NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8173147" data-attributes="member: 6790260">You see it as a troll. I see it as a genuine argument, and don't understand why it's a troll. (Other than, obviously, you having claimed it is so.)So I will ask, genuinely: If you're going to fix the terms, which at the very least one person in this thread has admitted to doing, what is the point of rolling? You aren't actually using the dice as a source of suspense. You aren't actually accepting the situation delivered to you. You set out, in advance, what the situation should be, and if the dice disagree with you, you will always discard them. Is this not true? Is there ever a situation where your DM instincts tell you "this isn't fun, I should be fudging this" and you don't actually do so? Because if you never favor the dice over those instincts, if in every case where you determine "this isn't the fun thing I planned for my players to experience," then the dice are neither servant nor master. They are props, things to give players the belief that they aren't just being told a story, the false certainty that if they fail it is because they made a bad call (even if that call was "trust the dice too much") and that if they succeed it is because they made a good call (even if that call was "the odds paid off despite being unlikely").If any roll will always be overridden if it disagrees with your DM sensibilities, why roll? All it does is make the players believe something false. Again, as noted, there are numerous ways to accomplish all the same goals that don't require any fudging, you are not enslaved to the dice or numbers just because you don't represent false things as true and then permanently cover up any evidence that might indicate you did so. The goal accomplished by fudging can be accomplished without fudging. So: if you're going to fudge even though you don't need to, and that means treating the dice as at very most a suggestion you simply don't bother to override, why roll?That's...actually a pretty interesting concept. It reminds me distantly of the Escalation Die from 13th Age, just for a purely roleplay context. I wonder what other things could be done by using dice as held or presented props?How would you respond, then, to my assertion that it is entirely possible to achieve every aim fudging achieves, without actually fudging? Again, using my specified tripartite definition thereof (a mechanic or narrative element is invoked into play, and the DM overrules that mechanic/element secretly, and the DM prevents any possibility of discovering the overruled mechanic/element). Weakening or removing any one of the parts ensures it isn't fudging, and there's a reason I've said there isn't any situation that actually requires you to fudge. Not speed of play, not permitting stories to play out in a satisfying way, not adapting to cool ideas from the players, and not counteracting the rare but meaningful periods where randomness just completely goes against the players. What need is there for this "middle way" when--if my assertion is true--there is no need to take one of the paths at all, to any degree?Perhaps I am projecting, but I find that most DMs who proudly engage in fudging--and especially those who will explicitly lie to their players' faces about whether they have fudged--do not do this kind of self-reflection. I am, of course, willing to be corrected on that front. But my distinct impression has been that fudging is treated as obviating the need for such reflection; if something has gone wrong, I can just fudge it away and maintain the illusion of error-free DMing.Well, when I ask "why even roll," I'm almost always speaking specifically of D&D and similar games where dice explicitly and specifically are used to adjudicate any situation that is not seen as automatically decided. (I very very much ENCOURAGE DMs to make use of "just say yes or no" type stuff, especially leaning into the "say yes" side if the player isn't being abusive or coercive.) If you're playing something like Fate, the simple answer is "because there's no need to, and I'm confused as to why you would ask." But if you're playing D&D, or Dungeon World, or 13th Age, or numerous other explicitly dice-based systems, "why even roll" is not a bizarro question, it's very much rooted in the explicit and implicit process of play.Then, as before: Why use fudging, when non-fudging approaches--which require only a very, very small extra amount of creativity and effort--can accomplish the same goal?To give a practical example: I tend to be a soft-ball pitcher when it comes to DMing. My players have steamrolled several encounters, and I was beginning to worry that I wouldn't be able to challenge them, that they might feel the game was too easy. (They don't, for the record, but I'm a worrywart.) So, something like a year ago, I put together a combat I was almost certain would be a real challenge. Outnumbered, with a big-bad boss type, multiple lieutenant-types, and multiple chaff underling-types. And it turned out yes, they really were outmatched! I could have fudged rolls (or, rather, could have fudged numbers--this is DW, I almost never roll as DM other than monster damage), but instead, I chose to leverage the players' actions and the moves written for the monsters to level the playing field. (Specifically, they were bound shadow-spirits protecting the ruins of a long-abandoned Raven Shadow hideout, and the big one had life-draining capabilities.) The PCs decided to try to valiantly spike down the big guy, and I decided to say that that meant the big guy drained the essence of all the weak shadows in order to power itself up so it could flee--better to survive to fight another time than to lose the "brains" of the protection, as it were. This paved the way for a PC win, just with some extra effort put into chasing the big shadow down, and it made for a very satisfying experience; their strategy paid off, yet they also got a taste of what it's like to be the underdog for once.So: Why make use of fudging (as defined), when you can do something openly that changes the state of play, or do something covert but discoverable, so the players can learn how the state of play changed, and prevent, prepare for, or exploit it?That it is about other things does not mean that trust is unaffected by doing it. If trust were not diminished by doing it, why would DMs go to such great lengths to keep it concealed from their players? You don't actively prevent even the possibility of discovery for things that wouldn't upset people. This is not like preparing surprises or having deceitful NPCs (both of which are fine, and things players should expect). This is "I won't ever let you know, no matter what you do or how hard you look."I'll grant you that. But that's not the dichotomy I've described, or at least not the one I'm trying to describe.When you never fudge, the rolls and numbers that have entered play always are what they are. The players can actually learn how the world works, because it doesn't change beneath their feet in ways they can never, even in principle, observe or understand. When any amount of fudging is present, the players can never be sure that any given fact about the fictional world actually is a fact; it might change underneath them without any ability on their part to know or learn that it changed.The example I like to give here is a murder-mystery. There's been a murder at a fancy masquerade ball, and the prime suspects are the Countess and the Duke. You, as DM, have prepared for their investigation; you know who the murderer is (let's say the Duke), and have prepared evidence to that effect. The party, however, comes up with a clever idea you didn't expect, which allows them to immediately get the solid, incriminating evidence against him. Two of the five players seem a little disappointed at solving the mystery so quickly, and two others are skeptical that this evidence is real--it could have been faked by the Countess! So you decide that, despite the fact that they did find the real evidence, NOW it's going to be the case that the Countess always was the real perpetrator, and the Duke is the one being framed.This is exactly, in every meaningful way, equivalent to fudging a die roll or monster statistic (which these latter two are mathematically equivalent to begin with, just as fudging a monster's damage roll is equivalent to giving or taking away a character's HP). Yet I'm pretty sure most people here would have far less appreciation for this situation than they would for fudging a die roll. If you (or anyone!) would not have a problem doing this as DM, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the difference between the above scenario and railroading.So: What about methods of pursuing fairness--of rejecting the dice or numbers--that don't use fudging? Would those not, at least in principle, be preferable over fudging if they can both achieve the same end without costing you overmuch time or effort?</blockquote>

Verification