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

[The Shaman]

But do you realize that saying something is a lazy practice implies that the person doing it is lazy.

I've noticed that my wife often fails to turn on her blinker when she's changing lanes. She checks her mirrors and checks her blindspot, and she's courteous toward other drivers, changing lanes without cutting people off, but more often than not, she changes lanes without turning on her signal.

As someone who's driven emergency vehicles of one sort or another for much of my adult life, I think it's a really bad habit to not signal your intentions. I don't consider my wife a bad driver, however, just a driver with a bad habit.

 

[Elf Witch]

I'm not attacking you, nor calling you dishonest. I'm saying that it seems like you're looking at this in one light, and when The Shaman addressed a point tangential to yours, you've steadfastly refused to acknowledge it.


And I always say to play what you like.


Context and semantics are two different things.


Well, sorry for downplaying it, but that means your statement (taken within its original context) implies that you cannot be a great GM without being open to more options. That's incredibly close-minded, in my opinion.


I'm not attacking your play style. I've said that it's fine to play that way. I'm not sure why you're so defensive. You've made a slightly inflammatory statement, and I've said I think it is, just like I said I thought The Shaman's was worse.

The fact that I don't adhere to your thoughts on GM flexibility precludes me from ever becoming a "great" GM is definitely inflammatory. If I don't meet your requirements, I'm not doing it as well as someone who does it that way. That is faintly badwrongfun, in my mind, though I don't think you meant it offensively. I hope you can see why it might come off that way, though.


That's what I'm talking about.


I really don't think you can judge my style at all. And, no offense to your opinion, but any judgment won't mean much. My players definitely regard me as a "great" GM, if that's about as high as the praise can reach. I'm happy taking their view on it over yours, but regardless, I'll always end up GMing in a way that I can greatly enjoy anyways. That just apparently jives well with them.


Maybe I wouldn't feel the need to defend him if people took his comments in context, and didn't force a hard label on him (or me, for that matter) that precludes him from being a "great" GM. Just saying. As always, play what you like

I think you keep focusing on the fudging aspect of when I am talking about flexibility. I would say the same thing if a DM said I will never allow elves in my game, or I will never allow prestige classes, or I will never allow point buy. To me the problem of saying never is that there is no way you can possibly anticipate every situation that is going to crop up in the future. So I am sorry if you are going to be rigid and not willing to even entertain the fact that there might be a situation one day that could make you change your mind then yes in my opinion that stops you from being a great DM.

Say you can't see yourself ever fudging that you like the dice to stand no matter what. Well what if you are playing with a good friend. And this is going to be their last game ever. This happened in one of my former DMs group before I joined. A long time player had pancreatic cancer. The friend knew at this point he was terminal and he was leaving the area to go into hospice care near his parents.


The player wished to undertake one last adventure and have his PC retire to become a famous NPC in the game. Are you telling me in that situation you would just let the dice stand even if you could make a dying friend's last game be what he wants? Now the DM did not have to fudge but he told me he would have if he needed to. It was important to him to make this last game for a friend be a fun success.

Now luckily most of us will never face something like this but it would be nice to think that if you have a friend who is going through something bad that you might be willing to bend the rules to make the game more fun. It was what I choose to do for my friend who was going blind. I knew about it I was with her when she got the news. I know she was really looking forward to gaming to let of some steam and take her mind off her situation. But the game was not being that much fun for her because of her unlucky rolls and killing her character off would have been the cherry on top of her crappy sundae.

Now are you going to tell me that those circumstances would not make you bend your no fudging rule even once?

How about if you have no elf rule for your games and you get a brand new person to the game and they are excited about playing an elf do you bend your rule this once because it is a newbie and you want them to really enjoy the game or do you stick to your no elf rule?

To me a great DM knows when to bend and also knows when to say no. That is all I am saying.

That is great that your players think you are a great DM because in the end that is all that matters. My players tell me I am a great DM I am glad they think that even if I don't agree with them .

You are choosing to take what I am saying as inflammatory. Let me ask you a question what if this thread had not happened and we were listing what we think a great DM is and I listed being flexible as a sign would you still take it so badly?

I have said several times that fudging is not what make or breaks a great DM . It is taking a rigid stance that you will never consider something regardless of the circumstances that I find gets in the ay of being a great DM.

 

[Elf Witch]

I've noticed that my wife often fails to turn on her blinker when she's changing lanes. She checks her mirrors and checks her blindspot, and she's courteous toward other drivers, changing lanes without cutting people off, but more often than not, she changes lanes without turning on her signal.

As someone who's driven emergency vehicles of one sort or another for much of my adult life, I think it's a really bad habit to not signal your intentions. I don't consider my wife a bad driver, however, just a driver with a bad habit.

Okay fair enough. I apologize if I took what you said the wrong way. One of the biggest drawbacks of internet conversation is not hearing tone of voice and seeing non verbal clues.

 

[The Shaman]

Okay fair enough. I apologize if I took what you said the wrong way.

No harm, no foul.

One of the biggest drawbacks of internet conversation is not hearing tone of voice and seeing non verbal clues.

It can be a tough medium sometimes.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think you keep focusing on the fudging aspect of when I am talking about flexibility. I would say the same thing if a DM said I will never allow elves in my game, or I will never allow prestige classes, or I will never allow point buy. To me the problem of saying never is that there is no way you can possibly anticipate every situation that is going to crop up in the future. So I am sorry if you are going to be rigid and not willing to even entertain the fact that there might be a situation one day that could make you change your mind then yes in my opinion that stops you from being a great DM.

Yeah, this is badwrongfun. I'm not buying into it. If I say "I will never allow spaceships into my game" is that okay? What about "I will never allow a player to literally play Darth Vader, traveled back through time into my homebrew fantasy campaign setting"? At what point is it okay to say "never" in your mind? If your answer is "never", then I think you're definition of a "great" GM is pretty outrageous.

Now are you going to tell me that those circumstances would not make you bend your no fudging rule even once?

No, I wouldn't fudge. I might work with him to help achieve his goal, but I will not fudge the dice. I'll give advice, be informative, and the like, but I can tell you that I won't fudge the dice. I roll in the open for a reason: trust. They trust me not to. And I wouldn't betray that trust. Also, the way the dice fall make for an emotional impactful game, from my experience.

How about if you have no elf rule for your games and you get a brand new person to the game and they are excited about playing an elf do you bend your rule this once because it is a newbie and you want them to really enjoy the game or do you stick to your no elf rule?

Yes, I stick to it. My game, my rules. I'll work with you within my rules. If you don't like it, we can try to work something out within my rules. If that's not possible and the person is unwilling to budge, then we'll have to part ways.

When I run a game, I'll run it in a way that is enjoyable to me. I have complete control over my game. I make that explicitly clear when I run a game to new players. However, they have the right to walk. And, I think that if I was unreasonable, my players would. I've yet to have a player walk, though I've had kicked players out. I've had my two newest players stop their other gaming groups to play in mine, even though the days didn't conflict (they just found the other games unsatisfactory after about a month of me running the game).

I'm not unreasonable. I do rigidly stick to rules I establish. Sorry if you can't be time travelling Darth Vader. If that makes me shy of a "great" GM to you, so be it. I'm okay thinking that's utterly baseless and false.

To me a great DM knows when to bend and also knows when to say no. That is all I am saying.

That's true.

You are choosing to take what I am saying as inflammatory. Let me ask you a question what if this thread had not happened and we were listing what we think a great DM is and I listed being flexible as a sign would you still take it so badly?

In the context given in this thread, I'd take it the same. Not that I took your statement badly, I just find it false on its face.

I have said several times that fudging is not what make or breaks a great DM . It is taking a rigid stance that you will never consider something regardless of the circumstances that I find gets in the ay of being a great DM.

Whereas I think that nearly everyone draws lines somewhere. It's just a matter of where those lines are. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I've only skimmed the thread, but it looks like a good old "to fudge or not to fudge" thread, and I thought I might stick my bib in.

My view is that a game is best when its mechanics deliver the desired play experience. So (for example) if you don't want a game in which random die rolls can result in the PCs (and therefore the players) missing crucial information, don't use a mechanical system that requires random die rolls to learn information. If you don't want a game in which random die rolls can kill PCs, don't use a mechanical ssytem that permits random die rolls to result in PC death.

My own view is that fudging is the result of people playing with systems that don't suit the sort of game they want. AD&D 2nd ed is a bit of a poster child for this, in my view - it promises heroic fantasy with a strong plot but uses largely unmodified AD&D mechanics which, especially at low levels (and to some extent again at high levels, given the prevalence of death magic), are prone to produce unpredictable PC casualties, and at any level have all sorts of features that militated against the promise of plot.

I guess one retort to my characterisation is that the mechanics for these games are really "random die rolls mediated by GM force". That may be true, but I regard it as a pretty dysfunctional approach to RPGing - if the GM and players disagree on when force should be used then bad blood can be the result, and if the GM keeps the use of force secret then we have elements of deception creeping into the action resolution.

Better than GM fudging, for those wanting plot-heavy gaming out of AD&D-ish mechanics, would be giving the players a stock of "fate points" or "complication points" to use when bad dice rolls strike.

 

[Elf Witch]

Yeah, this is badwrongfun. I'm not buying into it. If I say "I will never allow spaceships into my game" is that okay? What about "I will never allow a player to literally play Darth Vader, traveled back through time into my homebrew fantasy campaign setting"? At what point is it okay to say "never" in your mind? If your answer is "never", then I think you're definition of a "great" GM is pretty outrageous.


No, I wouldn't fudge. I might work with him to help achieve his goal, but I will not fudge the dice. I'll give advice, be informative, and the like, but I can tell you that I won't fudge the dice. I roll in the open for a reason: trust. They trust me not to. And I wouldn't betray that trust. Also, the way the dice fall make for an emotional impactful game, from my experience.


Yes, I stick to it. My game, my rules. I'll work with you within my rules. If you don't like it, we can try to work something out within my rules. If that's not possible and the person is unwilling to budge, then we'll have to part ways.

When I run a game, I'll run it in a way that is enjoyable to me. I have complete control over my game. I make that explicitly clear when I run a game to new players. However, they have the right to walk. And, I think that if I was unreasonable, my players would. I've yet to have a player walk, though I've had kicked players out. I've had my two newest players stop their other gaming groups to play in mine, even though the days didn't conflict (they just found the other games unsatisfactory after about a month of me running the game).

I'm not unreasonable. I do rigidly stick to rules I establish. Sorry if you can't be time travelling Darth Vader. If that makes me shy of a "great" GM to you, so be it. I'm okay thinking that's utterly baseless and false.


That's true.


In the context given in this thread, I'd take it the same. Not that I took your statement badly, I just find it false on its face.


Whereas I think that nearly everyone draws lines somewhere. It's just a matter of where those lines are. As always, play what you like

Now you are being just silly. That is not what I am saying and I think you are smart enough to know that. Since Darth Vader and spaceships don't have a part in most fantasy games then it is reasonable to say I don't want spaceships ever in my fantasy game.

I am talking about inside the game as it stands. Like saying I will never allow elves in a game where they are usually allowed. When someone says things like that I think okay so if you play for the next fifty years you can't ever see that changing. So in my very subjective opinion because lets face it this is all subjective that makes you to rigid to be what I consider a great DM.

I have been playing for over 30 years and I don't play or even feel the same way I did about somethings as I did thirty years ago. For example I hated psionicis and kind of still do. I used to say I would never allow it in a game I ran. Well my roommate and best friend wanted to play a psionic character in my game it was something she had been wanting to play for a long time so here I am allowing it in my game.


In my 54 years of life I have found many things I said I would never do becoming things I end up doing. I swore I would never tell my children because I said so well that went out the window when I had a child of my own.

So now I never say I will never do something because life as shown me otherwise.

 

[The Shaman]

. . . it is reasonable to say I don't want spaceships ever in my fantasy game.

 

[Elf Witch]

I've only skimmed the thread, but it looks like a good old "to fudge or not to fudge" thread, and I thought I might stick my bib in.

My view is that a game is best when its mechanics deliver the desired play experience. So (for example) if you don't want a game in which random die rolls can result in the PCs (and therefore the players) missing crucial information, don't use a mechanical system that requires random die rolls to learn information. If you don't want a game in which random die rolls can kill PCs, don't use a mechanical ssytem that permits random die rolls to result in PC death.

My own view is that fudging is the result of people playing with systems that don't suit the sort of game they want. AD&D 2nd ed is a bit of a poster child for this, in my view - it promises heroic fantasy with a strong plot but uses largely unmodified AD&D mechanics which, especially at low levels (and to some extent again at high levels, given the prevalence of death magic), are prone to produce unpredictable PC casualties, and at any level have all sorts of features that militated against the promise of plot.

I guess one retort to my characterisation is that the mechanics for these games are really "random die rolls mediated by GM force". That may be true, but I regard it as a pretty dysfunctional approach to RPGing - if the GM and players disagree on when force should be used then bad blood can be the result, and if the GM keeps the use of force secret then we have elements of deception creeping into the action resolution.

Better than GM fudging, for those wanting plot-heavy gaming out of AD&D-ish mechanics, would be giving the players a stock of "fate points" or "complication points" to use when bad dice rolls strike.

After the two issues that came up in my game that I fudged I wanted something that would help prevent random death like that because while I will fudge I don't think it is the best solution to the issue.

So I added action points and fate points. And I also changed how crits work in my game. One of the other DMs has a rule I like where non named mooks can't crit. A 20 is a hit but that is all.

This has really given myself and my players what we want from a game. Death is still there but the odds of dying in a random encounter have gone down.

You get 3 fate points for the entire campaign these belong to the player not character. Those fate points allow you to turn a failed save into a success, allow a death to be come a -9 and stabilized with no XP penalty or level loss, turn a miss hit into a hit, and to confirm a crit that does max damage.

They get six action points that refresh at each level. Action points can be used to stabilize, reroll a failed save or skill check but does not guarantee success. They can be given to another player. So if a player is out of them another player can give one of theirs up.

 

[Elf Witch]

I know that module and have played it. And man did some of the players hate the spaceship aspect of it. There were cries of don't get your Sci Fi in my fantasy.

I think it is reasonable to not want spaceships in your DnD but then again who knows maybe someone will write a module that just makes the whole thing appeal to you and there goes your never going to allow spaceships out the window.