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

[Dausuul]

The first rule of DM fudging is, you do not talk about DM fudging.

To me, fudging is a tool to compensate for flaws in the ruleset. I tend to run things loose and on the fly, and as such I have often found myself at the mercy of badly written rules and badly balanced statblocks. This results in a challenge that I had intended to be "tough but beatable" turning into either a TPK or a cakewalk. When that happens, I'm apt to fudge to bring the encounter more in line with what I'd intended. One of the things I love about 4E is that the balance is much tighter, so I very seldom have to do that any more.

My philosophy is that this type of fudging is merely correcting for the faults of the system. I'm making the encounter into what it was always supposed to be, and would have been if the rules hadn't been written by crazed troll monkeys*. I've come to believe that fudging to bring about a specific outcome (e.g., party wins the fight, none of the PCs dies) is a bad idea. No matter how skillfully it's done, the players will eventually figure out what's going on, and then the thrill is lost.

And, like others, I generally avoid fudging the dice these days. There are other, subtler tools available--adjusting monster hit points on the fly, for instance, or changing the effect of a power that hasn't been used yet.

[SIZE=-2]*Actually, writing an RPG ruleset that is balanced and playable and fun is extremely hard. I know, I've tried. However, I feel safe in saying that anyone who goes into the RPG design business is at least 60% crazed troll monkey anyway. You have to be to want to take on that kind of challenge for that kind of reward.[/SIZE]

 

[Mark CMG]

Adding an impromptu circumstantial modifier to a die roll for mechanical or narrative reasons is within the purview of a Game Master. Best not to think of it as "fudging" since that implies it is against the rules, which it is not. If someone is looking for a game where all dice are rolled in the open and never change due to circumstances overseen by a facilitator, they should look beyond the RPG format. If someone feels that a facilitator is making adjustments egregiously, they should certainly discuss the matter with the Game Master but only with the understanding that what the GM is doing is within the rules. This is not a trust issue since the GM is acting within the bounds of fair play.

 

[Dausuul]

If someone is looking for a game where all dice are rolled in the open and never change due to circumstances overseen by a facilitator, they should look beyond the RPG format.

Mmm... just to note, a lot of DMs roll in the open and never adjust the results. It's a valid play style and many prefer it.

 

[rogueattorney]

I don't like fudging as a player or a DM.

I want things rolled in the open to the greatest extent possible.

If rolling in the open ends in a result we, as a group, don't like, we can discuss it and change it if needed. But it's a group decision and everyone knows what's happening.

 

[Desdichado]

Usually the desired result isn't a foregone conclusion, and usually these situations aren't pass/fail binary. I fudge damage rolls, on occasion, for example. I don't just make up damage; if it's high enough to kill a character "who's time hasn't quite come yet" then I'll lop a few points off and give him a chance to turn things around. Or if it's a combatant and the fight is starting to get long and tedious, I'll have him suddenly drop even though "by the book" he's still got a few more rounds worth of hit points left in 'im.

But yeah; there's certainly a point to be careful and not ask for rolls if you really aren't going to be willing to accept what may be the results of them. Sure, I can buy that.

 

[NewJeffCT]

deleted - duplicate post

 

[NewJeffCT]

I never fudge die rolls as a DM.

If it means that a boss encounter is a cakewalk for the PCs, or that it results in a TPK, so be it. (The way I roll, the first is much more likely...)

However, I usually have a secret DM-Ex-Machina built into a combat encounter just in case things go bad. Something like a friendly NPC that the players were supposed to meet the following sessions shows up early and heals a PC or distracts the bad guy or something like that. Or, maybe the bound & gagged merchant's daughter the PCs are trying to rescue slips her bonds and trips the charging orc leader.

In case of an easy boss encounter, there is always another bad guy around the corner - behind Darth Vader was Emperor Palpatine after all. However, I never throw in extra surprise monsters if things go badly for my bad guys (no "grudge ogres" as one guy calls them.). If the players do well thanks to good rolling and/or good planning, then I let them enjoy the rewards.

 

[Bullgrit]

It is a simple question, but let's be clear - first you asked:

"If a DM fudges die rolls to make the experience best, why roll the dice at all?"

Then you asked:

"In situations where the DM will only accept a certain result, (will fudge a roll to get the result he/she wants), why roll at all?"

Surely you see those are different questions, no? The first is kind of absurd. The second is better, but shows a lack of understanding of what the GM is probably doing.

I think the problem here is that someone(s) is jumping in front of a question actually directed at someone else. My question only seems absurd if one assumes it is directed at someone(s) it is invalid for.

If you, (general use: You), don’t fudge “all the time” to make things more interesting, or to change outcomes, or to have battles go the way you want, or to tell a better story, then my question isn’t directed to you. I thought that would be obvious. It apparently wasn’t, so I quoted the specific statements I was questioning. Apparently that still didn’t clear it up. I don’t know how to make it better other than maybe saying: My question is not directed at Hobo, (or Umbran); it’s only directed at those specific people who made the specific, extreme statements.

Bullgrit

 

[Desdichado]

Yeah, Bullgrit, I got that. My point is that actually only you are making the assumption of that kind of extremity. In other words, you're creating the classic strawman; exaggerating a position to the point where it's ridiculous, and then obliquely asking people to defend that.

The whole point Umbran and I have made is that nobody has made that extreme of an assumption. If you only want the people who run games that way to respond, get ready for the deafening sound of a few crickets.

 

[Mark CMG]

Mmm... just to note, a lot of DMs roll in the open and never adjust the results. It's a valid play style and many prefer it.

Totally up to the GM, though counter to the traditional "play style" of RPGs. I'd even go so far as to say that if all of the dice are meant to be taken at face value and rolled in the open, the game is more akin to games that need no facilitator, like a boardgame or a wargame. "Valid?" I'm not sure its validity enters into the discussion because it suggest there is a right or wrong way to have fun. However, once you adopt nontraditional ways of playing a type of game, it does become something else, or at least a hybrid.

Let's come at it from a different direction. If, for instance, I am playing a traditional miniatures wargame with, say, six players and five of us have small factions of combatants going up against one player with a larger army and we decide that the one player is going to know a lot of information that the other five don't (such as he is the one player to be able to hide forces and only reveal them when encountered) and that one player is also able to make rolls secretly and tell the players the outcome of the rolls (though not required to show the dice rolls). Further, let's say that the five players will each take on the part of the leader of their factions, perhaps even giving them voice at the table, while the one player does so with many of the leaders of his own army. Still a wargame?