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8599025, member: 6790260"] I mean, I have been extremely clear, over and over, across every discussion here, that it is the active concealment, the intent that the players should not [I]even in principle[/I] be able to discover it, that is the issue. I have said, [I]repeatedly[/I], even from the very beginning of these threads, that changing or ignoring(/"replacing," as Ovinomancer put it) a die roll (for resolving a contested situation) or creature statistics (when it has entered play) [I]openly[/I] is fine. Or that doing so [I]diegetically[/I] is fine. Or that secretly doing so when it isn't a roll that resolves something, e.g. when rolling up a random magic item, is fine. All of those situations involve, as I have repeatedly said, the possibility that the player can learn about it and respond. They might fail to capitalize on that potential, or they might choose to do other things instead. But the potential is there. It is not there for fudging. If you're going to take me and others to task over this, dude, you should have done so [I]thirty pages ago[/I]. We've been entirely clear about this. "I recommend either choice A, or (totally distinct) choice B," is not at all the same as, "I recommend choice A and [I]avoiding[/I] choice A," which is likewise not at all the same as, "I recommend either choice A, or [I]avoiding[/I] choice A." The first is the presentation of two choices that are mutually exclusive, but which are not logical antitheses of each other. The second is a contradiction, "A and not-A," while the third is a tautology, "A or not-A." It is perfectly reasonable to recommend two particular choices out of a varied set of possible options, as with your examples. It is not reasonable to recommend that someone both (for example) eat a dish [I]and[/I] not eat that dish, because one cannot do both actions, and it is rather pointless to recommend that someone do A [I]or[/I] avoid doing A, since that doesn't tell them anything they didn't already know. "You should either watch a movie, or [I]not[/I] watch a movie" is not exactly [I]useful[/I] recommendation, I think you would agree? This, however, you are correct on. But that, again, changes the logical nature of the claim. "You should either do A [I]with these restrictions[/I], or avoid A." That's not "A or not-A," it's "(A [I]and B[/I]), or not-A." That is, the statement could be condensed to, "You should not do A [I]unless[/I] you also do B," which averts becoming a triviality. It would still be a contradiction, though, to recommend avoiding A, and also doing A so long as you also do B. That is, "(A and B) and not-A" is exactly the same as "(A and not-A) and B," because "and" associates. That is, just like addition, (A+B)+C = A+(B+C). They're all in the open, and (presumably) diegetic. Being either in-the-open or diegetic is an absolute defense against any of my criticisms, as I have said repeatedly. I have also, over the course of this thread, allowed for another absolute defense: that the relevant things being changed have not actually entered play yet. E.g., a creature that has not yet acted nor been acted upon by any of the PCs while in combat, or an NPC that has not yet spoken/acted (whichever is relevant), nor been spoken to/acted upon (ditto) while in a non-combat scene, e.g. social or exploration. Concealment alone is not enough to indicate fudging, since there are plenty of things concealed from players, such as maps, or the BBEG's plans (both of which are diegetic). Not being diegetic is not enough to indicate fudging, because something like "calling" a fight is usually non-diegetic but perfectly acceptable due to being in the open (though being diegetic is usually worth pursuing for other reasons.) The values having already entered play is not enough to indicate fudging, since I have explicitly given examples of stuff I've done which change those things, such as leveraging an established connection between summoned shadows and life-force to allow a creature to diegetically respond to player tactics (in this case, going nova on the big, bad shadow and ignoring the smaller but overall more dangerous secondary shadows) in a way that lowered the overall combat difficulty and changed the stakes. It is only when it [I]is[/I] concealed from the players, AND being non-diegetic (since if it's diegetic, it must at least in [I]principle[/I] be discoverable by the characters), AND affecting things already entered into the play-space. If even one of these factors is missing, it isn't fudging. The act in question might still have problem cases or have some kind of plausible issue, but I'm not all that concerned with that, as that's a huge minefield of grey areas and interpretation. To be really, [I]fully[/I] clear, since this has evidently gotten lost, in order to be "fudging" as I (and it would seem others here) have defined it, the DM's action must be [B]ALL[/B] of: [LIST=1] [*]Concealed from the players, [*]Non-diegetic, and [*]Modifying values already present in the active play space. [/LIST] If even a single one of these conditions is not met, then whatever one might call that particular DM action, it is not what I define as "fudging." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How do players feel about DM fudging?
Top