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

[billd91]

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

Maybe some of the rest of us are getting a wee bit tired of the badwrongfun passive-aggressiveness directed at fudging too.

 

[The Shaman]

Maybe some of the rest of us are getting a wee bit tired of the badwrongfun passive-aggressiveness directed at fudging too.

And I'm no less tired of being told that I don't care about my players or my campaign if I don't fudge the dice.

I'm don't think I'm being passive-aggressive about anything. Straight up, I think fudging, directly or indirectly, stinks. I've played with referees who fudge and it kills the fun for me.

And I don't feel bad about holding that opinion. I'm neither asking nor expecting anyone to agree with me, but I'm not going to pretend that I think, "Oh, y'know, it's all good," when I believe it's an incredibly lazy practice that creates really bad habits for both referees and players.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

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

Yes. It does lead back to play-style. Unfortunately, this is generally a play-style that is not in the open. A GM creates, NPC, monsters, environments, stats, spells, events, situations, and outcomes. A GM pits the PCs against and though his creation. The idea that all of these creations are set in stone and not to be changed, or that if a miscalculation has been made and a correction should be applied, or even that a direction of play that would make the game more fun presents itself through the change of a roll would make the GM a cheater is completely foreign to me. All of this would be done under the cover of the screen: I don't tell the players what the hp, AC, immunities, and special powers of the monsters I create--there is no frame of reference for rigging. The reduction of a roll equals the same as a reduction in HD or feats, or item strength...all behind the screen. I guess I just don't separate the creation of the game with the playing of the game...sometimes it even happens at the same time.

As for trust issues. It wasn't meant to be derisive. But, had I read the rest of the thread the last time I posted, I probably wouldn't have said anything because there is nothing but, admitted, trust issues. From the original post right through to the last couple. And probably the most telling is:

For me, no gaming is better than bad gaming, and if I don't trust the referee, then that's bad gaming.

I can't think of a play-style that is worse than no gaming. But that's just me.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I play few solo/two-player games where permanent death is not really an option. They are story games, but no fudging otherwise occurs. It's kinda just decicion to keep the characters up, and some really sucky things happen. To things/people you care about. You can get cursed/corrupted/mad. If there is something that is not an option we don't rol for it.

In regular adventuring games fudging sucks. It really really does. Especially since one dm I knows just uses it to save his pet npc:s from early death and barring death of any pc.s.

I think rolls should matter, and if there are stats you should use it. You can correct hp:s of mob before the encounter but not during it. Since I have dm who fudges and changes thing exessivly I abhor it. Some minor fudging that rarely occurs doesn't really harm game. But I don't want to know about it. So safe ways to fudge is not let boss' add arrive as soon as you rolled/planned originally if things aren't looking good.
Maybe silently delete your stupidly dangerous trap. Maybe add few mobs to dungeon encounters (the future ones) if players are rolling it easy.

It's all well and good as long as I don't know about it. You see some dm's who make games on a fly do encounter adjustments the same way. It's dm:ing style too. Or maybe you forget to adjust adventure path encounters for only 3 playrs and are like, oh, this won't work. Sometimes we don't have time for all this.
This is really what I think is fudging it.

I just don't think it belongs to dice rolls, since I can do the math. When we choose to invoke so called random factor I wish it to be one. Sometimes unexpected bad/good happens and that's the point.

And sometimes these random things teach valuable lessons. Like me missing some high hp mobs for 20 round. And that dm had argued that enemy ac:s are too low before. And since his "turtles" (armored undead meat) had low hit as well they coudn't hit us either. After wasted 40 minutes we won that argument for good. He also fundged annoyingly here suddenly cutting mobs hp to 20 %. Which sucks, why not involve some explosive barrels or berserk construct or anything, the whole adventure was in his head anyway. Mrrrr.

 

[The Shaman]

As for trust issues. It wasn't meant to be derisive. But, had I read the rest of the thread the last time I posted, I probably wouldn't have said anything because there is nothing but, admitted, trust issues. From the original post right through to the last couple. And probably the most telling is:

For me, no gaming is better than bad gaming, and if I don't trust the referee, then that's bad gaming.

Strip context much?

Here's what the whole paragraph says.

If that doesn't work, then you need to decided how important the game is to you if you can't trust the referee. For me, no gaming is better than bad gaming, and if I don't trust the referee, then that's bad gaming.

That was a reply directed to the original poster's concerns, not a comment on my view of fudging.

I can't think of a play-style that is worse than no gaming. But that's just me.

So you have no deal-breakers whatsoever? There's nothing a referee can do that will make you reconsider whether or not you want to play in her campaign?

 

[Janx]

Strip context much?

Here's what the whole paragraph says.That was a reply directed to the original poster's concerns, not a comment on my view of fudging.So you have no deal-breakers whatsoever? There's nothing a referee can do that will make you reconsider whether or not you want to play in her campaign?

I think I get the gist of Shaman's reasoning. At first glance, I recall it striking me as unreasonable or extreme. But then all rules of thumb sound that way if you take them too literally.

I think Shaman accepts that there are certain signs that a group will not be compatible with his preferences. Horribly incompatible. So if he detects it, he is prepared to exit, rather than put up with it for the sake of "gaming for gamings sake."

Just because [MENTION=29434]Shaman[/MENTION] has said "I won't play in a game with fudging" doesn't mean he might not have an exception. I suspect it's more of a warning sign that the group has a style he likes to avoid.

If I said I ran game X that sounds like it has all the elements Shaman likes, but I leave a clause that I reserve the right to Fudge only when I determine that I have made a mistake. Would he accept that, if that was the only deviation from his preference list and avoidance list?

Hopefully, his answer is Maybe. Rather than a flat No.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The idea that all of these creations are set in stone and not to be changed, or that if a miscalculation has been made and a correction should be applied, or even that a direction of play that would make the game more fun presents itself through the change of a roll would make the GM a cheater is completely foreign to me.

Maybe it's not foreign to us?

All of this would be done under the cover of the screen: I don't tell the players what the hp, AC, immunities, and special powers of the monsters I create--there is no frame of reference for rigging.

My players have a very good grasp on enemy capabilities. They don't know if a warrior they run across is exceptionally good or merely average without engaging him (or rolling a successful Assess skill check), but they can start to flesh out his capabilities pretty quickly in combat. Why? Because they've had unaltered interactions with the game world so long that they can make these judgments reliably. The same goes for the myriad of skill checks out there, attribute checks, etc.

They have a huge frame of reference for fudging once they've Assessed or interacted with the creature or situation. It may not be so in your game, and I'm not saying you should change. I'm saying that you saying it's a trust issue? That's incorrect, at least as a blanket statement. It is purely wrong.

The reduction of a roll equals the same as a reduction in HD or feats, or item strength...all behind the screen. I guess I just don't separate the creation of the game with the playing of the game...sometimes it even happens at the same time.

I very rarely stat out a creature at all. I run an extremely open sandbox game, and I have no ideas where the PCs will go next, or who will come to them next (I often think I have an idea, but...). Creation of NPC stats is nearly entirely on the fly. And yet, once I choose it, and the players interact with it, it's frozen in place. That fact of the game world has been decided, the players have explored it, and it's set. The players rely on me to do this.

As for trust issues. It wasn't meant to be derisive. But, had I read the rest of the thread the last time I posted, I probably wouldn't have said anything because there is nothing but, admitted, trust issues. From the original post right through to the last couple. And probably the most telling is:

I can't think of a play-style that is worse than no gaming. But that's just me.

There are many people I'd skip playing under entirely rather than game with. People who fudge often and consistently (especially openly) would be among them. It's not because I don't trust them. I've said why in this thread, so you've probably read why. It's not a trust issue, it's a play style issue. Trust might pop up for some people, yes. Your blanket statement, however, is not true, and that's what I'm pointing out. As always, play what you like

 

[Bullgrit]

For some people, letting the dice roll without fudging is the most fun; fudging is unfun. So the idea that a DM will fudge for or against them to make things more fun is contradictory. It's basically saying, "I'm going to add just enough unfun to make the game fun."

Bullgrit

 

[Dausuul]

I can't think of a play-style that is worse than no gaming. But that's just me.

Then you have been exceptionally lucky in your DMs and fellow players.

 

[enrious]

And I don't feel bad about holding that opinion. I'm neither asking nor expecting anyone to agree with me, but I'm not going to pretend that I think, "Oh, y'know, it's all good," when I believe it's an incredibly lazy practice that creates really bad habits for both referees and players.

And what if I professed that I believe that worshiping at the altar of Dice is imagination-stifling and it creates nothing but DMs and players who can't think on their feet, slavishly adhere to some false paragon of gaming virtue (that doesn't exist), and offers no remediation for human error.

In other words, when would the madness of an extreme position be recognized as the madness of an extreme position?

Please, point out where people have been saying you don't care about your players or game because you don't fudge.

Pretty please.