My DM just told me he fudges rolls....

[The Shaman]

And what if I professed that I believe that worshiping at the altar of Dice is imagination-stifling and it creates nothing but DMs and players who can't think on their feet, slavishly adhere to some false paragon of gaming virtue (that doesn't exist), and offers no remediation for human error.

Then I would say you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, since adapting to the results of the dice takes far more imagination than saying, "No, that didn't happen."

Please, point out where people have been saying you don't care about your players or game because you don't fudge.

Pretty please.

Since you asked nicely.

If you think that letting a friend sit around for hours is somehow more important than fudging a roll, so be it.

Pretty much the same comment can be found in threads on this topic - of which there are many - on any of the tabletop roleplaying game forums I frequent. Sometimes it's about not making a player sit out, or about protecting the 'story,' or not letting the campaign 'die,' but the thrust of all of them is the same: if you don't fudge the dice, then you're a referee.

I'm sure there are more in this vein in this same thread, but if you want to read them, then please feel free to dig up the rest yourself.

 

[The Shaman]

This is why I am beginning to get really annoyed with what you are saying. I have not read anyone saying that if you don't fudge you don't care about your players or your campaign.

Those of us who do fudge have said why we do it and that this is the way our group likes to play. No judgement is being made on how anyone else likes to play.

I addressed this in my reply to [MENTION=2126]enrious[/MENTION] already; I'm not going through it again.

But you keep using really negative words like rigging and calling us lazy and telling us we are basically bad players who are creating more bad players. So you are being judgmental and deciding that other groups play the game wrong.

And why exactly is that a problem?

Is this one of those geek fallacy things, where no one is every supposed to criticize anyone else's opinion? Sorry, I don't subscribe to that rag.

 

[enrious]

I addressed this in my reply to [MENTION=2126]enrious[/MENTION] already; I'm not going through it again.And why exactly is that a problem?

Is this one of those geek fallacy things, where no one is every supposed to criticize anyone else's opinion? Sorry, I don't subscribe to that rag.

No, because you want to be right about something that has no right or wrong.

Your opinion of DMs and players who fudge is just as far from reality as the one I presented.

So yeah, here's where I criticize your extreme opinion for being as illogical and malformed as the opposite extreme opinion.

 

[enrious]

Then I would say you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, since adapting to the results of the dice takes far more imagination than saying, "No, that didn't happen."

Cool, then I would have been thinking the same thing - it takes more imagination to fudge and deal with the results than to mindlessly be beholden to small geometric bits of plastic.

So thanks for showing me the illogic of both extreme positions.

Since you asked nicely.Pretty much the same comment can be found in threads on this topic - of which there are many - on any of the tabletop roleplaying game forums I frequent. Sometimes it's about not making a player sit out, or about protecting the 'story,' or not letting the campaign 'die,' but the thrust of all of them is the same: if you don't fudge the dice, then you're a referee.

I'm sure there are more in this vein in this same thread, but if you want to read them, then please feel free to dig up the rest yourself.

Here's why your position is untenable.

The pro-fudge crowd aren't advocating fudging 100% of the time. (At least I haven't seen any poster advocate it in this thread)

Thus, you cannot draw any absolute conclusions about the manner in which a given DM would adjudicate a certain issue.

On the other hand, you've self-identified yourself as being someone who will always act a certain way in given circumstances, thus someone can reasonably discuss conclusions about how you would act in given circumstances (the correctness or incorrectness while important is immaterial).

Thus, for someone to speculate how you will act makes the start of informed debate; anyone speculating how a fudging DM will act is a non-starter because there is foundation upon which to lay your argument.

So yeah, some DMs who fudge have already said that they'd alleviate an unfun/unfair/whatever situation that would result in a variety of effects detrimental to a game/campaign/whatever.

And you know, I suspect a lot of fudge-deniers (just seeing if S'mon is still reading this ) would do the same, but it's the manner that seems to be the issue.

But if I'm wrong and people wouldn't, you have given the foundation of a discussion about how you would or would not act, so you shouldn't be offended if people take the invite seriously.

 

[Bullgrit]

Out of curiosity, do you recognize that the opposite position is equally valid?

"For some people, letting the dice roll with a degree of fudging is the most fun; not fudging is unfun. So the idea that a DM will not fudge for or against them to make things more fun is contradictory. It's basically saying, "I'm going to add just enough unfun to make the game fun."

Your question exemplifies the problem. You seem to think that clarifying one preference is saying that the opposite preference is invalid.

This:
For some people, vanilla is delicious; chocolate is yucky. So the idea that an ice cream scooper will add chocolate to a sundae to make the dessert better is contradictory. It's basically saying, "I'm going to add just enough yuck to make the dessert delicious."

...does not invalidate:
For some people, chocolate is delicious; vanilla is yucky. So the idea that an ice cream scooper will add vanilla to a sundae to make the dessert better is contradictory. It's basically saying, "I'm going to to add just enough yuck to make the dessert delicious."

Bullgrit

 

[enrious]

Your question exemplifies the problem. You seem to think that clarifying one preference is saying that the opposite preference is invalid.

Not at all.

You stated a preference based on like. I asked if the opposite preference based upon like was also valid, for other people.

Then you tried to get me hungry for some reason.

If you think I'm automatically assuming that because you like x, you hate anti-x, no.

After all, look a few posts up and you'll understand why I would like to know what your own, unique, individual opinion is.

 

[The Shaman]

No, because you want to be right about something that has no right or wrong.

Really?

I'm neither asking nor expecting anyone to agree with me . . .

So I was lying right there?

 

[The Shaman]

For some people, letting the dice roll without fudging is the most fun; fudging is unfun. So the idea that a DM will fudge for or against them to make things more fun is contradictory. It's basically saying, "I'm going to add just enough unfun to make the game fun."

Bingo.

You seem to think that clarifying one preference is saying that the opposite preference is invalid.

Bingo again.

Would Shaman, Exploder Wizard not fudge in these situations and ruin a person's day?

If you're having a bad day and aren't up to playing, then say so, and we'll reschedule.

If you show up to play, you're accepting that bad things may happen to your character.

 

[enrious]

Really?So I was lying right there?

I say, "No, because you want to be right about something that has no right or wrong."

You retort with a statement you made earlier, "I'm neither asking nor expecting anyone to agree with me . . ."

Which has nothing to do with what I said. I said right, I didn't say "persuasive". I didn't say "on the side that everyone agrees with". I didn't say "on the least popular position".

I said right, in a right or wrong context.

Like what happens when we look at the entirety of what you said and not just a throwaway sentence:

"And I don't feel bad about holding that opinion. I'm neither asking nor expecting anyone to agree with me, but I'm not going to pretend that I think, "Oh, y'know, it's all good," when I believe it's an incredibly lazy practice that creates really bad habits for both referees and players."

As for lying or not, I lack any method to verify the charge one way or another. Thus, it is simply up to each individual reader to formulate their own opinion of the matter.

 

[The Shaman]

*snipped*

As [MENTION=31216]Bullgrit[/MENTION] noted, you're missing the difference between, "I don't like how you do it," and, "You're doing it wrong."

With that in mind, I'm done discussing this with you now.