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

[enrious]

It's not a matter of options. It's just not. If that's not clear by now, I doubt I can make it more clear. Thanks for the civil discussion, but if this doesn't clear it up, perhaps we'd better just call it a day, and agree to disagree. As always, play what you like

Possibly not, especially as was discussed that being open to all options doesn't preclude a social contract for a given group to eliminate one of them, given that the contract doesn't automatically apply to a different group or the same group under different circumstances, e.g. a new campaign.

In a nutshell, I don't see how someone saying they're open to all options is as limited as someone who says they unquestionably eliminate one option, but then, math was never my strong suit.

As it is, I too appreciate the civil discussion with you and have a feeling that were we ever at the same table would be able to play and have fun.

And that's what's it all about (aside from the hokey pokey).

 

[enrious]

Why is it that people who don't ever fudge think that those of have done do it because we don't like to roll dice?

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Shaman]

Yet several people here can't seem to accept that not all people play the game the same way.

Not liking how you play != demanding that you play my way.

If there's any message I hope you take home from this thread, it's that not everyone shares your preferences, that what is fun for you can be seriously off-putting to someone else. That's why managing expectations at the start of a campaign is so important, so everyone at the table has a reasonable opportunity to play the game they personally enjoy while participating in the shared experience around the table.

 

[enrious]

Another sort of thought flitting in my head is this:

Let's say I were gaming with someone like S'mon or Jameson and they were DMing things.

Let's say that for whatever reason, I didn't enjoy myself.

On the list I'd make of "why", I can't think of any circumstance where "didn't fudge the dice" would rank above "the player to my left used mismatched dice" and "I had to use a mechanical pencil".

To me, there'd be far more numerous things to consider and none of them involve small polyhedral bits of plastic.

I think there are a lot more valid things to consider, from general compatibility, to maybe I just didn't fit in with the game/group, or maybe I do or don't like a sandbox and that's what they were or were not running.

I can only speak for me, but when someone comes on and draws a line in the sand over something that is to me so trivial, it's somewhat astonishing, because if a DM said at the start, "no fudging", I'd say right on and roll up a character.

But then, to quote Penn and Teller, "Everybody got a gris-gris." I'm no different.

 

[Elf Witch]

Not liking how you play != demanding that you play my way.

If there's any message I hope you take home from this thread, it's that not everyone shares your preferences, that what is fun for you can be seriously off-putting to someone else. That's why managing expectations at the start of a campaign is so important, so everyone at the table has a reasonable opportunity to play the game they personally enjoy while participating in the shared experience around the table.

For your information I don't need to learn this or take that away from this thread. I have always known that there are many different ways to play the game and that what matters is that the DM and the players are on the same page. And if the groups is enjoying themselves then they are playing the game right no matter what I think of how they play.

You are the one who has used words like lazy, rigging, making bad players to describe a way of playing the game different then you do.

 

[Bullgrit]

On the list I'd make of "why", I can't think of any circumstance where "didn't fudge the dice" would rank above "the player to my left used mismatched dice" and "I had to use a mechanical pencil".

This is an interesting thought. I wonder how many of those who dislike fudging dice would leave a game if they learned that the DM fudged to save their character. And how many of those who approve of fudging dice would leave a game if they learned that the DM did not fudge to save their character.

Also, in a different direction:

Those who dislike fudging dice, if an attack (or something) roll would kill your character, would you accept a DM's offer to survive but suffer some kind of notable injury? For instance, if the adventure was in a setting where bringing in a new PC would be difficult or impossible, (like on an island, or deep in the dungeon). Your character takes a killing blow, but the DM says that instead of death, you loose a limb, or an eye, or some permanent ability score damage, or something similar.

In my experience, setting an adventure in some remote location where replacement PCs aren't feasible is the perfect situation for fate to kill a PC.

Bullgrit

 

[Janx]

Another sort of thought flitting in my head is this:

Let's say I were gaming with someone like S'mon or Jameson and they were DMing things.

Let's say that for whatever reason, I didn't enjoy myself.

On the list I'd make of "why", I can't think of any circumstance where "didn't fudge the dice" would rank above "the player to my left used mismatched dice" and "I had to use a mechanical pencil".

To me, there'd be far more numerous things to consider and none of them involve small polyhedral bits of plastic.

I think there are a lot more valid things to consider, from general compatibility, to maybe I just didn't fit in with the game/group, or maybe I do or don't like a sandbox and that's what they were or were not running.

I can only speak for me, but when someone comes on and draws a line in the sand over something that is to me so trivial, it's somewhat astonishing, because if a DM said at the start, "no fudging", I'd say right on and roll up a character.

But then, to quote Penn and Teller, "Everybody got a gris-gris." I'm no different.

Exactly!

There are so many other factors that make a bad game. Fudging by itself isn't on my radar.

I'm sure there's some kind of fudging that I would object to. But I'd need more data to sense that.

Other factors like GMPCing, railroading, plain old boringness, disruptive players, antagonistic GMing, personality incompatibility spring to mind.

 

[Elf Witch]

Another sort of thought flitting in my head is this:

Let's say I were gaming with someone like S'mon or Jameson and they were DMing things.

Let's say that for whatever reason, I didn't enjoy myself.

On the list I'd make of "why", I can't think of any circumstance where "didn't fudge the dice" would rank above "the player to my left used mismatched dice" and "I had to use a mechanical pencil".

To me, there'd be far more numerous things to consider and none of them involve small polyhedral bits of plastic.

I think there are a lot more valid things to consider, from general compatibility, to maybe I just didn't fit in with the game/group, or maybe I do or don't like a sandbox and that's what they were or were not running.

I can only speak for me, but when someone comes on and draws a line in the sand over something that is to me so trivial, it's somewhat astonishing, because if a DM said at the start, "no fudging", I'd say right on and roll up a character.

But then, to quote Penn and Teller, "Everybody got a gris-gris." I'm no different.

I like to know how the DM does things up front so I can decide if I want to play.

For example a DM who say I won't fudge but also says I will put things in the game so that you have a chance to not die in random encounters or due to unlucky rolls then I would want to play.

Most of the games I play in the DMs have said they don't fudge but they have things like action points or fate points or house rules that unnamed mooks don't crit.

Also a DM who says upfront that if he screws up and makes an unbalanced encounter where we have no chance of surviving will be willing to do something to fix his mistake other than it sucks to be you now roll up a new character.

If a DM says to me I don't want any back story on your character and I am not interested in your character other then the stats on the sheet then I know that we have very different play styles and that I would not enjoy his game.

I really think it is important that things be discussed ahead of time it save a lot of grief later on. I have found that to big of a difference in play styles can not be fixed and just leads to a lot of frustration at the table.

When I start a game as a DM I tell the players the kind of game I am looking to run I also discuss house rules I want to use. I am upfront with my players that I reserve the option to fudge rolls if I feel it is in the best interest of the game. So far no one has ever said it was a deal breaker for them. I have never had a player say no don't fudge on me ever.

If I did have a player like that and he was on board for everything else then I would tell him that I would not ever fudge on his character and I would stick to that.

I have been playing since 1 Ed came out and I have played in wonderful games and I have played in horrible games that I was miserable in. I have learned that a bad day of gaming is not better than not playing at all.

One way of avoiding bad games is to have some idea of what you are getting into before any dice is rolled.

 

[S'mon]

I am sure you could run a game I could enjoy. Fudging a dice roll is not the only way to accomplish things.

We were playing in the Sunless Citadel...
There are many tools in the DM tool box to accomplish changing a negative outcome if they feel it is in the best interest of the game.

BTW my experience is that a lot of people like 3e for its world-sim feel, all those detailed skills, & flexible PC creation, but IME it is by far the most brutal and unforgiving edition of D&D. It can be really hard *not* to kill PCs in 3e. I went over to death at - "CON + 10" and as an alternative to fudging that worked quite well. But it's not the edition I would choose for a low-lethality game.

 

[S'mon]

This is an interesting thought. I wonder how many of those who dislike fudging dice would leave a game if they learned that the DM fudged to save their character. And how many of those who approve of fudging dice would leave a game if they learned that the DM did not fudge to save their character.

Also, in a different direction:

Those who dislike fudging dice, if an attack (or something) roll would kill your character, would you accept a DM's offer to survive but suffer some kind of notable injury? For instance, if the adventure was in a setting where bringing in a new PC would be difficult or impossible, (like on an island, or deep in the dungeon). Your character takes a killing blow, but the DM says that instead of death, you loose a limb, or an eye, or some permanent ability score damage, or something similar.

In my experience, setting an adventure in some remote location where replacement PCs aren't feasible is the perfect situation for fate to kill a PC.

Bullgrit

There was a climactic encounter where a PC should have died and the party should probably have TPK'd. The GM had mashed in several end bosses into one encounter and it was ridiculously OTT. He fudged very obviously to keep us alive by nerfing monster attacks & abilities. I tolerated it but it was poor DMing and it lessened the fun for most of us.


If the GM offered disability rather than death to my PC, I would happily take the offer. I would like either a random disability table or consistency among PCs though - not much fun I lose an arm while James gets a cool scar.