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

[JamesonCourage]

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.

If elves don't fit the type of fantasy you're going for, adding them is only a little less invasive than adding Darth Vader (to me).

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.

Now this makes perfect sense to me. This seems like it's purely your opinion, and not an objective value judgment. I can accept you, personally, not thinking I'm a great GM, without any problems.

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

Unless it's time travelling Darth Vader

My point is that people draw lines in different areas. You're saying that if someone draws the line somewhere you find reasonable, they won't be a great GM to you. Well, that's fine. I can say that, for me personally, a GM that will fudge rolls will never be a great GM. He might be good, but he'll drag me -kicking and screaming- out of immersion.

Like I've said since the beginning of this thread (page one? two?), this is a play style issue. That's all it is. And, with that in mind, play what you like

 

[S'mon]

Man, I'm going to regret asking this.

But how is it any different from fudging you to -9hp? Does the disability serve as some sort of payment or the like for the mitigation? In other words, fudging is more a matter of "getting off scott-free"?

Because I'd do the same - take the disability but want consistency or a random chart.

Hm... thinking about it: I would be ok with the DM declaring "instead of killing you, you are taken to -9 hp and KO'd/captured" - as long as the DM was completely open and honest that he was not applying the written ruleset, I don't have a problem. I would like the opportunity to die if I preferred, I guess - I wouldn't like fudging just so a vindictive GM could run an extended torture scene! But in general I think a GM can ignore the rules if he wants, as long as it is clear to the players what is going on. What I do not like is illusionist fudging where the GM pretends to apply the rules, but secretly does not.

I recall a very story/drama-based Midnight game where my PC was killed off. The GM didn't want to kill my PC, but she felt compelled to apply the damage roll, per RAW. Several other PCs had died previously for similar reasons. After the death of my PC, last of the original PCs, she brought in a Fate Point mechanic, but too late to save the campaign. It would have been better if we had established ground rules from the start, as it wasn't really a challenge/Gamist-play sort of game, probably a "-10 hp can be just Mostly Dead" GM fiat approach would have been best.

 

[S'mon]

And since you like semantics so much I want to point out that I did not say good DM I said great DM. You are the one who is choosing to change it to good. I don't consider myself a great DM I am far from that I am good DM. But I stand my my comment that truly great DMs are flexible.

I think a truly great GM has a deep understanding of the various RPG rulesets they might wish to use, and excellent insight into how using a particular rule set will give rise to a particular mood & feel at the table, in conjunction with other players. Then can then grasp whether there will be a disconnect between ruleset & desired play style, and can then either adapt the desired ruleset, telling the players - eg "This is the house rule" or "fiat will be used in these circumstances" - or else use a different rule set.

Example: I wanted my Southlands game to be butt-kicking Conanesque swords & sorcery, low lethality, little raise-dead. I used 4e D&D and, failing my great-DM check, said PCs would have Fate Points, a house rule derived from OGL Conan. I did some other things like starting PCs at 3rd level, use DMG2 Inherent bonuses, etc. OGL Conan uses the very lethal d20/3e ruleset and it needs FPs to keep PCs alive. But it turns out that 4e is much less inherently lethal than 3e/d20, and after several sessions when no PCs needed to spend an FP, I realised it was an unnecessary house rule.

 

[S'mon]

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?

...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?

Me:In the latter case - if there were no elves in the game, I would not let the new player play an elf. If they're going to play they need to understand there are limitations. If they can't put up with that then they're not the sort of player I would want to have.

In the former case, if the player made her wishes clear to me, I would hopefully make clear in advance the stakes of the session were not whether the PC lived or died, but how she reached the desired end state. Eg a death result would become "retired due to crippling injury". That's how I think a great DM should handle it, anyway. IRL though being British I doubt a player, even a friend, would tell me about her terminal cancer, I'd be happily oblivious, and she would get the same treatment as everybody else.

 

[pemerton]

it turns out that 4e is much less inherently lethal than 3e/d20, and after several sessions when no PCs needed to spend an FP, I realised it was an unnecessary house rule.

I agree with this diagnosis of 4e. While its action resolution mechanics bear a superficial similarity to 3E (roll d20s and add bonuses to hit target numbers), they are actually pretty different in the sort of play they produce. In the course of play I've had only two incidents of PC death. One involved a single PC, and after discussing with the player whether or not he wanted to keep going with the character in question (he did) I had the gods send him back into the world on a divinely-ordained mission to restore lost Nerath by re-constructing the Rod of 7 Parts.

The other involved a "TPK" (some Pale Reaves used their illusory forms to trick the PCs into joining them at a campfire, making the PCs easy targets for the spectre's action-denial aura - they never had a chance!). One PC literally died (dropped to negative bloodied when lying unconscious and caught in friendly fire) but again was brought back at the players' request via GM contrivance (it turns out the gods really like these guys!), and the others were captured (which didn't require any fudging, given the flexibility of 4e's "dropped to zero hp" rules).

So I think 4e is a good system for story/character-focused but otherwise traditional fantasy RPGing. Conversely, if I wanted to play something with a gritty flavour, or with the slightly comic high turnover of low level classic D&D, 4e would not be the game to choose!

I think a truly great GM has a deep understanding of the various RPG rulesets they might wish to use, and excellent insight into how using a particular rule set will give rise to a particular mood & feel at the table

Yes.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I agree - except I think 3e is far worse than 2e in this regard. In 2e the high level PC likely only fails saves on a '1', and really does have a high level of mechanical protection against death. I found that in my 1e/2e campaign, when very high level PCs died it tended to be in highly dramatic ways, where hubris had overcome the player, almost like a Greek tragedy. It tended to be stuff like "let's teleport into the throne room of the Thyatian Emperor and kill him" or not teleporting away when the Goddess of Death appears to defend her sacred fane, even after the first round when it's clear she's far more powerful than you. With 3e I saw far more meaningless deaths.

 

[Rogue Agent]

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.

Here's the thing: Fudging is antithetical to everything I enjoy about roleplaying games.

Is it hypothetically possible that some day I'll change my opinion about what I enjoy about roleplaying games? Sure. But until that day comes, fudging sucks and it's never going to happen when I'm running a game.

And here's something else: No GM is ever going to be a great GM for me if they're fudging. Great GM for somebody else? Maybe. But anybody who insists that they include peanuts in every dish they cook will be a lousy chef for somebody with a peanut allergy.

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.

Well, we've now established that (a) by your standards you're not a great DM and (b) you're a hypocrite.

Pretty sure the conversation is going to go downhill from here. But maybe not. Maybe you'll realize your error and correct it.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

This is an interesting thought. I wonder how many of those who dislike fudging dice would leave a game if they learned that the DM fudged to save their character. And how many of those who approve of fudging dice would leave a game if they learned that the DM did not fudge to save their character.

Also, in a different direction:

Those who dislike fudging dice, if an attack (or something) roll would kill your character, would you accept a DM's offer to survive but suffer some kind of notable injury? For instance, if the adventure was in a setting where bringing in a new PC would be difficult or impossible, (like on an island, or deep in the dungeon). Your character takes a killing blow, but the DM says that instead of death, you loose a limb, or an eye, or some permanent ability score damage, or something similar.

In my experience, setting an adventure in some remote location where replacement PCs aren't feasible is the perfect situation for fate to kill a PC.

Bullgrit

Sure I would accept some other penality. Imprisoment theme is pretty common alternative for tpk. However I think these kinda solutions must be agreeid beforehand. I don't want suprise loss of leg or something not crear to me. I don't want be on different map with world's physics. Those rules offer, even the most wachy and fantasastic. I have played bad games, really bad games, where people had to wait not because of character death but because favourite chars wanted their solo play time. Which was not so bad at the time, since we were younger and used those long missed hours other people's books they had dragged in. So it was kinda fun then.

I haven't seen mild case of fudging in my life. The one's I know doing it do it way too much. Also one of them cheats when playing. Other 2 do not.

I think many people here might have pretty cool games. My opinions concern my gaming circles.

It's not evil to fudge, but to me it feels cheap. I like my character's biting dust now and then. I think death is often more preferable opinion than ruining the character in other ways.

I think all who don't like eat the result when they roll random, should be awere of it, and introduce some fate/action points/clones like in paranoia to that system to avoid random kills. Just make sure you offer them plenty enough to cover all situations you don't want to leave up to death. But remember it cuts off some, though not all dramatic failures.

Or play some different game entirely.

I know some here just like D&D and similar things for other stuff.


Lol, and despite pulling (rarely) aggro on forums, I don't mind how other people play. I just like to discuss opinons. And I am pretty flexible. I still play with these dm's who arent' very good for other things too, but we are friends. And since they want to play rpg, well.. We argue all the time. Mainly about Star Wars, which I still refuse to play again.

 

[Umbran]

Well, we've now established that (a) by your standards you're not a great DM and (b) you're a hypocrite.

Pretty sure the conversation is going to go downhill from here. But maybe not. Maybe you'll realize your error and correct it.

You know, upthread, I misread The Shaman. I still don't agree with him, but I can understand how he wasn't trying to actively insult folks.

This, however, I am not misreading. If this conversation is about to go downhill, it is in notable part your own fault. Really, dude, did you miss the whole point about how casting aspersions on people wasn't acceptable?

I think it is about time this topic be given a rest for a while.