In what other games is fudging acceptable?

[aurance]

A DM adding an ad-hoc circumstantial modifier is much the same as fudging, mathematically. In any case doesn't really matter if everyone's having a good time.

 

[Elf Witch]

If Bob's a grown up, I'll treat Bob like he's a grown up that understands the rules of the game and can somehow find a way to entertain himself for a few minutes while the other players take their turns.

This really does not have anything to do with being a grown up. I have played with people who have very busy lives and we get together once a month for four hours to play. Believe me it is no fun to sit out a combat and twiddle your thumbs. And since combat can take a while it is hardly just a few minutes you are sitting there.

So in that game we got rid of a few things for example you can't die. If you get knocked to -10 you face a consequence of dropping a level but you are just knocked out.


As I said I fudge for players who don't enjoy death in the game especially if it going to be permanent. Who is to say their fun is any less important to the player who does not mind dying. And no I don't think they are being any less a grown up than the other player they just play for different things.

I think it is hard to compare RPGs with board games yes they use dice but they are not as involved you are not creating a character and a story. Board games are about winning RPGs are about exploration, role playing and cooperative play. Also RPGs for the most part are ongoing you don't usually play just one session and then start and all over new game with new characters.

When I play con games I don't care if my character lives or dies if the DM wants to roll in the open then fine the reason I feel this way is because it is a one shot and I have not put a lot of work and planning in my character.

As for the OP question about other games that allow fudging how about video and computer games with the cheat books that help make the game easier.I don't play them but I see them for sale and I have seen my son and roommate buy them. So I guess technically that is cheating but if it makes the game more fun who cares.

 

[Bullgrit]

I think I can give you an analog. You'll hear it on probably any and every playground in the USA: "Do Over!"

In pretty much any childhood game, if something happens that's particularly lame, someone will cry, "Do over!" And, often enough, the thing is done over. Sometimes the Do Over is abused, by someone who just doesn't want to lose. But other times it is quite legitimate - you're playing wiffleball where you can, and the dang tree gets in the way again, and it turns your potential home run into a stupid foul, or what have you.

Now, in RPGs, the do-over is usually done by the GM, without the playground negotiation, but the concept is the same.

Or, how about "winter rules" golf, which aren't actually so much a rule, as an agreed upon tradition of when you can fudge where your ball landed. A limited form of adult, "Do over," really.

Isn't this more like a cocked/leaning die, or the die falling off the table? In my experience do overs are generally used for malfunctions. I mean, we'd call a do over for the wiffleball going into that darn tree again, but probably not when Jack's hit scores four runs.

In golf, you wouldn't call a do over for a hole in one, right? If someone hits a hole at par +10, is anyone going to say, "Just write down par +2." Right?

If counting strokes in golf is "a good walk spoiled," is rolling dice in D&D "a good story spoiled"?

Bullgrit

 

[Umbran]

In both of your cases, the "do over" is openly expressed and agreed to by all the participants. They are not done in secret.

So? Secrecy was not part of Bullgrit's question.

In my current game, the fact that I might fudge is no secret. I asked every player individually if they would have a problem if I reserved the right to fudge, or drive some things by fiat on occasion. Having reserved the right, I've used it exceedingly sparingly, and never let them know when I am deviating from the rules.

The secret, and the thing that keeps the players on their toes, is that they don't know when/if I will fudge. They cannot lean on it for support.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

Some people seem to be equating playing a game with having fun. They are not the same thing. I know lots of people who won't play games because they hate losing. They don't enjoy the experience of playing the game, win or lose. Having fun when you win, and not having fun when you lose is just that. Enjoying the thrill of uncertain outcomes is at the heart of enjoying games of chance.

If the possibility of failure will ruin the fun, then one should probably not be playing a game determined by chance. D&D is such a game, like it or not.

 

[Umbran]

Isn't this more like a cocked/leaning die, or the die falling off the table? In my experience do overs are generally used for malfunctions. I mean, we'd call a do over for the wiffleball going into that darn tree again, but probably not when Jack's hit scores four runs.

Well, I think a hardcore wiffleball player would say, "You knew the tree was there, and if you couldn't keep out of it that's your own darned fault, now isn't it?"

Without extenuating circumstances (like, say, Carlos was busy talking to the cute girl in the next yard when Jack scored the runs) nobody would call a do-over then, no. But that's because nobody could say it was lame.

But, here's where the analogy breaks down: in wiffleball, there are two sides, in competition, and they are playing the same functional roles in the game. In an RPG, the two roles (player and GM) are not functionally the same, and the two sides are not competing with each other.

If the games are structured differently, how lameness is to be determined is also likely to be different. In an RPG, we may all accept that the GM is in a good place to determine what's lame.

In golf, you wouldn't call a do over for a hole in one, right? If someone hits a hole at par +10, is anyone going to say, "Just write down par +2." Right?

Not in a competitive tournament, no. But, say, in mini-golf, there is apparently a long and wide tradition of writing down par (or sometimes I've seen 5) no matter how far over par you actually go. You wont see "do over" yelled at the high-school softball game, but you will in backyard wiffleball.

Thus, sometimes altering the game is allowed, sometimes it isn't. Context matters.

Need another example? Contemporary videogames! Once the business need to keep sucking quarters out of players was removed, save points and unlimited resurrection became pretty much standard operating procedure. Unlimited do-overs! Again, a different way to determine lameness, because the game structure is different.

The point is that even very young, we clearly have the idea that the actual literal events may well not stand, that the vicissitudes of chance are not necessarily what we'll take as the most fun all the time. You asked for examples when not adhering strictly to events was seen as okay. I think I've given several already.

 

[Cerebral Paladin]

Computer games often (and in my opinion effectively) "fudge" things to make games more "fun." For example, I've noticed that in Plants vs. Zombies, which lanes the zombies appear in is carefully calibrated to make the game challenging, but not too challenging. If you are doing badly on a board, at least early in the game, zombies will appear in the lanes which still have plants or a lawnmower. If you are doing well in the game, they will attack the weakest points, thus making it more "challenging." I consider this directly analogous to a GM fudging things in a D&D game.

(That doesn't make it obvious that this is a good thing--it can be frustrating at times. But it is a clear example of it being done.)

 

[Desdichado]

If Bob's a grown up, I'll treat Bob like he's a grown up that understands the rules of the game and can somehow find a way to entertain himself for a few minutes while the other players take their turns.

If rogueattorney's a grown up, I'll treat rogueattorney like he's a grown up that understands that his own personal preferences are not universal and he might somehow understand that just because they are his preferences does not make them better than anyone else's who might like to play the game differently.

Some people seem to be equating playing a game with having fun. They are not the same thing. I know lots of people who won't play games because they hate losing. They don't enjoy the experience of playing the game, win or lose. Having fun when you win, and not having fun when you lose is just that. Enjoying the thrill of uncertain outcomes is at the heart of enjoying games of chance.

That's true. That may be true of Elf Witch's examples. That's not true of the situation involved with fudging generally, though. It's not about "I'm going to cry if my don't win", it's about a GM developing one of The Core Skills of a good GM, and that means reading his group, and making ad hoc adjustments on the fly (i.e. fudging, on occasion) to ensure that the game is fun.

Because like you said, you can't just equate playing the game with having fun. If the game isn't fun, then the moral high ground because you "didn't fudge" is a really poor substitute.

If the possibility of failure will ruin the fun, then one should probably not be playing a game determined by chance. D&D is such a game, like it or not.

We could probably have a better discussion without the patronizing. Presuming that you've read this thread, at least, then you know that fudging is very common. If your A-game response to that is to say that they don't have any business playing a game like D&D, then you should probably bow out of the discussion.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Judging from the current thread on the subject, and previous threads on the subject, it seems that most people consider fudging, (usually by the DM), to be completely acceptable. One argument is that fudging can make the experience more fun.

I am not most people. If there is no competition, (and I do not believe an rpg is a competition between GM and players), then there is nothing to be won or lost.

If there is nothing to be won or lost, how does fudging one way or the other make anything more fun?

Fudging is used to negate certain results or ensure certain results. Why is any result more fun than another in an activity devoid of competition?

 

[Elf Witch]

Some people seem to be equating playing a game with having fun. They are not the same thing. I know lots of people who won't play games because they hate losing. They don't enjoy the experience of playing the game, win or lose. Having fun when you win, and not having fun when you lose is just that. Enjoying the thrill of uncertain outcomes is at the heart of enjoying games of chance.

If the possibility of failure will ruin the fun, then one should probably not be playing a game determined by chance. D&D is such a game, like it or not.

I guess I am one of these people because if a game is not fun I don't find myself wanting to play even if I enjoy the company of the others at the table. I have dropped games that were not fun and yet still socialized with the people in other ways.

I know people who don't enjoy games any games and I have played games with people who hate to lose and I tend to not want to play to often with them because they tend to suck the fun out of it for everyone else.

When I play games other than RPGs I admit it is nice to win but I play for the social aspect of it.

As for game of chance here is the thing I hate ones that deal with real money I don't enjoy them they make me sick to my stomach. In games like Monopoly it is luck and dice rolls that really seem to matter the most but in the end there is no real money lost and if you like to play the same piece it is there waiting for you the next time.

But in long running RPG campaigns there is much more than just rolling dice there is the role play and exploring the DMs world and watching your character grow not just in power mechanically but in the eyes of the world.

And I personally don't enjoy watching my character die because the DM screwed up the encounter and way overpowered it or we have done everything right but we are rolling like crap and the DM is rolling crits. That is not fun to me. Another thing that is not fun is to have your character killed and in the first encounter with the replacement character that one gets killed.

I think there are rimes that fudging the dice rolls are warranted to keep the game fun because that is why I play.

And dude there are more than one play the game way to come off as patronizing.