| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's cool that you allow your players to change the rules, but that is by far and away a minority position... and again, you as GM are *choosing* to let that happen. Ultimately, the final decision rests with you.
NO! There is nothing magical about me calling myself GM or referee or whatever that suddenly confers the divine right of rulership on me. The power of government is derived from the consent of the governed, not by God. In the same vein, the GM's power is derived solely from the power willingly given him by the players to make the game run.
For example, lets say you're playing an adventure, and it calls for a random encounter roll.
It wouldn't happen.
For trolls to qualify for inclusion on a wandering monster table, there would have to be a lot of trolls about.
What are first-level PCs doing, wandering around in Troll Country?
I wouldn't need to fudge the roll on that table, since,
- the PCs wouldn't be voluntarily wandering round Troll Country,
- I wouldn't have written a scenario that forced level 1 PCs into troll country,
- if I were using a pre-made adventure, say for the maps and plot, I would have already modified the encounters to those more suitable for the PCs level before the adventure started.
No moving the goalposts. This adventure exists, and you, through inexperience created this table, or are using one from a product that you didn't carefully read. You're at the table, you tell the party they are camping for the night, and that you're going to roll on the table.
The table exists, the module is being played, the adventurers are there. You've clearly made a either a horrible newbie mistake, or are a jackhole killer GM, either way, this is happening right now. Assuming you aren't a jackhole killer GM, is a TPK a valid cost for you to learn to pay more attention/craft tables better?
It's cool that you allow your players to change the rules, but that is by far and away a minority position... and again, you as GM are *choosing* to let that happen. Ultimately, the final decision rests with you.NO! There is nothing magical about me calling myself GM or referee or whatever that suddenly confers the divine right of rulership on me. The power of government is derived from the consent of the governed, not by God. In the same vein, the GM's power is derived solely from the power willingly given him by the players to make the game run.
So your players can look you in the eye and say 'there's a +5 Vorpal Holy Avenger in the gnoll's back pocket'. They all agree. You give it to them or quit? If you say no they quit? I don't get it, I really don't.
I realize your players aren't jerks, and wouldn't do those things, but you seem to be stating that this should be the standard... that the players make the rules and the GM just goes along with it?
You've already stated that you only vote in the case of a tie, though... so you *DO* have final arbitration. And I wager that your players would allow you to wield that power of arbitration even if there wasn't a tie.
Someone has to be in charge. The GM is the natural choice, as otherwise, it is impossible to surprise the players, if everything must happen by comittee.
So your players can look you in the eye and say 'there's a +5 Vorpal Holy Avenger in the gnoll's back pocket'. They all agree. You give it to them or quit? If you say no they quit? I don't get it, I really don't.
That's because you're conflating what happens in-game to what happens at the table.
If everyone agrees that Fred is going to write the adventure for next week, then they have all, through unanimous consent, conferred upon Fred the authority to decide what's in the gnoll's back pocket.
They have not conferred upon Fred the ability to unilaterally change the previously agreed-upon rules of the game. They have not conferred upon Fred the authority to go through their wallets and steal their credit cards to pay for that week's pizza. They have not conferred upon Fred any rights outside of the scenario they've allowed him to write and run.
Well ... actually: Kingmaker v1 - Stolen Lands: 1d4 trolls
I wouldn't have written a scenario that forced level 1 PCs into troll country
if I were using a pre-made adventure, say for the maps and plot, I would have already modified the encounters to those more suitable for the PCs level before the adventure started.
Snorter adequately addressed your rebuttal before you made it.
Ah yes, but this particular place is suppose to be extremely dangerous. Isn't that fudging in favor of the players, just pregame? Edit: And to be fair, I change adventures pregame, so I'm not arguing that, I'm just curious about where boundaries lay.
Notice he started with the idea that the PCs shouldn't be poking their heads into troll dens, if they don't want to meet trolls. As GM, I include lots of non-level-appropriate encounters -- and I also provide foreshadowing ("the cave up ahead reeks of trolls!") and the ability to retreat from them. If the PCs all ignore the warnings, and refuse to run away when they DO meet the troll that I've as much as told them point-blank they'll meet... well, I'd let them die.
Alternatively (and especially if you know your players are so densely stupid that none of the above would ever sink into their heads anyway, which you seem to be implying), then adjusting scenarios as GM is part of your job. Lying about dice rolls in order to cover up the fact that you didn't do your job? I'd consider that to be fairly low.
|
So here's my next question.
Given that the 'No-cheating' crowd believes that changing/ignoring a dice roll is immoral and unethical, destroying the game at worst and badwrongfun at best....
What if you aren't adjusting a die roll?
If a module says 'The Ogre-Troll-Owl-Bear-Lord fights to the DEATH!' and you decide it would be 'better' that he surrenders/runs away/strikes a deal...
is that cheating? What if you do it when the party is clearly going to die but they don't know that yet because they think he's hurt when he's only taken 10% of his HP?
If I decide that fighting to the death is unrealistic, then I've already made my decision on that, while reading and prepping the adventure.
Changing an adventure prior to running it is in no way a fudge.I also reserve the right to alter the actions of the NPCs, in response to events in play.
You seem to think that invalidates the whole argument?
GMs are supposed to run NPCs.
NPCs are supposed to have realistic goals.
Realistic goals are responsive to the changing situation.
NPCs that act like uncreative robots are unrealistic (unless they are, in fact robots. Thought I'd put that there for the pedants).
If I've decided that an NPC is boastful and vain, and enjoys striding out from behind his lackeys, to personally lay the killing blow on his enemies, then that is what he will do, most of the time.
If he sees his army decimated in a few seconds by the PCs, I reserve the right to have him change his mind, and retreat to fight another day.
That is realistic and responsible running of an NPC, and is in no way a fudge.
What I won't do, is have him be fighting the PCs, dealing them a pasting they'll never forget, while suffering nary a scratch, then suddenly suffer an uncharacteristic pang of conscience, and hurl himself at their feet, lick their boots, and beg them to take him prisoner.
I won't have him throw away his unholy sword, whose minimum damage is more than any PC's current hp, and start trying to perform d3 non-lethal fisticuffs, or start performing untrained disarms with an improvised stool.
And I won't have him just swing for several rounds at empty air, then keel over and die, once the PCs have hit single-digit hp.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No moving the goalposts. This adventure exists, and you, through inexperience created this table, or are using one from a product that you didn't carefully read. You're at the table, you tell the party they are camping for the night, and that you're going to roll on the table.
The table exists, the module is being played, the adventurers are there. You've clearly made a either a horrible newbie mistake, or are a jackhole killer GM, either way, this is happening right now. Assuming you aren't a jackhole killer GM, is a TPK a valid cost for you to learn to pay more attention/craft tables better?
In other words,
"What would you do, if you were to somehow have woken up under the effects of a combined lobotomy, psychic possession and Rohypnol cocktail, and discovered you'd acted in a way that you make every effort to never do?"
Since you're dictating my every action, why don't you just tell me what I do?
However, my players (all of them as I have said before) have agreed to it. They also have expressed a desire not to know right then and there.
And of course, if everyone at your table agrees -- what you're doing is exactly right.
It's only when someone disagrees that there's a problem -- but, as we've seen in this thread, there are indeed people in the world who do disagree (and vocally, too!). Arguments of GM omnipotence, and citing of rulebook pages as an appeal to authority, etc., as a counter to that reality? They end up basically sounding to me like saying "I know better than those people, so I'll tell them what they want instead of listening to them." And that's not a strictly GM issue as much as it is an interpersonal issue.
Yes, but the example wasn't them heading determinedly into a troll cave, wisdom be darned. It was rolling for a night encounter when most of the party is asleep.
I think this is what Snorter means when he says, as GM, he doesn't play the monsters like robots. I'd look at the encounter this way:
If I'm a hungry troll, I'm not going to approach the campfire (which can kill me permanently) and attack the people sleeping next to the pointy pieces of metal. I'm going to eat the horses that are conveniently located well away from the fire, tied down so they can't escape, and that don't have weapons.
If the PCs wake up and decide to attack the trolls -- that decision is entirely in their hands. They get what they get!
What you've basically said is along the lines of 'I'm running this module that I misread as being for levels 4 to 6, but it was really 14 to 16.. so obviously now I have to fudge a ton of die rolls...'-James
Nice strawman, but no.
I mis-remembered that the module was 1d4 trolls and not 1d6.
You didn't misread the module. It's for level one players.
The trolls exist. You (foolishly, perhaps) assumed that anything on the table would be something a party could handle. However, now you've set up a situation where one person is there to handle the threat you rolled.
I am not saying you have to fudge a TON of die rolls. Maybe you fudge the creature encountered, so it isn't trolls. Maybe you fudge the number, so it isn't 4. Maybe you fudge the stealth check, so they don't surprise the guard. Maybe you fiat that they aren't looking to attack anything and they just walk past.
This is my point. Is the game enhanced by you saying 'set up camp, tell me who's on watch. Roll perception. OOPS YOU ALL DIE.'
No, it isn't. Now, in magical land where every GM knows the module by heart, and understands that the tables could reslt in a TPK through no fault of their own, they've preemptively fixed the problem.
There are numerous ways to fix this particular issue. However, it appears that for some people, the only 'fair' way to run this is a TPK and lesson learned to the GM.
I disagree with this perception, and believe that when you are running a module and happen to decide to use the random encounter tables provided, you should be able to adjust those rolls (or fiat them so heavily that it's barely an 'encounter' at all) so that you don't scuttle the campaign.
I also believe that somegroups would LOVE to be ganked by trolls on the first night out, go 'HOLY CRAP THIS PLACE IS DANGEROUS!' and make new characters and learn that they need to pul out old-school sensibilities to have a fair shake at survival.
I wil fully admit the GM should be prepared, know what he's doing, and not roll dice witout nderstanding the outcome. I just don't agree that every GM should be required to be the same, nor every group of players have the same expectations.
For some groups, the TPK would end the campaign. For others it would be something to talk about for months. Both groups get to exist, and the group that wants the kid gloves isn't a group of immoral cheaters that hate all that is good. They're playing BY THE RULES.
I am not saying you have to fudge a TON of die rolls. Maybe you fudge the creature encountered, so it isn't trolls. Maybe you fudge the number, so it isn't 4. Maybe you fudge the stealth check, so they don't surprise the guard. Maybe you fiat that they aren't looking to attack anything and they just walk past.
This is my point. Is the game enhanced by you saying 'set up camp, tell me who's on watch. Roll perception. OOPS YOU ALL DIE.'
See above. Hopefully we all agree that the GM's job is to run monsters according to their natures and the circumstances, not as mindless seek-and-destroy teams looking for PCs to assassinate. As I outlined above, the trolls would most realistically eat the defenseless horses.
If the PCs then choose to get up and attack the trolls, I'd let the dice fall where they fall.
I personally despise the idea that "the PCs are always supposed to win" and should never meet anything they can't kill, and that it's important to ignore dice rolls to make sure that their stupidity is rewarded. On the other hand, some groups believe strongly in that. If your group is one of the latter... well, that's your table, not mine.
|
|
A lot of creatures can't tell how powerful a bunch of PCs are.
Some creatures, what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG). The troll, it's big, it's strong, it's got big claws and teeth. You know, as a PC what you're letting yourself in for, if you go wandering round troll country.
The troll sees some humans in metal armour, some in light armour, one in a dressing gown, and a pointy hat. (Yes, it's Eric, Hank and Presto...)
The troll has no idea how tough these humans are. His mate says she saw a human last week, with a bow that fired flames, could that be him over there? Old Grindgut says he chewed on a shield that was so tough, he broke a tooth, and gave up the chase. And their cave paintings show a human with a pointy hat burning their tribe out of their last home.
You don't mess with humans if they wear pointy hats.
So they hide, and they watch. If these are the dangerous humans, they'll leave them alone. If thehumans have trouble dealing with the orcs in the next valley, they're obviously not the dangerous ones, so we'll come in and grab them for the stew-pot.
|
|
Nice strawman, but no.
I mis-remembered that the module was 1d4 trolls and not 1d6.
You didn't misread the module. It's for level one players.
The trolls exist. You (foolishly, perhaps) assumed that anything on the table would be something a party could handle. However, now you've set up a situation where one person is there to handle the threat you rolled.
No they don't.
What part of 'I read the adventures and alter them before I run them' is so hard to understand?
I am not saying you have to fudge a TON of die rolls. Maybe you fudge the creature encountered, so it isn't trolls. Maybe you fudge the number, so it isn't 4.
I don't have to 'fudge' that there are less trolls, or not trolls at all, if I've already gone through the adventure, seen the sample encounters, thought "That's way out of line." and removed the trolls from the table before I ever need to roll.
Now, in magical land where every GM knows the module by heart, and understands that the tables could reslt in a TPK through no fault of their own, they've preemptively fixed the problem.
This has got to be a wind-up.
Who needs to know a module by heart? You read through it before you play, making notes as you go, looking for problems.
If you can't tell that 6 trolls are a TPK for a level 1 party, if they just rush them from short range, then you can hand in your GM-card.
You either remove them from the list, remember to reduce the numbers drastically, have the encounter occur at longer range, and/or play them as being wary.
I'm not telling you anything you shouldn't already know. I'm not carving the mysteries of the universe on golden tablets. I'm telling you to be a GM, and do your job.
Do you seriously expect me to believe that you think the majority of GMs turn up at the game with the adventure still in its shrink-wrap, and try to run it blind?
No they don't.
What part of 'I read the adventures and alter them before I run them' is so hard to understand?
I think I need to make it clear that I'm speaking in hypotheticals, but these hypothetials are BASED ON actual GMs I have played with (including me).
In the Kingmaker game I played in, the 4 trolls crashed around the underbrush, killed one of our horses, and dragged it of while the rest of us cowered in the trees. The GM in question didn't require a perception roll.
I have played in groups where the GM didn't have prep time, and played the adventure as-written with little, if any time to read ahead.
I've played in groups whee the GM wasn't experienced enough to nderstand the threat of 4 trolls.
I've played with groups that don't know what trolls are, and would assume that if they are attacking, they can be defeated.
Again, my point in all of this is not asking for personal advice on how to handle my game. I'm confident in my ability as a player and as a GM, and the social contracts I have in all the games I'm playing.
My point *is* that not all GMs are the same. Not every group has a Kirth or a Snorter. Not every player is a houstonderek.
The rules of Pathfinder, as well as every version of Dungeons and Dragons, have all stated that the GM has the power to arbitate the game, change rules, and ignore the dice. These are rules-as-written. You can call it cheating, fudging, or what have you, but it is NOT against the rules, nor is it immoral, hateful, cruel, or unethical.
I very much agree that if the players don't want fudging, then don't fudge. I also very much agree that if the players DO want fudging, then do fudge. I also know that even in the case of a strict no-fudging game, there WILL be times that a GM rolls the dice and is unhappy with the result. In virtually all of these times, letting them fall where they may is the right choice for the campaign, and anything that happens by way of that die roll can be resoved via player response or GM fiat at a later time. Especially in shiny-happy land of 3.5/PF where there are so few truly permanent repercussions.
However, I am also wiling to bet that if the GM nudged those minute cases that are truly damaging to the campaign a little off the extreme, the campaign would be better for it. Realize, again, I'm not talking about trivialities. Just... things that are either so far out of whack from probability, or so unforeseen, that the dice are hurting your game. I'd give an example, but I don't believe there is any universe in which I could craft one example which would resonate with all the 'Fudging is badwrongfun' crowd.
By announcing that the act of changing a die roll is cheating, immoral, a breach of trust, etc... you're basically saying 'you are playing the game wrong. You are in fact a bad person, and people should really stop being friends with you.
This is very explicitly NOT what I'm saying. It is cheating. That doesn't mean that it's wrong FOR YOU or that you're a bad GM, just that you would, unequivocally, be a bad GM FOR ME. Got me?
Please try to disconnect yourself from a categorization of mine for an act that is undeniably happening and the application of moral judgment thereof. If I said "hey, I really hate it when people put walnuts in brownies, it ruins the flavor" would a reasonable response be "how dare you call me a bad person"?
I wouldn't need to fudge the roll on that table, since,** spoiler omitted **
- the PCs wouldn't be voluntarily wandering round Troll Country,
- I wouldn't have written a scenario that forced level 1 PCs into troll country,
- if I were using a pre-made adventure, say for the maps and plot, I would have already modified the encounters to those more suitable for the PCs level before the adventure started.
I was going to go with that, but you beat me to it. I've actually had this come up (3 trolls for a party of four level 1 players); I changed that encounter to something else. Even though that AP is known for being dangerous, it was too early on to throw that at the party in my opinion.
The random encounter table also called for a Shambling Mound, but the party was level 2 and with fortuitous perception checks managed to avoid being ambushed by it and managed to survive, even though they were always a couple of bad rolls away from disaster.
No moving the goalposts. This adventure exists, and you, through inexperience created this table, or are using one from a product that you didn't carefully read. You're at the table, you tell the party they are camping for the night, and that you're going to roll on the table.
The table exists, the module is being played, the adventurers are there. You've clearly made a either a horrible newbie mistake, or are a jackhole killer GM, either way, this is happening right now. Assuming you aren't a jackhole killer GM, is a TPK a valid cost for you to learn to pay more attention/craft tables better?
The solution is: don't roll. Remember, we're trying to curtail FUDGING, which is changing the result of a die rule to suit your needs. If you don't roll the dice, you don't fudge. It's not the power of the GM to shape the world that I object to, it's doing something (rolling) then deciding it doesn't matter after the chips are down. The DM is within his rights to go off the board in search of another challenge than what is presented or chuck the book entirely.
Another example of this: random treasure tables. For a while I rolled random treasure, completely random, by the chart in the back of the 3.5 DMG. SOOOO many scrolls. So rather than continue giving players shitty scrolls all the time I made an alternate chart and told the players that. This was, however, after I completely randomly rolled an intelligent CE +3 Shocking, Vicious magic dagger for the moderate level party. Which was way too powerful for them, but in time became almost another character in the story.
|
|
Another example of this: random treasure tables. For a while I rolled random treasure, completely random, by the chart in the back of the 3.5 DMG. SOOOO many scrolls. So rather than continue giving players s$&!ty scrolls all the time I made an alternate chart and told the players that. This was, however, after I completely randomly rolled an intelligent CE +3 Shocking, Vicious magic dagger for the moderate level party. Which was way too powerful for them, but in time became almost another character in the story.
I'm surprised it didn't become party leader.
Treasure tables are another good example of a random table that I can do without.
It was worse in earlier editions, as there was no distinction between minor/medium/major items, they were all on the same list, so you could roll something that was near-artifact level for a level 1 party, and the great wyrm's hoard could be a bag of potions.
3.0 did at least try to split every table into three, but you still have the problem of the result not being tailored to the owner.
Given that the players expect they can walk into any village in the boondocks, sell anything and everything they want, and roll out a shopping list of shiny toys;
Is there any reason why an NPC wouldn't do the same?
Why would any NPC be carrying gear not specifically crafted to their own needs?
"I'm going to carry a weapon I'm not proficient in, and a scroll of a spell not on my list, purely so I can give them to the first person who murders me."
The solution is: don't roll. Remember, we're trying to curtail FUDGING, which is changing the result of a die rule to suit your needs. If you don't roll the dice, you don't fudge. It's not the power of the GM to shape the world that I object to, it's doing something (rolling) then deciding it doesn't matter after the chips are down. The DM is within his rights to go off the board in search of another challenge than what is presented or chuck the book entirely.
See, I see no difference between looking at a table and going 'looks good, except for those 1d4 trolls' and rolling to see what happens, *knowing* that if I roll trolls, I'm going to turn it into GM's choice, and just making it GM's choice to begin with.
In addition, I see no difference between that and going 'ooh, the module says roll a random encounter', rolling, and going 'HOLY SHNIKES! 1d4 trolls for 1st level? Changing it.'
A roll that breaks your game, due to lack of preparation or naivete or what have you, and you tweaking it to another valid option is no more cheating than *choosing not to roll on that table in the first place*.
I am very interested to see that there's a lot of GM fiat in the 'let the dice fall' crowd, though. That makes things make a lot more sense.
The solution is: don't roll. Remember, we're trying to curtail FUDGING, which is changing the result of a die rule to suit your needs. If you don't roll the dice, you don't fudge. It's not the power of the GM to shape the world that I object to, it's doing something (rolling) then deciding it doesn't matter after the chips are down. The DM is within his rights to go off the board in search of another challenge than what is presented or chuck the book entirely.See, I see no difference between looking at a table and going 'looks good, except for those 1d4 trolls' and rolling to see what happens, *knowing* that if I roll trolls, I'm going to turn it into GM's choice, and just making it GM's choice to begin with.
In addition, I see no difference between that and going 'ooh, the module says roll a random encounter', rolling, and going 'HOLY SHNIKES! 1d4 trolls for 1st level? Changing it.'
A roll that breaks your game, due to lack of preparation or naivete or what have you, and you tweaking it to another valid option is no more cheating than *choosing not to roll on that table in the first place*.
I am very interested to see that there's a lot of GM fiat in the 'let the dice fall' crowd, though. That makes things make a lot more sense.
Well to be fair the encounter table thing is something that is frequently done away with and not something I thought of in the fudging context. I am talking about a GM rolling a 3 and saying "CRITICAL HIT" or rolling a 20 and claiming a fumble.
There is a HUUUUUUUUUUUGE gulf of difference between being a good GM and changing written adventures to suit your party (let's say, removing magical traps or turning them into nonmagical traps because no one picked rogue) and letting your party pass/fail a challenge regardless of their skill/planning/etc (oh look all the spikes you triggered missed you magically).
I personally see fudging as more than changing die results, though that definitely is the most obvious. I don't remember anyone trying to define fudging until after one or both sides were assuming a definition.
You design encounters and plan ahead, then the players take a turn you didn't expect? Gotta add in a few more mooks here because they're not beat up enough for this to be even interesting. You intended for a good new staff to drop for the party mage, but now he's left the party (for whatever reason)? Guess that staff is now a sword of some sort.
I think the most encompassing definition would be: Fudging is changing the game as written/rolled in order to better suit the party by telling a more interesting story, allowing for unplanned contingencies, and/or avoiding illogical events.
Another thing, the non-fudgers KEEP SAYING that fudgers are doing it at every twist and turn, preventing character deaths ALL the time, and constantly just ignoring dice rolls. There was a pro-fudger in here that said s/he fudged maybe twice in a year - s/he believed it was acceptable but didn't have a need for it. THAT'S the argument. You can keep saying that doing it once is just as bad as doing it a million times, but that's incorrect, I believe. The amount you do it DOES matter, and if a GM is constantly fudging, then yeah, he might be doing it wrong, but that doesn't mean every GM who does fudge is doing it wrong.
redefining fudging
Even if I were to accept your definition, the title of this thread is Fudging Rolls, so we should be explicitly discussing the repercussions of that act, not any other potential definition of fudging.
Changing a staff into a sword because a player quit isn't fudging a roll.
redefining fudgingEven if I were to accept your definition, the title of this thread is Fudging Rolls, so we should be explicitly discussing the repercussions of that act, not any other potential definition of fudging.
Changing a staff into a sword because a player quit isn't fudging a roll.
I'm aware of the name. < OP. Yes, while that started the topic, debates are only worth something if two things: both sides are willing to redefine their view based on any new information presented and the arguments actually progress against one another. You've probably heard the term "moving the goalposts" on this forum a few times. While this can be a perfectly valid statement, it's also used incorrectly quite a bit in the threads, because some see that phrase also meaning providing counterpoints.
Look at the post right after yours. This reminds me of an example.
Start of a campaign, the party and GM agreed on random loot tables. Through sheer luck, about a session or two in, the party fighter rolled a +1 flaming bastard sword (this was in 3.5e, but I cannot reference the tables used in question - this might be impossible on the standard random loot tables for low level use). I would have preferred GM fudging here. Not only did that fighter own combat for the next few levels, he also had a heirloom weapon thing that pretty much got discarded because it did like less than half the damage.
However, most rolls on the table were fine. The GM didn't have a need to fudge any of them, save that one sword roll. This is the example of fudging I think should be encouraged.
It's cool that you allow your players to change the rules, but that is by far and away a minority position... and again, you as GM are *choosing* to let that happen. Ultimately, the final decision rests with you.NO! There is nothing magical about me calling myself GM or referee or whatever that suddenly confers the divine right of rulership on me. The power of government is derived from the consent of the governed, not by God. In the same vein, the GM's power is derived solely from the power willingly given him by the players to make the game run.
So if your players didn't vote to house rule away fudging, you'd fudge?
Start of a campaign, the party and GM agreed on random loot tables. Through sheer luck, about a session or two in, the party fighter rolled a +1 flaming bastard sword (this was in 3.5e, but I cannot reference the tables used in question - this might be impossible on the standard random loot tables for low level use). I would have preferred GM fudging here. Not only did that fighter own combat for the next few levels, he also had a heirloom weapon thing that pretty much got discarded because it did like less than half the damage.
That doesn't sound like that outlandish of an outcome. A +2 weapon at level 1 or 2? It's powerful but not going to break the game. Besides he could always sell it.
All this did was remind me why I dislike random loot tables :)
redefining fudgingEven if I were to accept your definition, the title of this thread is Fudging Rolls, so we should be explicitly discussing the repercussions of that act, not any other potential definition of fudging.
Changing a staff into a sword because a player quit isn't fudging a roll.
Even after it's been rolled up on a treasure table?
ETA: Honest question, not trying to entrap you.
This is less malicious but much like a previous example involving trolls. Simply put I don't use random treasure tables anymore, but if I did, and the party had a staff and no one to use it, I'd let them sell it at half value and buy something else (a sword perhaps)? Same result, less deception.
I thought the argument is that if the majority of people agree on something, then that's how it's played?
What if the entire party wants to use random loot tables often (obviously those don't work in every situation), but the GM, one such as yourself, dislikes them? Is it not the same thing as mandating law, which is the exact tyranny that was previously mentioned?
Zaranorth is presenting an argument I was making earlier - what's so wrong with seeing how a roll would result, then deciding it's not fitting? And why is forgoing the roll in the first place an acceptable practice over the former to you?
EDIT: When I mentioned the staff -> sword thing, I should have clarified that it was BEFORE the loot was discovered. My overall point there was that changing was has been designed and planned on the fly is really the same thing as altering a dice roll, because it is changing the events in way that makes for a better overall game.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be malicious. I'm trying to understand the apparent difference between A) deliberately picking something off a table and B) rolling a die, seeing what it is, weighing whether or not it fits, and accepting or rejecting it. (Again, it doesn't have to be a perfectly balanced item, slightly over or under powered is fine and can lead to interesting developments.) I just don't see the difference between A and B.If the PCs have not gotten the treasure yet, how is there any harm in changing it? Now, if they have, and then the player quits. That's different. The item has already been instantiated. Having it suddenly morph into a sword isn't the right thing to do in my opinion.
Selling something for half price is in the rules anyways.
I didn't take it as malicious, I just meant the troll example posited seemed quite explicitly to entrap, where this did not.
But that's the point, the end result is the same. The difference in this example is WHO gets to choose. If you as a DM decide the party is better off with a sword than the staff you got when you chose to roll, it's the wrong decision because it's taking the power out of the players hands. This isn't a very extreme example and to me this decision is obvious. Weird quirks of probability are a part of the appeal to games that have a random number generator built into them. Maybe one guy thinks the idea of using a staff is really cool, so he puts ranks in UMD, and at some point has a really cool moment when he saves the party's butt using the staff. Who knows? Who is the DM to decide if that fun gets had even if it's not what he thinks the party needs?
Going away from the PF and into other games, here's an anecdote about WoW from a few years back. I was running around trying to get achievements and decided to try to fish up an exceptionally rare find in Orgrimmar, Old Crafty. I've heard horror stories of people fishing for tens of hours straight and not getting that bugger. I also had a daily quest to fish up a baby crocodile in the same pond. I got a beer, put some music on, and prepared to be there for a while. First cast-caught both! The odds are so astronomical that I didn't for a second consider it to be possible. Would I have had a better sense of accomplishment if I'd been forced to sit for 10 hours clicking my mouse? Who's to say? Who's to say, in a game, which is more fun, fighting a long drawn-out battle against the boss or having a lucky crit with a scythe and taking his head off? I have my preference, but without the dice to provide some luck I'd never know and I'd have several less great stories to tell about such luck, good or ill.
My overall point there was that changing was has been designed and planned on the fly is really the same thing as altering a dice roll, because it is changing the events in way that makes for a better overall game.
I can agree, the result is the same. The difference is that one is fudging and one is not. Which is my point, if you can achieve the same result without fudging, why fudge?
Also, if all my players insisted on random loot tables, I'd be fine with it as long as they accept the results.
If I'm a hungry troll, I'm not going to approach the campfire (which can kill me permanently) and attack the people sleeping next to the pointy pieces of metal. I'm going to eat the horses that are conveniently located well away from the fire, tied down so they can't escape, and that don't have weapons.
If the PCs wake up and decide to attack the trolls -- that decision is entirely in their hands. They get what they get!
Personally if I were a hungry troll, I'd just eat the horses first. Then I'd go eat the bunch of little squishy pink-skins who are obviously so weak all they can do is cower round a campfire while I chow down on their livestock. Now if I were a hungry troll and went after the horses and the squishy pink-skins started swarming me waving around burning logs, I'd probably cut my losses and just run with my already-gleaned Chunk 'o Horse.
Trolls, don't forget, are notoriously short on common sense and full of bravado. They're bullies, and the one thing you never do is appease a bully.
Perfectly fair also. At least the players have a chance to hear the troll eating the horse, decide for themselves if he's worth the risk, and maybe leg it or hide.
The point being that, either way, you can turn a bad die roll into an interesting encounter WITHOUT needing to fudge.
I still think you guys are not understanding the amount to which we fudge. It's not the devastating amount to where the dice don't matter at all. It's very specific, occasional situations in which the dice provide a low chance of anti-fun (not necessarily all of which are simple failures), the roll coming up on that low chance, and then the GM deciding in this instance that it would make a more fun game to change the result in some way.
Not to mention, pure luck - good or bad - should encourage fudging. I asked an old friend I learned D&D with who is now GMing his own campaign, and he simply said, "I roll like crap, consistently. If I didn't fudge, the players could just walk around unkillable, due to the simple fact that I can't roll above an 8. I don't do it every roll, and more often than not, I take the roll, but I do provide -some- sort of fight, so that it's somewhat interesting."
The flip side is true. A GM who constantly rolls crits, even after changing dice, should consider fudging as a way of mitigating his luck.
If you personally haven't seen any examples of a player or GM with rare luck, then play with my current or old group (some overlap). There's about 3 of us who just almost always roll on one end of the numbers, even using other people's dice.
I still think you guys are not understanding the amount to which we fudge. It's not the devastating amount to where the dice don't matter at all. It's very specific, occasional situations in which the dice provide a low chance of anti-fun (not necessarily all of which are simple failures), the roll coming up on that low chance, and then the GM deciding in this instance that it would make a more fun game to change the result in some way.
The amount isn't the problem though. I'm not saying you're a bad person because you fudge, I'm not ascribing to you this judgment, but I think that fudging is unnecessary. Even in this post you say it's the GM deciding what is more fun. At some point I don't think that's his job any more. He creates the challenges and lets the players try to overcome them. Ideally he helps those players have the tools necessary to do so in more than one way. Then he steps aside and referees without playing favorites.
I've had both kinds of DMs, ones who fudge very rarely (if ever) and those who fudge to the point where the dice DON'T matter. I really really revile the latter, and am only mildly irked at the former. I'm sure most people in this thread fudge as little as possible, but some fudge as a matter of course multiple times a session and make a habit of, at the least, removing potential fun.
If you personally haven't seen any examples of a player or GM with rare luck, then play with my current or old group (some overlap). There's about 3 of us who just almost always roll on one end of the numbers, even using other people's dice.
Just the other week my DM rolled 3 20s and a 19 on saves against my powers in one combat. I wish he hadn't rolled that high. I never EVER will wish he had lied to me and told me it was an 8.
Players also have bad luck. If I am fighting and can't roll above a 5 to save my life, what recourse to I have? I can't fudge! If the player "fudges" it's cheating.
The answer is, as I've said, action points or something similar to allow players to mitigate bad luck or bend the rules.
In fact, in a game I'm designing now, if players use action points to help them with an action and STILL fail...I, the DM, get an action point to use for ANY monster to do the same things the player can. Wicked, right? But it's not fudging, it's a house rule :D