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

[JamesonCourage]

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.

No, you're thinking of cheating. If the GM is changing things (commonly die rolls) that would (or should) naturally happen in-game to push towards or away from a particular narrative outcome (a TPK, a player killing the 'boss' in one hit, etc.), then it's fudging, in my mind. And, Mark CMG, you're more than intelligent enough to know what I mean, here. I may have missed some semantic point, but I think the spirit of what a couple people are trying to communicate is clear for you to see.

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.

With Rule 0, yes, the GM can cheat. Some people don't like certain brands of cheating. Certain groups advocating that certain types of cheating be banned from play as part of the social contract seems basic, to me.

Personally, I don't fudge and often roll life or death rolls in the open, but as part of an RPG I reserve the right to make circumstance modifiers as I see fit.

The Shaman really hit this one out of the park, but I want to give my take, too. If the circumstance modifier is to reflect the natural change of the circumstances in-game, and is not simply an excuse for the GM to push towards or away from a particular narrative outcome, then it's fine. Once it becomes just a tool for him to push towards or away from a particular narrative outcome, and less about the circumstances, he's fudging, in my mind.

Again, I expect you to get the spirit of what I'm saying. You're more than sharp enough to pick up on my (probably) poorly worded... words. As always, play what you like

 

[prosfilaes]

Oh, I'm well aware that there are alternate (non-traditional) RPGs and hybrids, as I posted above. Along the same lines, if I simply called LURCH! The Zombie Chess Game Chess, it would also be inaccurate or imprecise.

So let me get this straight; if you play D&D RAW, it's not a RPG?

That's really no different than the so-called "fudging" and, in fact, extends the allowance to the players, FWIW.

It is different; it's an above the board limited action. I know if I'm casting Feeblemind, and he has his mulligan left, he can use it to reroll a failed save. And if he fails again, he just fails.

 

[Vegepygmy]

It's like an action point with insight...

Yeah, I suppose it is. But your "action point with insight" is just as unpalatable to me as fudging, so I'm not sure what point you're really making.

 

[The Shaman]

There's realy no difference between that and just adjusting a roll as the GM in a game where no action points exist.

No difference between a limited resource allocated by the player and the referee ignoring the result after the roll is made?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with that.

 

[Mark CMG]

I may have missed some semantic point (. . .)

Yup, you use the word "cheat."

With Rule 0, yes, the GM can cheat.

 

[enrious]

By rule, a 3.x DM is incapable of cheating. Dunno about the other versions, but it's in black and white.

Of course, that's a different question of when, how often, and for what reason should a DM override dice.

Which is really the question.

And every answer is right and every answer is wrong.


EDIT: --- Crossposted with Mark ---

 

[Mark CMG]

Yeah, I suppose it is. But your "action point with insight" is just as unpalatable to me as fudging, so I'm not sure what point you're really making.

So let me get this straight; if you play D&D RAW, it's not a RPG?

It is different; it's an above the board limited action. I know if I'm casting Feeblemind, and he has his mulligan left, he can use it to reroll a failed save. And if he fails again, he just fails.

No difference between a limited resource allocated by the player and the referee ignoring the result after the roll is made?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with that.

Again, while I don't personally do it, I don't think classifying an adjudication that offsets an inequity perceived by the GM (before or after the fact) as "fudging" or "cheating" or any other manner of derogatory hyperbole is appropriate. As to whether it is more explicit in the rules than "Rule 0" or not, as some of you seem to find more acceptable, as far as I can see it is simply dressing it up to make it easier for some to allow who might otherwise find it not as tolerable.

On a humorous note, four quotes in twelve minutes is a new record for me!

 

[Rogue Agent]

My two bits:

(1) When I , as a player, have realized that fudging is going on I simply disconnect from the experience and stop enjoying the game. This is not a conscious choice on my part; it's just the reaction that I have.

(2) As a GM, I have observed that the most memorable moments are often the result of "unfortunate" rolls that, if I were the sort of person who fudged my rolls, I would have fudged right out of existence.

So, IME, people claim that they fudge in order to "make the game more interesting/fun". But that's not actually the result. In fact, fudging usually has exactly the opposite result.

Ergo, I don't fudge. And don't play with those who do.

Query for those who do: Do you also allow your players to fudge their die rolls at will? Or are you the only person at the table capable of figuring out what would be "fun" for people?

 

[prosfilaes]

Again, while I don't personally do it, I don't think classifying an adjudication that offsets an inequity perceived by the GM (before or after the fact) as "fudging" or "cheating" or any other manner of derogatory hyperbole is appropriate.

Wiktionary says of fudging "Always deliberate, but not necessarily dishonest or immoral." I wasn't using fudging as "derogatory hyperbole", but merely the most common and well-known terminology for this behavior.

 

[Mark CMG]

Wiktionary says of fudging "Always deliberate, but not necessarily dishonest or immoral." I wasn't using fudging as "derogatory hyperbole", but merely the most common and well-known terminology for this behavior.

Adjust or adjudicate also are deliberate wthout any suggestion that the actions even might be dishonest or immoral, but perhaps we have differing views on that score.