|
How many DM's keep track if their players current hp's?
Current hp's are a good guide for my fudging.
S.
I definitely don't do this, although I allow a fair amount of HP-related table talk, so I usually know where the party's HP stands whether I want to or not. For instance, I've adopted "bloodied" from 4E (pretty much the only holdover at my table). I think it's realistic to assume that characters can tell from the way another PC or monster is moving/attacking/etc. that it has been seriously wounded and is approaching death.
However, I don't shy away from killing PC's, and I don't entirely understand why some DM's do. If the PC's want to live, they will make smart decisions and approach situations carefully - and when they do this, they almost invariably DO live. If they are allowed to act in a carefree manner with their preparations and actions, they will be less invested in their characters, which hurts the game for everyone. Besides, it's really tough to KILL a PC. The only way it really happens is if they are allowing themselves to exist with extremely low HP's, and a monster inflicts a pretty good amount of damage. Save or Dies are fairly rare, and that die roll is on the player, not the DM anyway. I don't fudge monster Save or Dies (or Save or Sucks), because I feel that the PC's should be rewarded for their actions. Personally I don't have any attachment to things being cinematic in combat, if a wizard is powerful enough to completely disable or outright kill a BBEG in a fight, why shouldn't he be able to do so? It's what he's worked toward.
Ideally, fudging AGAINST players never happens.
If the adventure wasn't tooled for optimized adventurers, retool it. Fudging against players is just mean.
If the results are going to be the same then why should the DM waste the time to build/rebuild NPC's?
I generally save the fudging for when the party gets in over their heads through no or little fault of their own. TPKs aren't fun for anyone, and having them happen due to some bad luck or an unintentional mistake makes for a sad ending to a campaign. That said, if they make a crucial error in judgment, the gloves come off, and hopefully they learn their lesson.
I don't fudge for NPCs, if the dice aren't going my way or the players are clever enough to do something unexpected, good for them. Having a close fight is fun, but when kick butt once in a while, that can be fun, too.
I NEVER fudge die rolls. All of my rolls are done in the open (unless it's for a skill the DM sometimes rolls for the player). I live by the dice, and die by the dice. I've had obvious cheaters at my table stop hiding dice, or stop picking them up before others can see because as a DM my successes and failures were rolled for all to see.
As for story and cinematics, the battles that I remember the most are the ones where the dice made it so something incredible happened. I had a player smite evil/power attack/crit my BBEG in the first or second round and kill him. I could have fudged numbers, but why? That event is one of my player's favorites. I had a TPK because the party didn't work together, and went four different directions. That fight will be remembered for the sake of the need for teamwork. I've had players do great things only to be wiped out by a random roadside easy encounter with centipedes. They've rocked a battle with a group of Drow priests (Good will saves vs enchantment) because they used a few charms and I failed a lot of saves. If it weren't for the things they accomplished, or the struggles they've faced all from a few good or bad dice rolls then these would have been another fight in the pile of combats that have filled decades of gaming. The thrill comes from beating the odds, not just beating the fight.
My game (not my game world) revolves around the characters, their backstory, their traits, their dislikes. If I'm telling a story, it's a story that directly involves them. If the group TPK's, then the story ends. They make new characters, and we start a new story. I don't need to fake die results to keep them alive just so they can witness how great a story I had.
If the results are going to be the same then why should the DM waste the time to build/rebuild NPC's?Ideally, fudging AGAINST players never happens.
If the adventure wasn't tooled for optimized adventurers, retool it. Fudging against players is just mean.
Personally, I don't think I'd enjoy it very much, myself. If I'm going to dictate what the dice say after I roll them, I don't really need to roll them. It becomes a narrative exercise, in which case, it'd be easier to just write a book.
That, and the results may not be the same. If you're always fudging, is anyone going to ever die? If so, who do you chose to die? I hate TPKs, and will fudge against one if the party doesn't deserve it, but I don't like fudging just to save one or two PCs.
I don't fudge dice rolls; I always roll openly, so it wouldn't be easy to do either.
I have on occasion added some hit points to a monster to make the encounter less anti-climactic, though (essentially of the "the first successful attack after the monster's turn kills it" type). It's no fun if the monster/NPC you spent several hours creating dies before its first action ;)
|
|
I don't fudge dice rolls; I always roll openly, so it wouldn't be easy to do either.
I have on occasion added some hit points to a monster to make the encounter less anti-climactic, though (essentially of the "the first successful attack after the monster's turn kills it" type). It's no fun if the monster/NPC you spent several hours creating dies before its first action ;)
I've been debating the idea of writing down the monster's HP range instead of its total (like [18,25,33] for a creature with 3d6+15). The idea is I would have the monster "drop" at the most climactic seeming moment as long as it's within that range (less likely to err low than high). This would only really apply to BBEG-style monsters, not to rank-and-file minions, because otherwise that's just too much work.
|
I've been debating the idea of writing down the monster's HP range instead of its total (like [18,25,33] for a creature with 3d6+15). The idea is I would have the monster "drop" at the most climactic seeming moment as long as it's within that range (less likely to err low than high). This would only really apply to BBEG-style monsters, not to rank-and-file minions, because otherwise that's just too much work.I don't fudge dice rolls; I always roll openly, so it wouldn't be easy to do either.
I have on occasion added some hit points to a monster to make the encounter less anti-climactic, though (essentially of the "the first successful attack after the monster's turn kills it" type). It's no fun if the monster/NPC you spent several hours creating dies before its first action ;)
Oh, I like that idea!
I fudge some, but not much. Most of my rolls are made in the open.
I do dynamically add hp to monsters sometimes, but not usually beyond their possible range, when the PCs are having a very easy time of it. I don't think I've ever fudged up their rolls to "make it close" (again, these are mostly in public anyway).
On the other side of the coin I have taken away hp when things are going badly and have avoided using (or reusing) monster abilities if it would mean whipping the PCs soundly. I like to give them a run for their money but don't like to bust them up too much...it's a game about heroes anyway, and heroes should prevail (most of the time).
M
|
However, I don't shy away from killing PC's, and I don't entirely understand why some DM's do. If the PC's want to live, they will make smart decisions and approach situations carefully - and when they do this, they almost invariably DO live. If they are allowed to act in a carefree manner with their preparations and actions, they will be less invested in their characters, which hurts the game for everyone. Besides, it's really tough to KILL a PC.
QFT.
Despite my players thinking I'm an evil tricksy bastard, despite running half of AoW, which has a reputation for being harsh, I've only killed one PC, and that was to an altered BBEG. (And even then, I kept exactly the same nominal CRs, I just swapped some levels and made more sensible choices of feats, equipment and spells from the same sources the players were using.)
I've had them all in the negatives dozens of times, I've had them possessed, I've had them working for the Mind Flayer Underground, I've had them stripped of all their gear, I've had their reputations dragged through the mud, I've had their heads on the chopping block, I've had them strapped into mind-draining machines, I've forced them to fireball each other and stab each other in the neck to save themselves from brain-eating worms.
But I've only killed one PC.
Why?
Because they are THAT hard, and they work together as a team.
And they come back every week for more.
Previous campaigns, for other groups, I've been dragging the corpses off by the cartload.
Why?
Because the players were squabbling little s@*$s, who kept grudges from unrelated games, didn't listen to the clues, stole off each other, withheld aid, pretended not to notice allies in trouble, 'forgot' their capabilities, and as a result were picked off one after the other.
The current group don't need me to fudge.
The earlier groups didn't deserve it.
If the results are going to be the same then why should the DM waste the time to build/rebuild NPC's?Ideally, fudging AGAINST players never happens.
If the adventure wasn't tooled for optimized adventurers, retool it. Fudging against players is just mean.
Personally, I don't think I'd enjoy it very much, myself. If I'm going to dictate what the dice say after I roll them, I don't really need to roll them. It becomes a narrative exercise, in which case, it'd be easier to just write a book.
That, and the results may not be the same. If you're always fudging, is anyone going to ever die? If so, who do you chose to die? I hate TPKs, and will fudge against one if the party doesn't deserve it, but I don't like fudging just to save one or two PCs.
I dont like fudging myself, but point was why waste the time to rebuild an NPC to manufacture an artificial result when I can fudge, and just save time. A fight against a lower level opponent to ensure I win, and a fight fudged to make sure I win are pretty much the same.
Personally I despise fudging so incredibly much. I feel this way because fudging negates PC choice.
I recently had a circumstance where my players were up against a suggestion that would ultimately end up fatal to the PCs. Three out of four rolled natural ones. The fourth saved but was least able to do anything about the circumstance or really even survive to carry the story forward.
All he needed was one round to maybe get away, buy some breathing room and consider his options. Unfortunately his initiative roll was crap and the monster's wasn't.
So. What? Charge? Pounce, rend, shred, tear, swallow whole?
No. The monster rolled its attack low. Enough to hit, but only by two or three.
I fudged. I described how the thing barely missed and how the PC knew the odds of surviving another attack - let alone a full attack - was slim to none.
He obtained a wand of invisibility and used it defensively. The concentration check was HIS last chance. Nothing I could do for the roll. But at least the player got his chance.
My point is that sometimes fudging is about giving that choice you covet. To walk away from six months of party development because of a statistical freak set of rolls... no thanks.
He obtained a wand of invisibility and used it defensively. The concentration check was HIS last chance. Nothing I could do for the roll. But at least the player got his chance.
I'm sorry, I'm so sorry.
Wands never provoke attacks of opportunity and, vis a vis, never need to be cast defensively.
|
|
The big key is they can never know dice were fudged. If they did, it would forever tarnish their crowning moment of awesome.
Exactly. We were in a campaign recently and it was late in the evening, and the final BBEG and his minions were in front of us. We had a pretty good layout, and were going to get a surprise round. One of the other players noticed the GM scratching out the 250 HP that BBEG had and rewriting it as 150. She had a fit....
"NO NO NO, keep it the way it was written, we will either triumph or fail, and either way we want it to be how it was meant to be."
I agreed with her, we didnt want to cheapen the rough combat. And rough it was...
but it made the success that much sweeter. Yeah, we ended up playing about 45 minutes over our normal quit time, but it was EPIC.
I still have my doubts about some of the BBEGs dice rolls, but that was only because we caught the GM fudging his HP.
|
Thanks everyone for your input. While DM fudging still brings a shiver up my spine, I now can see that there are some uses that aren't so bad (ie. to avoid bad luck that comes out of nowhere or to instill a certain effect to your players). I am also glad even though there are different opinions, everyone manages to stay civil throughout this discussion. Feel free to continue this thread. Hope to see you all in another discussion!
Most of the time I either fudge to keep PCs alive or just for the sake of convenience. Two examples.
A couple of weeks ago my party's rogue got ambushed by two thieves. One thief rolled a 19 + backstab damage with his crossbow and the other got a natural 20 + backstab damage. This would have just killed him outright, derailed my storyline, and pissed him off. So if the dice conspire against the PCs from time to time I bend the rules a bit.
Last session my PCs were assaulting a complex of hobgoblins. They had a detailed sysem of watches and the PCs did very well planning their attack. The sorceror was instructed to cast "sleep," on two guards. When I rolled their saves one of them succeeded. Rather than go into combat, and since the Hobgoblin could not easily have gone for help, I just ruled that he failed his save anyway.
As a player, I prefer the DM not fudge even if it is for me. If my character is going to die due to those three natural 20s the greataxe wielding giant just rolled, so be it. I do get attached to characters, but I generally have another concept I'm excited about playing on the back burner anyway.
As a DM, (at least when I regularly DMed, which I don't anymore) I rolled dice behind a screen, but that's cause my players would soon know the monster's exact attack bonus, saves, etc if I didn't.
You know, I've already got a map of the dungeon in front of me, and everybody's stats and motivations. I'm playing this game, too, people! Do I really /have/ to know that this fight is going to be about that long, or that, barring MY pronouncement of 'player stupidity,' you're all going to be pretty much ok in the end? I personally find 'randomizers' ideal for determining random results. It's not my job to judge your actions "stupid" and punish (or at least fail to coddle) you. It's not my job to decide how long a fight should be.
This isn't a piece of bad fan fiction, this is a game of discovery, and I'm playing it, too! Having to improv a good story out of some wonky dice is the only real sense of discovery I get, no?
(And if I've ever altered a die roll [or a subsystem, or where the enemies are, or a sizable chunk of the dungeon] on the fly, I'd never tell you. It seems unworthy to brag about my supposed kung-fu at the expense of altering your perception of reality. People play this game differently when they think physics, for example, has an agenda.)
|
|
Why do I fudge? Well I certainly don't. Most of the time; it's entirely circumstantial really.
If I'm running a one-shot vicious combat-heavy dungeon/castle/country raid I keep it on the up and up, I will not fudge a single die. And if you get double-critical loving from Smograt the Warlord's Orcish Double-Axe, well, get ready to feel the thunder and the lightning; oh yeah baby it burns so good; HEADSHOT!!!; etcetera.
If I'm running a campaign that's all about the heroism and reviving that classic D&D feeling, complete with help from a book like Classic Treasures Revisited (like say the Kingmaker campaign, like I've been running in the recent past), I might allow myself the indulgence of not ingloriously tearing a player character (and ostensibly: a future king) throat out with a Kobold spear.
tl;dr - Depends on the mood/feel/goal of the game.
I dont think fudging is inherently bad, but it depends on your group. Some groups expect to win, and other are disappointed if you help them, and would rather TPK than be given a victory.
Dont get me wrong. My fights are tough and PCs can and do die in my campaigns, I would rather they die in a memorable way though instead of just a lucky shot.
I'm sorry, I'm so sorry.
Wands never provoke attacks of opportunity and, vis a vis, never need to be cast defensively.
Shrug. As it happens, it doesn't matter. The PC got away and we ended the session to think about things. That was when someone remembered the entire group had magic circle against evil up and were immune to suggestion.
Sometimes, it is all about setting up that one shining dramatic moment sometimes.
I usually roll behind the screen, but every now and then there is that one roll. Everyone at the table KNOWS that a players life hinges on this roll, the guy is a 1 HP, and can't take another hit. The BBEG just cast disintegrate at a guy, and the spell will likely kill him, etc. The BBEG is on the verge of winning, and the wizard just cast a spell in a last ditch effort to bring him down.
Either way, the DM needs to make one roll that is critical to the success or failure of the players. For those moments, I will announce to the players exactly what the bonus to the roll is, and I will throw the dice out where everyone can see.
The players never saw the 2 or 3 rolls I fudged to set that situation up, but they remember that one die roll out in the open for all to see.
The better you get as a DM, the less you will need to fudge rolls.
|
I will fudge rolls when it's my fault in the first place.
I threw a dragon that was quite a bit stronger than the party was. Since I gave them 42-pt buy, I figured they could handle it. Turns out to be the toughest fight so far.
The dragon breath should have- no, it DID kill the eladrin. I just told him he was unconscious and the rest of the party that he needed healing badly.
It wasn't the players fault he couldn't keep the healing up enough compared to the dragons damage. Or that he was the only PC without evasion in the blast. So rather than that player sitting the rest of the session out because of me, I fudged.
I fudged last session. Through no fault of her own, with a brand new first level tiefling rogue in my new campaign my girlfiend managed to get within 10 feet of a leopard, a CR 2. It nat 20'd its stealth, rolled high on perception and was spotted, and pounced her. The rest of the 4 man party was 80 feet away, too far away to help. And then I rolled nothing under a 15 on all five attacks. I did NOT know her hit points at the time, but dealing 1d6+3+4d3+12 seemed much, as that's a minimum of 20 damage, and she could take precisely 23, with her 12 Con. So I fudged. I only had 3 of the attacks hit, and they still took her to -10 out of -12. I have a policy of not insta-gibbing brand new characters, trying to at least give them a chance. If the party hadn't come after her, she would have died. (The paladin flat-out RAN and ignored the cat to get her a Potion of CLW the next round to keep her alive.) I would have done it for any PC in the group, but...it's the only reprieve I'll be handing her. After the one reprieve is up, it's up to the players. As my GF often says, 1st level characters are just so bloody fragile, and nothing sucks more than spending 4 weeks working out the character and their entire family line, only to be killed in the first session, without any opportunity to avoid the problem.
Shrug. As it happens, it doesn't matter. The PC got away and we ended the session to think about things. That was when someone remembered the entire group had magic circle against evil up and were immune to suggestion.I'm sorry, I'm so sorry.
Wands never provoke attacks of opportunity and, vis a vis, never need to be cast defensively.
We have all done that, at one point or another.
|
If the boss is supposed to be tough, he's going to be freaking tough, even if that means I strap 4 additional levels to him about 30 seconds before combat.I would like to point out that I do not consider RETOOLING the monsters fudging. My perception of fudging revolves around dice rolling. An example would be when the GM rolls a 2 and then hand waves the save. Or when the GM adds an additional +5 to the monster's save w/out retooling it.
Not sure if someone else said this, but it takes no extra time to fudge a few rolls. I personally spend more time prepping than playing and that's without retooling every encounter to be more balanced against an uber-PC.
I've played against DMs who wielded the rules like a blunt instrument and could TPK fair and square with no retooling. I personally don't want to slaughter my players and will usually only fudge something to keep things challenging or go easy on them.
The fact that so many people have agreed that if you do it you must keep it from your players should clue you in that its not kosher.
I have to agree, but then I'm a pretty open DM anyway. Still, if fudging is going to be allowed, I'd rather limit it (hero points mechanic) and make that a strategic PC resource, rather than a DM coddling mechanism. I have at least one player who threatened to quit immediately if I ever fudged the dice to keep his PC alive -- he views that as the DM treating him like a baby or something. To an extent, I agree, but I also understand the need for a hedge against stupid blind chance killing the entire game before it gets going -- thus the hero points.
|
|
It's one thing to design encounters with the party in mind (though that can get out of hand as well) so that you don't send a 1st level party against a huge dragon...
But you quickly enter into a place where the DM is telling his story rather than simply providing the setting for the players to tell theirs.
Unless your playing an a sand-box environment the story IS the DM's to tell and the players are the main characters. The story may be an Adventure Path or something the DM has made up, but make no mistake the telling is the job of the DM. Combat encounters that aren't somehow related to a greater story are nothing more than a skirmish level tactical boardgame.
A good example I have suffered was a new D&D DM who had us excited by a running battle through some caverns - it was edge of seat stuff and well executed by the DM. We prevailed, and were trying to rest as we were out of everything accept harsh language. Roll for random encounter, we got bats, fairly rolled as were there number. We all died, TPK. Fan-freak'n-astic, from elation and smiles and laughs to thinking the DM was crap in one random encounter. He knew we were not able to fight anything bigger than an angry flea. All he had to do was ignore the random encounter roll or the number of bats or the hp's the bats had. But, by the book, we died and the adventure and his DMing ended.
Fudging has its place, no rule-set can contain advice on when fudging is good or bad, that is up to the DM to decide based on the atmosphere of the players. In the example I gave above the heroes survived the story purpose menace only to be slain by flying mammals in a cave - not really the stuff of a Bards tale now is it.
S.
Personally, I don't find fudging to setup the ultimate cinematic moment, but fudging on the big dice roll that is going to decide the fate of the campaign just doesn't seem right to me. There are moments that you just have to let go and let the dice decide. Of course, I tend to like my games slightly more realistic, and always have ideas for new characters brimming in the back of my mind, so that may shape my perceptions. To me, the important thing is that the moment occurred, and I'll figure out how to deal with how it comes out.
|
Once upon a time I used to Fudge regularly (my very first game ended in a TPK due to a random encounter with a Tiger). Terrified of repeating the experience I removed random encounter tables from my game, and fudged in the players favour.
You know what I got?
Complaints that the game wasn't hard enough.
So I changed my philosophy, letting the dice roll where they may. The only fudging I ever do nowadays is throwing extra HP on monsters when my players are having fun with an encounter.
|
|
I'm curious as to whether any of you fudge in another way--by playing the monsters less competently than you could. If I have to pull my punches, I'll do it by having the bad guy make a weak tactical decision. Maybe he doesn't get as much out of his turn as he could, giving the PCs a chance to regain the upperhand. If my PCs notice it, they never complain.
I remember a classic night battle scene around a bonfire. My PCs had split up, all sneaking up on the battlefield from different sides. The BBEG was by the fire. Sadly, they didn't account for a few vrocks and found themselves in over their heads in a hurry. When the first fighter charged the BBEG, he arrived alone and was quickly dispatched. I decided to have the big boss be a little over confident and use his turn to demonstrate to his friends how much fun it was to hold the little guys over the fire until their heads pop. Taking him out for a turn provided a little gruesome humor and gave the PCs time to recover and make a new plan.
|
|
I'm curious as to whether any of you fudge in another way--by playing the monsters less competently than you could. If I have to pull my punches, I'll do it by having the bad guy make a weak tactical decision. Maybe he doesn't get as much out of his turn as he could, giving the PCs a chance to regain the upperhand. If my PCs notice it, they never complain.
I remember a classic night battle scene around a bonfire. My PCs had split up, all sneaking up on the battlefield from different sides. The BBEG was by the fire. Sadly, they didn't account for a few vrocks and found themselves in over their heads in a hurry. When the first fighter charged the BBEG, he arrived alone and was quickly dispatched. I decided to have the big boss be a little over confident and use his turn to demonstrate to his friends how much fun it was to hold the little guys over the fire until their heads pop. Taking him out for a turn provided a little gruesome humor and gave the PCs time to recover and make a new plan.
+1, great example of DM 'fudging' to turn an TPK into an interesting encounter.
|
|
You know what I got?
Complaints that the game wasn't hard enough.So I changed my philosophy, letting the dice roll where they may. The only fudging I ever do nowadays is throwing extra HP on monsters when my players are having fun with an encounter.
That is why DMing is an art rather than a science. For it to be a science we would have to have a Law of making encounter and not just Rules for it. Does any system for generating encounters work 100% of the time? Of course not, due to the random elements, including what the players do. DM's I venture should be like a self-tensioning belt, change for the conditions.
But this predicates on the purpose of an RPG be to tell an interactive story and not just being a series of connected small scale battles. I think that if I ran a game which was about testing the 'builds' of characters then I would most likely drop fudging as it would cheat the players of the experience they were after.
Adding HP's is good example of using fudging for the enhancement of the game, btw.
S.
Everybody I play with rolls in the open. Maybe it is because the deadly DM many of us met through always did. I don't know of anybody who made it through one of his AD&D campaigns without dying at least once.
I used to roll behind a screen, but I'd usually pull it up to expose natural 1's and 20's. Later I decided that rolling in the open so people could laugh at my rolls was better. After that I started rolling really well as DM. Clearly the dice gods smile upon open rolling.
One DM I know rolls everything in the open but sometimes tells the SoD caster that his spell didn't work. This was coming up for a while with Phantasmal Killer, and the player backed off using it on important monsters. Now the player whips it out mostly on mooks or to save the day when things are going wrong. I wouldn't handle it that way, but the DM got what he wanted.
The impact of fudging against a wizard, imho, is greater because some of her best weapons are save-or-die spells.
This might be a good point in the thread about direct damage spells being effective. It is easy for a DM to fudge saving throws, but if a monster lives through too much direct damage people will really start to notice. On the other hand, lots of DMs max out monster HP, which makes direct damage a little less effective (though DMs hellbent on keeping the monsters up and active seem more likely to fudge SoD too)
|
|
The better you get as a DM, the less you will need to fudge rolls.This.
I dont think fudging is inherently badI do.
I think that while the effects of some will go unnoticed, and perhaps not make enough of a ripple to ever matter. I do think it is inherently bad.
There is an agreement in my mind between the DM & the players that dice will determine outcomes of certain issues in this game. There is a trust between them that things unknown to the players may occur but that the DM is neutral in his position.
All of this creates an atmosphere of suspense without the tension of playing a game against another player. That makes for a fantastic game on many levels.
Fudging goes against that. The fact that so many people have agreed that if you do it you must keep it from your players should clue you in that its not kosher.
-James
There are so many different types of GM's as there are players. Each DM runs their games differently and some do fudge some of the rolls and some don't. They do not always tell the players it happens nor should they. If the players know that it happens, then yes it suspends belief. But on the other hand by fudging some DM's feel that it furthers the suspense and does not ALWAYS rely on the roll of a single die as so many have said here.
The fact that so many have said that you must keep it from your players means very little. If the players are rules lawyers then they would be upset because it does not follow the rules exactly as written. As a Role Player and not a rules lawyer type of player then the fudging of die rolls occasionally does follow the heart of the rules and implied that the DM is truly in control of the game and lets it pan out the way it needs to. It is up to the DM to make the game feel like it is dangerous and make the creatures faced during the game seem difficult but survivable.
If the DM does fudge the rolls then it should be in favor of the players and very very rarely in favor of the DM. The DM can change the stats of the creature as needed as well so the rolls should never be in favor or need to be for the DM for that reason. As many have said also one-shotting a player can be very anti-climatic and really does not serve very well on the furtherance of the game. Introducing new characters in to the game is not easy either. For this reason the Die Rolls should be done occasionally to avoid it... occasionally.
|
|
Why do I fudge? Well I certainly don't. Most of the time; it's entirely circumstantial really.
If I'm running a one-shot vicious combat-heavy dungeon/castle/country raid I keep it on the up and up, I will not fudge a single die. And if you get double-critical loving from Smograt the Warlord's Orcish Double-Axe, well, get ready to feel the thunder and the lightning; oh yeah baby it burns so good; HEADSHOT!!!; etcetera.
If I'm running a campaign that's all about the heroism and reviving that classic D&D feeling, complete with help from a book like Classic Treasures Revisited (like say the Kingmaker campaign, like I've been running in the recent past), I might allow myself the indulgence of not ingloriously tearing a player character (and ostensibly: a future king) throat out with a Kobold spear.
tl;dr - Depends on the mood/feel/goal of the game.
In this I agree!!!!
There are so many different types of GM's as there are players. Each DM runs their games differently and some do fudge some of the rolls and some don't. They do not always tell the players it happens nor should they. If the players know that it happens, then yes it suspends belief. But on the other hand by fudging some DM's feel that it furthers the suspense and does not ALWAYS rely on the roll of a single die as so many have said here.The fact that so many have said that you must keep it from your players means very little. If the players are rules lawyers then they would be upset because it does not follow the rules exactly as written. As a Role Player and not a rules lawyer type of player then the fudging of die rolls occasionally does follow the heart of the rules and implied that the DM is truly in control of the game and lets it pan out the way it needs to. It is up to the DM to make the game feel like it is dangerous and make the creatures faced during the game seem difficult but survivable.
If the DM does fudge the rolls then it should be in favor...
Very well said.
When I have fudged a roll in the past it has usually been to apply the 'I'll let you die, but I won't let you die cheaply and pointlessly' notion. To me, my agreement with players is that I will do my damnedest to make sure the game was a blast, the npcs and plots had depth and made you think, the combat was intense, everyone got enough spotlight, and no one wants their six (or so)hours back.
The trust factor (as I see it in any game I'm running), is about players knowing that I'm not out to 'win' or play against them. It never ceases to amaze me, the number of players that have been conditioned to have a completely adversarial relationship with a DM, or how hard it seems to be to shake that off. In my experience, that is where players seem to be coming from if they're concerned about fudging. It isn't that they think you might be fudging in general, but that you might be screwing them over.
I would be in the group that would never "fudge" and hate the idea of it. However I think it depends on what type of people you are playing with. The people I play with just don't take their characters or their character deaths very seriously so living or dieing is not the determining factor in fun. It's more of the social interactions, the story and the challenge. With this type of group why bother? Same goes for the adventure "bosses"
However if I were to be and were to play with people whose enjoyment would be seriously decreased due character death than I would take actions to ensure character deaths were very rare which includes "fudging rolls". The same would apply to making sure "boss challenges" were enjoyable.
Ultimately if you're not having fun what's the point of playing? Every single rule or tradition in that context is optional.
The better you get as a DM, the less you will need to fudge rolls.This.
I dont think fudging is inherently badI do.
I think that while the effects of some will go unnoticed, and perhaps not make enough of a ripple to ever matter. I do think it is inherently bad.
There is an agreement in my mind between the DM & the players that dice will determine outcomes of certain issues in this game. There is a trust between them that things unknown to the players may occur but that the DM is neutral in his position.
All of this creates an atmosphere of suspense without the tension of playing a game against another player. That makes for a fantastic game on many levels.
Fudging goes against that. The fact that so many people have agreed that if you do it you must keep it from your players should clue you in that its not kosher.
-James
The point of the game is to have fun, and hope the players succeed. Another part of the game, IMHO is to challenge the players. Fudging can help ensure both. Most players I have played with can figure it out sometimes, that you are fudging, sometimes(depending) on the players they accept, and other times not. To me in order for something to be inherently good or bad means it is almost always universal true. Fudging being good or bad is situational. You have to judge the situation and the group.
When it comes to fudging, qualifiers abound.
I can't say "I hate it" or that "I love it". It can be a tool, and tools can be used for good or ill.
When it's a "soft" issue, such as when I want a PC to make a perception check behind my screen. I might want to *move along* a story, or introduce a subplot, fudging might be required. In this case, some shread of good is coming of it.
If a fudged result might increase the fun / excitement factor of the game, why should a Ref neuter himself and not use it as a tool?
Or as others have pointed out, if a fudge is needed to correct a mistake I made as a Ref, is it so bad?
When it's a life and death struggle and the PC is fighting for his life, I'll not fudge... and almost always roll in front of the players, assuming I didn't make a mistake. This also applies to anything I view as a "hard" issue - where full transparency is in order.
Hard issue vs. soft issue. Tool for good vs. Tool for ill.
---
With regard to keeping something from players, this does not make it innately "bad". I keep information player X knows from player Y. I keep my monster stats secret from everyone. I keep rolls secret from people, at times. I keep my adventure notes secret from everyone. Nobody would ever claim these things are innately bad.
It's about being discrete, and sensitive to how your players might react to info.
I like fudging to keep fun, pacing, and excitement at good levels. Sometimes a monster hits more than my players would expect, sometimes things work out just perfectly for them. However, I make sure not to pull any punches when it comes to "bosses" and the big battles. I actually do away with my screen at that point and roll in the open. No lies between my players and I when the gloves are off.
|
|
Here's an interesting question: what happens when someone rolls in the open and the dice are patently unfair?
I've known a player many years who as a DM and a PC has a perversely high average for rolling 20's, regardless of the dice used. I'm sure other people have similar stories of luck so good or bad it defies chance. Anyone who uses Maptool or something with online number generation has likely encountered this phenomenon far more often.
Players who want the dice in the open should discuss it with their DMs, since I'm sure it's not a big deal for most campaigns to add a house rule. Personally, I like having it as a tool in my arsenal because I make mistakes that my monsters and players don't. Particularly if it's round ten of an epic combat and I'm too tired to remember which spells are left on my list or I overlook who's threatening what. And then there are the dice...sometimes the dice are just mean.
Here's an interesting question: what happens when someone rolls in the open and the dice are patently unfair?
I've known a player many years who as a DM and a PC has a perversely high average for rolling 20's, regardless of the dice used. I'm sure other people have similar stories of luck so good or bad it defies chance. Anyone who uses Maptool or something with online number generation has likely encountered this phenomenon far more often.
Players who want the dice in the open should discuss it with their DMs, since I'm sure it's not a big deal for most campaigns to add a house rule. Personally, I like having it as a tool in my arsenal because I make mistakes that my monsters and players don't. Particularly if it's round ten of an epic combat and I'm too tired to remember which spells are left on my list or I overlook who's threatening what. And then there are the dice...sometimes the dice are just mean.
You can also fudge the bonuses. There are spells and other effects in play that maybe the players don't know about. Throw in some circumstance penalties, suddenly that tiger has a +3 to hit instead of a +6.