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

[Hassassin]

What rule is that breaking? Is there an expressed social agreement that this doesn't happen?

In my opinion there are no rules for the DM, just guidelines. If there's an agreement that the DM plays by the same rules, then I can see how someone might also think making misleading rolls would qualify.

In any case, it totally depends on what has been agreed to. I just think the default is that due to Rule 0 the DM can do whatever he wants.

 

[JamesonCourage]

In my opinion there are no rules for the DM, just guidelines. If there's an agreement that the DM plays by the same rules, then I can see how someone might also think making misleading rolls would qualify.

In any case, it totally depends on what has been agreed to. I just think the default is that due to Rule 0 the DM can do whatever he wants.

To a certain extent, that's probably true in most groups. I know that it's not true for other groups, and that deviating from what you agreed explicitly to do (or not do) will upset many groups or players. So, yes, it depends on what you agree to.

Fudging is the same thing; that is, it depends on what your group agrees to. Your default is not mine, though the GM will get away with a lot. That means if I do fudge, my players will be upset, because we have agreed that doing so is less fun.

If I was to play in your group, I'd go by your rules without really questioning them. If the play experience became less fun for me because of suspected fudging or abuse, I'd bow out. However, if it was subtle enough that I didn't catch it, or it was never abused (as is likely the case), I probably wouldn't care (because I wouldn't know about it).

If I was told at any time, though, that fudging was practiced, I'd probably have to never suspect it again, or bow out. I just feel like I need to earn it, and fudging lessens that feeling for me, and it draws my attention to the dice, and out of immersion.

But that'd be my problem, not yours or your groups' problem. You're not cheating, from the sounds of it. Thanks for the discussion. As always, play what you like

 

[Dausuul]

If the creature the DM created bases it's decision upon the environment the DM created it is legitimate.

If the creature the DM created bases it's decision upon the DM's will it is illegitimate.

Is this your theory?

I have a saying I use all the time to friends, colleagues, and employees: You never know what somebody else is thinking...you might think you do; but, you never do.

I don't see the relevance of the last bit. Whether the players can detect the fudging is a separate question from whether fudging is taking place. I have learned to fudge in ways that are virtually undetectable; but it's still fudging.

How easy it is to detect "behavioral fudging" depends on the DM. I have never been able to pull it off--the players always realize what I'm doing and why. (This is why I quit doing it and turned to hit point and power manipulation instead.) But even if I could do it so well nobody ever knew, I would know, and I would consider it just as much a fudge as any stat-block adjustment or die-roll fakery.

 

[Mark CMG]

In my opinion there are no rules for the DM, just guidelines. If there's an agreement that the DM plays by the same rules, then I can see how someone might also think making misleading rolls would qualify.

In any case, it totally depends on what has been agreed to. I just think the default is that due to Rule 0 the DM can do whatever he wants.

Well that's true enough. If the GM agrees to an alternate game whereby Rule 0 (or its equivalent "these rules are only guidelines") is abolished, then he certainly would have to stick to the letter of the rules and would not be able to adjust dice. Of course, in this case a fundamental element of RPGing is being removed from the game and a GM might not even be necessary. I can imagine adventures akin to choose your own adventure books where the regular players take turns reading out the situations and they collectively make their choices and flip through to the next crossroads. Encounters could be played out on the tabletop and the players could take turns rolling for the opponents, all rolls in the open, since the rules are as written and no arbitrary adjustments or adjudications need to be made. What the various people met might say or do can all be in the adventure, decided beforehand, so the players could also play/read out those few interactions as needed. Of course, the more I think about this the more I think a computer would make this a lot easier. Still, if a group setting out to play an RPG wishes to decide as a group that certain rules are ignored, like Rule 0, they can certainly do so and should all abide by that decision for the game they would then be playing. The question becomes, What elements are crucial to the RPG experience and what can be removed without fundamentally changing the game to something else?"

 

[Glade Riven]

My 3rd rule of Dungeon Mastering: Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat.

How I cheat...well, that's actually quite importaint. I don't try to fudge things to help out players. Usually, that has the opposite result and gets a PC killed. Conversely, trying to kill them usually leads to player success. Dice rolls I don't fudge, but enemy HP and AC may be adjusted on the fly. Minions can and will be used (reinforcements, retreats, etc; 4e or Pathfinder). This is to control combat pacing. If a battle is taking too long, I'll cut HP down and have minions run away. If a battle is going way, way too quick, I'll bring in a few more minions for the good guys to chop down. I don't pull punches for the PCs, but it seems the harder I try to kill them, the better they roll. Combat is still quite lethal (for some reason, minions can be good at getting off lucky shots).

Now, Skill Checks...well, this is more of a house rule than a cheat. As written, skill checks are usually a simple pass/fail. I use more of what I call a gradiant method, which can result in a partial success or a partial failure. Say the rogue is trying to sneak up a wall before the patrolling guard comes back around, and she just makes the check. So, success, but barely...she squirrils up the wall, but knocks a loose brick out that falls to the ground. The guard then gets an impromptu check to notice it, but because it was a successful stealth/climb check the guard has a high threshold to notice something out of the ordinary. A slight failure on the stealth/climb check results in a more alert guard - which may check out the noise. A nat 1 would result in a completely botched attempt to silently climb, and a nat 20 would allow for the character to slip past the guards with no issues.

It's a more dynamic system that allows for a more flexible experiance. The dice still matter. After all, where the dice and modifiers land on the gradiant determines the results.

 

[The Shaman]

If the creature the DM created bases it's decision upon the environment the DM created it is legitimate.

If the creature the DM created bases it's decision upon the DM's will it is illegitimate.

The distinction was fudging or not fudging; nothing was said about "legitimate" or "illegitimate."

I have a saying I use all the time to friends, colleagues, and employees: You never know what somebody else is thinking...you might think you do; but, you never do.

The comment said nothing about presuming to know what anyone else is thinking.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

The distinction was fudging or not fudging; nothing was said about "legitimate" or "illegitimate."

Sorry if my comments seemed like they were made by a child entering the room...'cause they kinda were. I haven't read this thread and was participating in the thread that was spawned from this one...and accidentally clicked here.

The legit/illegit was derived from the idea that there was judgement be made on fudging...which I guess there wasn't. It seems that post was about clarity of terms: which seems strange to me still.

I'm not sure how one would judge the motivation of a character somebody else makes in order to define a term used to describe a tool used by the originator to referee the world the character inhabits. Does that sound confusing? Because it was meant to.

The comment said nothing about presuming to know what anyone else is thinking.

Well. I'm not sure how motivation is measured without having an understanding of motive. And I think it is fair to say that motive can be allusive without knowledge of the want and/or need of the character is: which I think can most clearly be understood by his thoughts. Now certain assumptions could be posited based on personal gain and instinctive survival; but, again, the thought process of the character would have to be intuited without knowledge.

I supposed what threw me--and impressed me--was that people would deem to define a term based on the make believe motivations of make believe people in a make believe environment as opposed to the wishes of the person who created all of the make believe motives, people, and environment.

The distinction is so abstract to me--and so unbelievable beautiful--that I found it hard not to comment....regardless of how relevant my discussion was.

The saying that I say...quite often...is just that. I think it applies to all of this, especially internet forums, where people tend to believe the worst as opposed to the most logical. And even if that is/isn't true: there is never a guarantee that comprehension is achieved or true motive ascribed.

I hope your new definition of fudging does everything you need it to do.

 

[The Shaman]

I supposed what threw me--and impressed me--was that people would deem to define a term based on the make believe motivations of make believe people in a make believe environment as opposed to the wishes of the person who created all of the make believe motives, people, and environment.

I don't think it's that complicated, really. At crunch time, do you make decisions based on in-game elements like npc personality and the nature of the game-world, or do you make them on metagame factors like pacing or plot immunity for the player characters?

Frex, if the baron de Bauchery's well-known and well-earned reputation is for tying up loose ends by killing his prisoners, should I make an exception for the adventurer who falls into his grasp? Do I choose for him to be 'true' to his established characteristics in the game-world - and avoid stock villain mistakes - or do I decide that the baron keeps the prisoner alive long enough to give the other adventurers a chance to rescue him?

The latter is fudging, by the definition offered upthread, a definition with which I concur. It has nothing to do with the established quality of the game-world and everything to do with the gamemaster ignoring that game-world for out-of-game reasons.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't fudge because I assume the game works and it will deliver the experience we want if we stick to the rules. If that doesn't happen, either I change the game or change the rules so they deliver the experience we want.

One big problem I have with fudging is that, if it's not known to the players, they can't make proper decisions - they don't have enough information. They don't know the game they are actually playing.

 

[Glade Riven]

Well, I certainly don't hide my methodology from my players. I even encourage them to try the unorthodox - what many players would call crazy. Stuff like a monk going Prince of Persia to run-dash across a wall to avoid a pit using an acrobatics check. Strangely enough, it works...even when there is a high number to beat. Folk have epic, cinematic moments of success and failure and everyone has a good time.

I also don't keep them from doing something outright stupid - like mouthing off to the people that they are suppose to be on the same side with, or irritating the town watch and getting thrown out of town.