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

[Wild Gazebo]

Interesting that neither of these questions generated a response.

I'm guessing the answer is, "Of course not, because then the players would know I was fudging."

I imagine most people who fudge don't look at the game as a series of monsters defeated collecting gold and experience. I haven't used the printed experience rules since the Expert Set came out for D&D.

And perhaps we're hitting the key stumbling block for this discussion. I don't see the game as a computer program with a set of criteria that are introduced and then run through with a series of probability nexuses. I don't see the game as a schematic that will run the same every time as written so that idiosyncrasies will become obvious and intrusive over time.

My games tend to be more dynamic in the sense that mystery is a major part of it, change is a definite possibility, and a sense of trust is shared by all at the table. It is about the adventure and turmoil of fiction and the joy and wonder of the unknown. And even, if a dare, a tendency toward verisimilitude: a daring step away from the codification of action. I have a hard time believing my game can be accurately measured through a series of various logarithms.

But that's just me. I also doubt most people who fudge are ashamed of it--especially considering its listed in the rules--they don't tell others to keep the game fun and seamless: like a well told novel or an old yarn peppered with fact and fiction.

I firmly believe the best fiction should be rife with truth and the best nonfiction should be peppered with fiction.

So please don't feel the lack of response was due to some ridiculous shame (just in case that was what you were thinking...I hope not)...it was probably just a difference of play-style that didn't make the question terrible relevant.

 

[enrious]

...it was probably just a difference of play-style that didn't make the question terrible relevant.

This, for me.

 

[The Shaman]

So please don't feel the lack of response was due to some ridiculous shame (just in case that was what you were thinking...I hope not)...

Oh, please.

Recently I read a post on another board that said in effect, "Of course I fudge. What do you think the referee screen is for?" I'm not going to take the time to go back through this thread, but I think it's a safe bet that similar sentiments are expressed here as well.

In other words, some referees who fudge the dice don't want their players to know that the game is rigged. If they lowballed experience points for the encounters in which they ignore the dice, then it might tip off the players that their 'victory' was just a gamemaster-gimme.

 

[Reynard]

I generally do not fudge. In my bi-weekly dungeon crawl game, all rolls are open and even the most excruciating run of player bad luck (see: last session) sticks. The stuff they can't see -- hit points and abilities -- I maintain 99% of the time. I must slip up now and again.

In my Jade Regent campaign, which has a totally different feel than the dungeon crawl game, I still try not to fudge, but I let the players have access to Hero Points. Let them fudge. In addition, I am much "nicer" -- i.e. I tend to give them more hints and warnings so they can make informed decisions. Once they decide, though, we play it straight most of the time.

Now a question for the fudgers: say the BBEG fails his save in round 1 and you let it slide. Now the players have burned a major ability (presumably). Do you give it back to them? What about if the BBEG ends up killing a couple PCs -- they wouldn't have died if you didn't save him in round 1, so do you fudge for them in turn (thus creating a self perpetuating fudge cycle)? Do you remain consistent in fudging? if not, how are your players able to make informed decisions about which challenges to tackle versus which ones to avoid? What happens when the PCs make a real choice -- say they want to get 1 more room in, even though they kn ow they are low on resources etc...? Do you fudge for them then, modifying the encounter behind the door to reflect their weakened state?

See, these are all complex questions with cascading consequences depending on the answers. IMO, it is better to stop the problems in the first place by NOT fudging, either on die rolls or encounters. If the PCs press on, and there's a difficult encounter awaiting them, so be it? I might fudge or ignore random encounter rolls as feels appropriate, and I will certainly alter "set" encounters based on the *actions* of the PCs, but "easing up" (or "bearing down"; luck and good play shouldn't be punished) seems less fun than the alternative.

 

[korjik]

I generally do not fudge. In my bi-weekly dungeon crawl game, all rolls are open and even the most excruciating run of player bad luck (see: last session) sticks. The stuff they can't see -- hit points and abilities -- I maintain 99% of the time. I must slip up now and again.

In my Jade Regent campaign, which has a totally different feel than the dungeon crawl game, I still try not to fudge, but I let the players have access to Hero Points. Let them fudge. In addition, I am much "nicer" -- i.e. I tend to give them more hints and warnings so they can make informed decisions. Once they decide, though, we play it straight most of the time.

Now a question for the fudgers: say the BBEG fails his save in round 1 and you let it slide. Now the players have burned a major ability (presumably). Do you give it back to them? What about if the BBEG ends up killing a couple PCs -- they wouldn't have died if you didn't save him in round 1, so do you fudge for them in turn (thus creating a self perpetuating fudge cycle)? Do you remain consistent in fudging? if not, how are your players able to make informed decisions about which challenges to tackle versus which ones to avoid? What happens when the PCs make a real choice -- say they want to get 1 more room in, even though they kn ow they are low on resources etc...? Do you fudge for them then, modifying the encounter behind the door to reflect their weakened state?

See, these are all complex questions with cascading consequences depending on the answers. IMO, it is better to stop the problems in the first place by NOT fudging, either on die rolls or encounters. If the PCs press on, and there's a difficult encounter awaiting them, so be it? I might fudge or ignore random encounter rolls as feels appropriate, and I will certainly alter "set" encounters based on the *actions* of the PCs, but "easing up" (or "bearing down"; luck and good play shouldn't be punished) seems less fun than the alternative.

Pretty much everyone has said they would let him die.

Also, they would make the informed decisions the same way they do in real life, namely without any information.

I also doubt that any DM who would let the BBEG live would care if he killed off all the players.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Oh, please.

Recently I read a post on another board that said in effect, "Of course I fudge. What do you think the referee screen is for?" I'm not going to take the time to go back through this thread, but I think it's a safe bet that similar sentiments are expressed here as well.

In other words, some referees who fudge the dice don't want their players to know that the game is rigged. If they lowballed experience points for the encounters in which they ignore the dice, then it might tip off the players that their 'victory' was just a gamemaster-gimme.

Rigged? Rigged? Wow. I really thought this was simply a play-style difference. You really believe that people are conducting themselves fraudulently for some sort of personal advantage? Wow. I don't even know what to say.

I'm not sure what a person would have to gain by rigging a game. I'm not really sure how one rigs a game of 'make believe.' This is a game that advocates the manipulation of die results in the rule book and sells a DM screen to help as a tool to keep a game flowing: not some blind for a parlor ruse.

I'm beginning to see less and less differences of play-style and preference and more and more a series of trust issues.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm beginning to see less and less differences of play-style and preference and more and more a series of trust issues.

You know, trust keeps getting brought up, but it still leads back to a play style issue. My players trust me not to fudge rolls. Trust is factored in, but it's really separating opinions in this conversation by the social contract of individual groups.

For Elf Witch, her group trusts her not to let the characters die a pointless or frustrating death. That's a trust issue, but it's based on the group's wants. My group prefers something different, and trust me to not fudge rolls, HP, or the like to help or hurt them.

It's pure social contract and play style from my end. Sure, trust might come in some of the time to some players or some groups, but to imply that those who disagree with you have trust issues (or that their players do) is wrong (or worse), in my opinion. As always, play what you like

 

[The Shaman]

Rigged? Rigged?

When a random outcome is manipulated by one person to produce a particular result, yes, rigged.

What do you call it?

I really thought this was simply a play-style difference.

It is a simple play-style difference.

The difference is I like what the interaction of the dice, the rules, and player choices bring to the game, and I don't like it when one person takes it upon him- or herself to frak with that. I like unexpected results, and I don't like it when someone puts a finger on the scales, to substitute their judgement for the fickle frakking middle-finger of Fate.

I'm not really sure how one rigs a game of 'make believe.'

The same way one rigs any other game.

It's not really all that complicated, is it?

 

[korjik]

When a random outcome is manipulated by one person to produce a particular result, yes, rigged.

What do you call it?It is a simple play-style difference.

The difference is I like what the interaction of the dice, the rules, and player choices bring to the game, and I don't like it when one person takes it upon him- or herself to frak with that. I like unexpected results, and I don't like it when someone puts a finger on the scales, to substitute their judgement for the fickle frakking middle-finger of Fate.The same way one rigs any other game.

It's not really all that complicated, is it?

I think it is alot more complicated that you think. As a DM I can 'frak with that' completely inside 'the interaction of the dice, the rules, and the player choices'.

You seem to miss that you cannot win D&D, so you cannot rig the game to be won. If you think that letting a friend sit around for hours is somehow more important than fudging a roll, so be it.

I wont do that to my friends and they dont do it to me.

It is a playstyle difference. It is also a difference in using a word with a distinct negative connotation to describe the choice you do not ascribe to. Maybe you should think about that.

 

[The Shaman]

If you think that letting a friend sit around for hours is somehow more important than fudging a roll, so be it.

Any referee who lets a friend sit around for hours because the friend's character died shouldn't be running games, but there are more solutions to that problem than fudging a kill-shot.

It is also a difference in using a word with a distinct negative connotation to describe the choice you do not ascribe to. Maybe you should think about that.

Maybe I wanted a word with a distinct negative connotation, because that best expresses how I feel about it.