In 3ed Seafarer's Handbook by Fantasy Flight had a feat called Fool's Luck. The player could 1/day, make up a cool sounding outcome and with the GM's approval could ignore a failed roll.
In 3ed Seafarer's Handbook by Fantasy Flight had a feat called Fool's Luck. The player could 1/day, make up a cool sounding outcome and with the GM's approval could ignore a failed roll.
Similar to what I do with hero points, then, except it's 1/day vs. awarded when they do something cool and then gone forever once used.
|
It is funny. I never fudge dice roll and I don't use a DM screen because my players always accused me of cheating them because the monsters rolled too well.
I have had this happen several times where I was just on a tear with the dice rolls one night and rolled eight natural 20's in one night. After the sixth call of cheater and much grumbling by the players I took my screen away and have never looked back.
They were all aghast at the die rolls and complained about how many 20's came up but oh well. They couldn't complain when I rolled a natural 20 back to back to back because they saw it. They weren't happy because they were great axe crits but oh well...
I enjoy the drama of rolling the dice in the open now and I don't fudge pc rolls to help them. They may think it is tough but it is always fair and I think it makes my players better tacticians because they know that if they don't think things through they may get squashed by the uncaring dice gods during a game and that is the way it should be IMHO.
Also, have you seen the PDF 'Raising the Stakes'? It offers rules for allowing the player to choose when his character is at risk of dying. Basically you are immune to death, unless you tell the DM you want to bet your life on the outcome. You get benefits for the risk, but your character can die if it goes bad. Similar to your SW story. You can replicate the normal rules by always declaring you are raising the stakes. Probably unnecessary for your games but still a good read.
Awesome !!! I like this mechanics... Though I'm not going to use "players roll all the dice" (they are lazy, and will go all out on me if I let them do all the work :p )
But this is the mechanic I was looking for to reward them for some good move, I think it's better than arbitrary bonus coming from me when they try to do this kind of stuff...
And for the arguers, my players are having fun and so am I: am I doing it right or wrong?Many people use this as the only yard stick. And that's well and good for what its worth. Yet there is a bit that is missed here.
If you have a chess board and pieces and are happily playing with your friend. Are you playing it wrong if you're in reality playing checkers?
Imho while you are not WRONG in the sense that you're having fun playing a game, I don't think that the game is chess, rather in this case it's checkers as you 'jump' your pieces and get your bishop 'kinged' etc.
In the same instance I think that there is a purely random and most importantly, neutral, element to D&D. It removes itself from works of fiction in that you don't have an author driving a plot. Rather there is a freedom of choice that is weighed on a model of physics that's based on random chance. To me that is a fundamental part of the basis of the game.
Are diceless games WRONG? No. There's nothing wrong with them, or anything in between the two. I just don't see them as the same things, much like playing checkers with a chess set. There's nothing wrong with checkers- it's a great game and many times I'll prefer it to chess. But if someone asks me to play chess with them then I expect chess rather than checkers.
In my mind fudging is cheating. It is either done in secret which is deceiving the others playing the game which I find abhorrent, or it is done out in the open which to me is like cheating at solitaire. Pleasurable for some, but defeats the purpose for me.
To each their own, but I, like many, would rather avoid those that are doing so.
-James
There is a vast difference between chess, a beautiful, elegant and simple game with immutable rules that have gone basically unchanged for centuries, and D&D/PF, a sprawling, chaotic, incredibly flexible role-playing game system with a set of rules that by explicit design are meant to be guidelines rather than straightjackets. It comes down to Rule Zero. Many people like to pretend it doesn't exist, but it has always been a part of the D&D line of games. The statement of it is weaker in PF than it has been in other editions, but the core of it is still there. That core is that all the rules are mutable, and individual groups are free to build their worlds, run their games and tell their stories in wildly different ways. That one simple design feature means that any particular PF game could have a very different feel to it in relation to any other. In my opinion it is the greatest strength of the game. It vastly expands the market by making many different types of games possible using the same system. Thus it is possible to have RAW-driven, let the dice fall where they may games right next door to houseruled up the yin-yang games in which dice are rarely even rolled. A game for everyone and fun had by all. As you say, to each his own, and may it always be that way.
There is a vast difference between chess, a beautiful, elegant and simple game with immutable rules that have gone basically unchanged for centuries, and D&D/PF, a sprawling, chaotic, incredibly flexible role-playing game system with a set of rules that by explicit design are meant to be guidelines rather than straightjackets. It comes down to Rule Zero. Many people like to pretend it doesn't exist, but it has always been a part of the D&D line of games. The statement of it is weaker in PF than it has been in other editions, but the core of it is still there. That core is that all the rules are mutable, and individual groups are free to build their worlds, run their games and tell their stories in wildly different ways. That one simple design feature means that any particular PF game could have a very different feel to it in relation to any other. In my opinion it is the greatest strength of the game. It vastly expands the market by making many different types of games possible using the same system. Thus it is possible to have RAW-driven, let the dice fall where they may games right next door to houseruled up the yin-yang games in which dice are rarely even rolled. A game for everyone and fun had by all. As you say, to each his own, and may it always be that way.
A couple of thoughts.
(1) Merely because one can change a thing, doesn't not mean that one should change it, or that they change is a good thing.(2) Changes made in open view, such as informing players that of house-rules about races during character creation stages, are much different than changes rules in secret and not informing others.
EDIT: Also I don't think anyone is arguing against house-rules in this thread. To continue with the chess analogy. It is more like saying if two players get ready to play chess, that they decide before the game starts to have knights move 2-3 instead of 1-2. Now compare that to a player who decides to change the rules in the middle of the game to 2-3 for knights and when called on it says, "It is my board and pieces and house. If you don't like my decision for keeping the game interesting, then you don't need to play." One is an example of house-rules, the other is something else. I prefer to play in the former and not the latter type of games myself, IMO of course.
There is alot of one true wayism going on in this thread which generally results in extreme positions and talking past each other.
The truth of the matter is that GM fudging is heavily governed by the expectations of the group and the DM/Player social contract. In some groups the expectation is that cooperative storytelling and joint narrative control are paramount. Others want a beer & pretzels game where everyone has fun and nothing is really taken seriously. Some other groups like the level playing field and the challenge of bushwhacking whatever the GM is throwing at them.
There isn't even a clear dividing line among play styles. For some immersion heavy groups the DM modifying the result in order to prolong drama can be seen as a net positive (even if it's something clearly not covered in the rules such as BBEG will last x number of rounds, deliver his big gloating speech, the PCs will discover a mcguffin that powers his immunity, he goes down like a chump). This sort of narrative is very much in keeping with some readings of the genre but many FRPG rulesets don't support it.
Other immersion heavy gamers don't like the narrative control being monopolized by the GM. They don't mind the NPCs "cheating" so much as they mind that it's being done below the board and is done by GM Fiat. They want joint narrative control and if the DM can "cheat" in order to improve the narrative, they expect the ability to do the same.
Systems like M&M (which while it has some mechanical issues is pretty fun from a narrative perspective) that codify a subsystem that allows the PCs and NPCs to selectively cheat the dice are a good solution. It still gives the GM enough narrative control to prevent his plotline from imploding while it gives the Players the ability to assert creative control over the outcome of the game.
All around it's a win - win scenario, it's just a matter of deciding where the group's trust/control issues are and negotiating a happy compromise between absolute GM control and absolute player control.
There is a vast difference between chess, a beautiful, elegant and simple game with immutable rules that have gone basically unchanged for centuries, and D&D/PF, a sprawling, chaotic, incredibly flexible role-playing game system with a set of rules that by explicit design are meant to be guidelines rather than straightjackets. It comes down to Rule Zero. Many people like to pretend it doesn't exist, but it has always been a part of the D&D line of games. The statement of it is weaker in PF than it has been in other editions, but the core of it is still there. That core is that all the rules are mutable, and individual groups are free to build their worlds, run their games and tell their stories in wildly different ways. That one simple design feature means that any particular PF game could have a very different feel to it in relation to any other. In my opinion it is the greatest strength of the game. It vastly expands the market by making many different types of games possible using the same system. Thus it is possible to have RAW-driven, let the dice fall where they may games right next door to houseruled up the yin-yang games in which dice are rarely even rolled. A game for everyone and fun had by all. As you say, to each his own, and may it always be that way.A couple of thoughts.
(1) Merely because one can change a thing, doesn't not mean that one should change it, or that they change is a good thing.(2) Changes made in open view, such as informing players that of house-rules about races during character creation stages, are much different than changes rules in secret and not informing others.
I agree completely with both your points. I was only making the point on can, which is factual and objective, rather than on should, which is purely subjective. Houserules, to the extent possible, should be discussed and agreed to ahead of time. Occasionally, creative players will come up with something that just isn't covered by the rules, or for which the existing rules just don't work. In those cases, the DM has to make a ruling on the spot, but that should be the outlier, not the norm, and there should still be some discussion/buy-in, perhaps after the game session.
I have it hosted here.
But not for much longer...
What about occasions where a players does something, which would normally require a save or something from the monster, but the DM knows the monster is immune to whatever it is.
Option 1: the DM says nothing happens. The players knows the monster is immune.
Option 2: the DM rolls a dice, and then says nothing happens. The player is unaware of the immunity.
In option 2, is the DM cheating/lying/fudging?
Fudging in this case is the way in which the player could be misled into thinking he had a chance at success when in fact he didn't, therefore it could be seen as 'reverse-fudging' but you get the idea.
Or is it something else?
Occasionally, creative players will come up with something that just isn't covered by the rules, or for which the existing rules just don't work. In those cases, the DM has to make a ruling on the spot, but that should be the outlier, not the norm, and there should still be some discussion/buy-in, perhaps after the game session.
"Each problem that I solved became a rule, which served afterwards to solve other problems." -René Descartes
|
But not for much longer...
I have it hosted here.
Don't remind me. :( All my links will go dead next year. Is frustrating.
|
I come from a White Wolf background so my opinions of this are clouded that way. I see three reasons why you would fudge rolls:
1) For Dramatic Stories:
If it makes the game experience funner without unbalancing that game I'll almost always give it a try. I do this a lot in Exalted, not so much in Pathfinder. I enjoy the randomness of D&D and like to let the rolls stand for good or bad. At the end if a roll I make would make my player base very very unhappy I'll fudge it.
2) For Unbalanced CR:
Sometimes your miscalculate your players strengths or that of the monsters. When this happens you have to fudge the rolls to help the PCs survive or make the battle more challenging. This is the one that is most avoidable, but it will happen even to the most prepared DM every once and a while.
3) For Cheaters:
I have a very good friend who is the worst cheat in role-playing games I've ever known. It's not just that he cheats, which he does frequently, but he does a horrible job of covering it up. He once "rolled" 6 straight natural 20. He once got a check total of 28 even though the highest he could get on that roll was 22. I know that players fudge a roll here or there but he's being ridicules. I know that if I confront he it will turn into a very bad argument, so if I know he's been cheating I fudge the rolls so that his opponents always roll enough to beat him.
|
|
Wouldn't retooling the monsters so they wouldn't get slaughtered by the overpowered PCs be a better option? I understand that would take more time for the GMs. Is fudging the preferred shortcut?
That isn't always possible, especially 10 seconds before the fight or even during it. a good DM/GM/Storyteller rolls with the punches and fudging dice is one of their tools.
The problem is that cheating implies that Tabletop RPGs have winners or losers. While plenty of people treat RPGs this way the goal isn't to have some people win and some people lose or the DM win and players lose but to have a fun time playing a game.
For some people the idea that the monsters are playing by a different set of rules than they are is a total deal breaker. If the DM is using outright fudging or is using some sort of unofficial villain plot immunity ability (codified or not) they feel like they are being lied to and cheated by the system.
Other people feel like there is absolutely no reason why the PCs and NPCs need to use the same rules (the 4e solution). NPCs do not exist as independent creatures, they do not adhere to the same rules as the PCs, they are solely there to provide a narrative and gamist challenge to the PCs. Honestly in a game like 4e if a campaign ending NPC had some sort of Final Fantasy inspired beatdown 3 separate forms plus temporary immunity to magical and/or physical damage that would not bother me one bit. I'd understand what the creature is designed to do (be an epic end of campaign climax) and I'd enjoy the story.
So while I personally prefer openness and transparency when I play most variants of D&D there are circumstances where I really don't mind the NPCs breaking all sorts of "rules" in order to maximize the enjoyment of the game.
In short:
"Is fudging cheating? Maybe."
"Is fudging bad? Maybe."
"Can fudging improve games? Maybe."
"Will fudging ruin games? Maybe."
"Are conversations on the internet plagued with moral absolutism? Absolutely."
|
|
We roll all dice out in the open. We all usually know what a successful roll is (but not always). We let the dice fall where they may. My experience has led me to conclude that player's can usually figure out when you loose your nerve behind the screen.
We want to earn our victories. We want it to be "close" when the dice say it will be. We also want fate to speak out when it must!
We do not want the playing field leveled, because we believe that there is nothing worse than someone handicapping our fun:)
Regards,
Bruce
But if your dead you won't have a victories. I find living more important to my players than earning their victories. Granted if they feel like the GM is holding their hands through every encounter they'll get mad too. You need to balance the two for a fun game experience.
Lots of stuff culminating with the rejectuon of the different strokes for different folks argument and saying fudging is morally wrong because it is cheating, then going on to grouch a bit about kids these days.
The fact that you think, despite a huge number of excellent posts arguing the issue both ways, that you think this is a simple issue for which there is a single true answer probably says more about your own individual perspective than it does about the complexity of the issue.
Equating DM fudging with cheating and saying it is morally wrong is an extreme expression of your viewpoint. I generally reserve labelling something as morally wrong for things that happen in real life, rather than in games. Games are a leisure activity, and role-playing games are a cooperative group experience. So long as the group agrees to play a certain way, what right have any of us to sit on the outside and judge the way they play?
Just curious, how old are you? I'm 45 myself, and have been playing D&D/PF since 1978. There are some gamers out there older than me, with longer experience, but not a lot. From that perspective, I have to say kids and gamers these days are no more or less morally deficient than their elders. Fudging has been in many D&D/PF games since the beginning. Every generation in the history of the world has always decried the moral decline of the generation following it, and said that it would lead the world into ruin. While it's true that we now have internet porn and legal gambling in virtually every state and city, we also no longer have slavery, women can vote, and African-Americans can use the same water fountain as white folks (and be president). So it kind of looks like all a wash morally to me.
|
This makes me feel old to say this especially since I am quite certain there are plenty here older than I am, but where are the morals these days? Back in my day, kids grew up with a decent moral upbringing. Some of them ignored that and did those things anyways, but there was never any question that things like cheating were wrong. And for the most part you could trust people to be fine upstanding gentlemen and women.
I am fascinated by the idea that fudging is the same as cheating.
Earlier in this thread you wrote a fair bit about honesty.
Do you really think that this is a moral decision?
|
|
I am fully aware that it is a PC vs the "world" and not PC vs DM. I do not Fudge as the VTT I use rolls in the open and I have no need to fudge. I do not see how it destroys a game. The player can roll up a new character, resurrect, raise dead... and I figure out a way to include the new character or the PC becomes a Bugbear or some such. The player knows that death is a real threat and has signed up for this. If they don't want to play this type of game, then we can change to a fudge style play or the player can move on.
Take it from a guy who kills a lot of his player's characters, it hurts the game when that happens. Newer characters often have a hard to integrating into the group or your in a bad place in the story to introduce new characters. Character death happens, but the longer I've been running games the more I've been noticing that having to get into a game midway is by far the least optimal way to introduce a new PC character. I've found that my players don't "try" as hard when making a new character after they lost a character that were attached to.
|
|
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.
Very cool idea, though at that point you can chose a HP number, say 28, and decide which blow that deals damage around 28 is the killing one.
|
|
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.
Word! Someone mentioned that fudging takes away the realism from the game but the example you just said proves that it's just a game that is ruled by the whims of chance.
|
|
Do you really think that this is a moral decision?
Sorry, I know this question wasn't directed toward me, but my answer is yes. Here's why:
Rolling a die and then reporting a result that's different from what's actually showing on the face of the die is (by every definition I've ever been given) called lying. You can color it any way you want to, spin it every which way, but looking down at a number and then looking someone else in the eye and saying that it's a different number is lying. The fact that they may or may not ever know about the lie does not seem to me to be relevent to the discussion. Again, I'm being blunt with my language, so if you'd prefer to call it 'telling a mistruth' 'deliberate misdirection' or some other friendlier term, please do; for my part, I'm calling it lying.
Telling the truth vs. lying is a widely accepted moral dilemma. Thus, whether or not to fudge die rolls is a moral dilemma.
Unless, of course, you say to the player, "Well, the BBEG rolled a 1 on his save vs Charm Person, but I don't want this encounter to be done yet, so I'm ruling that he rolled a 10, so he barely passes." THAT type of fudging has nothing to do with ethics.
Again, I mean no flagrant disrespect to anyone. Please judge my post by it's veracity as opposed to how it makes you feel. If anyone finds that they want to respond in anger, I beg of you to take a second and ask yourself why that is, first.
And by all means, if you don't call looking down at a number and then looking a friend in the eye and telling them that it's a different number lying, please let me know what you do call it.
I don't fudge dice, 'cause where I come from its synonymous with cheating. Many times I will use GM screens for keeping notes, charts, or whatever but not to cheat. I've spent entire games where I've rolled dice out in the open; and even with my screen if I roll a particularly important roll, I will roll it and lift the screen to show the result (such as if an NPC gets a critical hit, or rolls a 1 on a save) to improved player/GM trust.
Considering I don't throw single high CR (relative to the party) monsters at my groups, combat is far less hit or miss (no pun intended). I can get downright mean with my encounters (such as using potions, wands, tactics, alchemical items, aid-another, terrain, advanced HD, etc) but it's very rare that a character dies. Generally a character dies when they do something stupid (like run into a group of enlarged orcs wielding glaives, which ends up being somewhere around 8d8+24 damage worth of potential AoOs).
The wonderful thing is, my players love it. They've also learned to not do stupid things (like the aforementioned orcs), and they'll take a lot of enemies and encounters seriously.
If you find yourself fudging a lot, you might want to reflect on yourself, because it probably means you're not doing a good job GMing (or at least building legitimately interesting encounters).
I've GMed for this game since 3E came out, and I've only found that cheating the dice (fudging) cheats you and your players.
Lots of stuff about the moral dilemna of lying.
I agree that whether lying is always wrong or not is a moral issue. It is not, however, one on which reasonable people may not disagree. People I respect hold that it is always wrong. Other people I respect see no problem with the occasional "white" lie in a good cause. Examples range from the comical do you answer your wife/significant other when she asks if her dress makes her butt look big, to much more serious cases such as would someone be justified in lying to save another's life. It's not a simple question, and far greater minds than I have debated the issue for years. As with most philosophical issues, no definitive and universally accepted answer is expected any time soon.
Fortunately, we aren't talking about real life. We're talking about a game and the consequences of these lies, or fudges, or whatever you want to call them are largely confined to the game, unless you allow it to undermine the out of game relationship between the DM and players. So let's keep it a little lighter, OK?
|
|
I never say the number. I just say he misses. It would only be a lie if they ask me if it should have hit and I say no.
Well OK, but c'mon now. Saying that an attack misses means by definition that the die roll falls within a certain range (specifically, the range within which the monster would 'miss'). If the die on the table in front of you isn't within that range and you still say the attack misses, that smells like a lie to me.
|
|
Lots of stuff about the moral dilemna of lying.I agree that whether lying is always wrong or not is a moral issue. It is not, however, one on which reasonable people may not disagree. People I respect hold that it is always wrong. Other people I respect see no problem with the occasional "white" lie in a good cause. Examples range from the comical do you answer your wife/significant other when she asks if her dress makes her butt look big, to much more serious cases such as would someone be justified in lying to save another's life. It's not a simple question, and far greater minds than I have debated the issue for years. As with most philosophical issues, no definitive and universally accepted answer is expected any time soon.
Fortunately, we aren't talking about real life. We're talking about a game and the consequences of these lies, or fudges, or whatever you want to call them are largely confined to the game, unless you allow it to undermine the out of game relationship between the DM and players. So let's keep it a little lighter, OK?
Now this is a totally understandable response - is lying categorically wrong, or not? Some may say yes, others say no, which is why this thread exists - a great point, and one that's hopefully understood by everyone participating.
As far as keeping the discussion light, the subject veered to morality, which is not a light matter because of it's application outside the field of gaming. Within the field of gaming, EVERYTHING is a light subject, I mean obviously we're not talking about corporate fraud or anything here. Morality, though, is a far-reaching thing.
|
|
Correct, but there are those who see D&D/PF as an interactive story. I DM narrative style games but in no way do I reduce the players options during the game.
I'm sorry, I just don't care for it. I see it as dishonest and abusing your players' trust on one side, and narrative gaming on the other. Either way I don't care for it and see it as a bad thing (at least for me).A question here.. why do you use dice in your games? What's the purpose to using them? Wouldn't it be easier if a lot of the rules surrounding the dice and the actual dice didn't need to be there?
And to the other poster, what would I do if some of the players wanted me to run a game where I would make sure that if I rolled a 20 that I could say 'miss' if it would kill their character? I would have to talk with the entire group about what they expected out of the game.
But seeing as for many people this issue needs to be based on the DM doing this surreptitiously with the assumption that the players believe that he is not fudging.. I find it a dishonest practice.
Now if after something bad happened to the party of PCs if a player brings up 'why didn't I ignore the roll and just make up something so that they lived' then I'd certainly talk with the group on what they wanted.
I tend to believe in a lassiaz-faire style of DMing. I don't normally think of NPCs as a BBEG or the like, nor do I mandate that certain encounters be epicly hard and others trivially easy. Rather I might design them in such a way that I recognize that one of those is likely, but if luck or player choice comes around and changes one to the other so be it. But instead of making an encounter being the climax of challenge (or warm up to such) I put in what is reasonable to the situation.
I don't think fudging has a place. If it is done in secret I find it dishonest. If it is done out in the open, then why are we using dice? To save the DM work to choose, but rather just have him as a veto? At...
If I wanted to play a game like that I would just play a rpg video game like Elder Scrolls. The reason I like table top rpgs is the human element. The GM doesn't have to follow the set rules when the rules impeded having fun and the players can take a game in a direction that the rules might not let you. I feel it gives you the greatest choice.
|
|
I never say the number. I just say he misses. It would only be a lie if they ask me if it should have hit and I say no.Well OK, but c'mon now. Saying that an attack misses means by definition that the die roll falls within a certain range (specifically, the range within which the monster would 'miss'). If the die on the table in front of you isn't within that range and you still say the attack misses, that smells like a lie to me.
It's semantics, but I have not said anything untrue. I said the attack missed, which it did. (Yay tautology!) It should have hit, but I changed the outcome. If there should have been an Orc in the room and I choose not to use that encounter, am I lying when I say the room is empty?
Game or no game, those are still people sitting around the table with you. Likely, those people are even your friends. Cheating and lying is wrong. You can do it anyways, but you can't portray it as the right thing to do. Not to yourself, and not to anyone else. And when you do something wrong, that's who you have to live with. Yourself, and anyone else in your life.
I think I'll just cherry-pick this part to respond to, and refer you to my response to Jeremiziah slightly upthread for more on the general moral issue of lying, which is hardly as cut and dried as you make it out to be. First of all, the people at my table are friends and family. Second, they all know that I and at least one of our other DMs occasionally fudge die rolls or bend rules to make the game more entertaining. I don't consider it cheating, as I consider it part of a DM's charter to do what is necessary to ensure an enjoyable game for all. I do portray it as the right thing to do FOR MY GROUP, which understands and approves of the practice, to both myself and to others. I live with myself quite well, thank you, as do those around me. None of us lose any sleep over it.
It is curious to me how most of the anti-fudging crowd seem to have the inherent assumption that the DM will use his dicretionary power to change the result of rolls in ways that will hurt the party. In contrast, most of those who admit to fudging the rolls have said they do so only in specific circumstances, in ways that are beneficial to the party and/or the game. I wonder if bad experiences with individual DMs colors a lot of this debate.
You know what? I roll in the open. I use hero points to allow players limited fudging ability. If we get caught up in the moment and the momentum would be lost by a particularly egregious set of rolls, we might all have a unanimous "it landed on the floor! Reroll it!" moment. That's all fudging in one way or another, and it's all fudging that's okay with me -- because it's all open and transparent.
Me secretively fudging things isn't okay with me. It implies that I think I automatically know better than 4-6 other people (some of whom have been playing as long as I have) what's best for everyone, and that I don't trust them to have a say in it. It's not an honesty thing with me so much as I'd feel like it showed a total lack of respect. Even if they never found out, I'd know, and I'd feel like it damaged our relationship.
YMMV. That's fine. But make DAMN sure your players are OK with all that. They need to know up front if you're going to fudge results occasionally, so that they have a part in that decision. All this advice that says "Fudge away, just don't get caught!" is, in my opinion, the worst advice on the subject I could personally ever receive.
|
|
Yes, the people sitting around the table are good friends of mine. People who I've known for at least 10 years each and who I know very well. Every last one of them knows that I occasionally fudge dice and they're fine with it, trusting my judgement over when to do so. We spread GM duties around and every last one of the group has the same attitude. So yeah, I can live with my occasional bits of 'cheating'. I know that's the way that everyone in my group wants it and the way that leads to us having the most fun.Making this into some kind of black and white issue is frankly silly. This is a social game and is going to vary depending on what group is playing. My group prefers a style where the occasional fudged roll is fine, I've played other games where we strictly live by the dice and that's fine too.
Amen. I asked my group at the start of the game how lethal they wanted the campaign. I've stuck to that, only saving a character when I knew there would be no way to get the player back into the game next session.
|
|
Especially since the 1e grognards like Derek and myself play the game with the expectation that most characters will die at low levels, and almost all of them before reaching 10th or so. This concept that each character is an irreplacable, precious life that must be constantly preserved by any means necessary -- DM fudging whenever death seems imminent -- seems very "newfangled" (read: "2nd ed. or later") to us. Given that your impression is 180 degrees opposite, I'd guess it's a style, rather than a generational, thing.
I'm defiantly "newfangled", getting into table top rpgs about 10 years ago. I was original very apprehensive about getting into Pathfinder because it would be too old school D&D in mindset, but I found it to be quiet fresh.
My players would kill me if their characters didn't have a shot of getting past lvl 10. They were already a bit upset when I told them they probably would hit lvl 20.
I guess my players are for more attached to their characters. I spend quite a long time with my players flesh out their PCs. I would never let them die on a unlucky roll at lvl 1 unless they did something stupid to deserve it. My 7 or 8 players have made some really deep and interesting characters, and will be far more fun for all to see them grow and mature over having one of them die at lvl 1 for the sake of rules.
It is curious to me how most of the anti-fudging crowd seem to have the inherent assumption that the DM will use his dicretionary power to change the result of rolls in ways that will hurt the party. In contrast, most of those who admit to fudging the rolls have said they do so only in specific circumstances, in ways that are beneficial to the party and/or the game. I wonder if bad experiences with individual DMs colors a lot of this debate.I'm going to get off the moral thing, because it isn't going anywhere.
Some people in this very thread change the results of ways that will hurt the party. They have admitted as such. Explicitly. It's dressed up in 'it's not epic for them to die now' but when a PC throws a save or lose, and the enemy rolls a 1 that doesn't mean it doesn't work. That means it does work. Even if it's the BBEG. It's his own fault for not packing a first level spell defense which would have granted him immunity.
And apparently the definition of 'epic' really means 'long'. If so I recommend 4th edition, or a system that isn't D&D. 3.5 and earlier do fast combat, not slow.
Good call on the moral issue. I follow what you are saying on changes in rolls that "hurt the party". First off, I actually don't do that, all of my fudging is pretty much to prevent TPK or what I term stupid, as opposed to heroic, character death. As a consequence I've had some BBEG fights that were pretty anticlimactic. It happens, and I deal with it, and try to plan my BBEG strategy better for the next time.
But I can understand why a DM would fudge for a climactic BBEG battle that otherwise would end up pretty lame. The key for me would be doing it in such a way that a character doesn't end up dying or suffering some permanent loss that bums them out. I do know for a fact that my group is happiest when they are pushed to their utmost, when half of them are lying bleeding in the dust, unconscious and the other half are getting desperate by the time the last blow is struck. Those are the fights they will remember and talk about for years, as opposed to the occasional cakewalks they have due to a lucky or unlucky roll. So I understand why someone would fudge to try and produce more of those. It's tricky though, and a slippery slope, as you wouldn't want a character to die because of a fudge you made, so you might find yourself having to fudge more and more.
It is curious to me how most of the anti-fudging crowd seem to have the inherent assumption that the DM will use his dicretionary power to change the result of rolls in ways that will hurt the party. In contrast, most of those who admit to fudging the rolls have said they do so only in specific circumstances, in ways that are beneficial to the party and/or the game. I wonder if bad experiences with individual DMs colors a lot of this debate.A few things here.
First it likely will vary between us as to answers.
For me, cheating on rolls does hurt both the game and the players. Whether it divinely saves a PC from what should have actually killed them or it causes the PC to instantly die when they should have lived.. I find it harmful to the players.
To me, a DM with an agenda on 'what makes the game good' and enforcement thereof is not very desirable. I find it both to be a flawed premise and a slippery slope paved with perhaps good intentions.
This discussion has focused on DM's fudging dice for a myriad of reasons. Take those same reasons but twist it as follows: now you are a player. Do you fudge dice for those same reasons?
What if rolling that 1 on the die will cause a TPK? What if you've rolled below a 5 for six turns and the game is going away from what anyone could have forseen? When is it reasonable for you to fudge dice or other things here, as a player?
Is it a double standard? Is one 'fudging' as a DM the same as 'cheating' as a player? Is it motivations that matter here or an absolute? What if all the people playing are having fun? Does that enter into a player cheating?
As to the last, I'm sure many people have had DMs that will to tell their story to one extent or another. The players are more readers that can alter small amounts before going off script. Some people could be entertained by this.. after all stories ARE entertaining. To me this isn't D&D however.. anymore than checkers is chess. While I'm sure that this might fuel vehemence...
I see where you're coming from, James. I agree with the slippery slope thing (just not that it isn't possible to walk that slippery slope), and also agree that a DM should never impose his agenda or story on others. It has to be mutually agreed, no matter how you run your game, or it won't work for long.
I do see the game as being a story that is told jointly by the DM and the players. The DM provides the background, the plot hooks and the conflict, and maybe nudges things a bit when the action slows or the players are at a loss. The players determine most of how the story unfolds and when. I don't particularly like to design or run railroad adventures in which the players are forced down a specific path (unless it is a really great story I am sure everyone will love). If player choice doesn't impact what happens, it generally isn't very fun. I'm currently running Kingmaker, which is very sandboxy and offers huge numbers of player options.
As far as players fudging their rolls, isn't that basically what Hero Points are? If you accept that optional rule, but reject DM fudging, then you are basically saying PCs should be able to do something the DM can't. I'm not using Hero Points currently (instead I gave them really generous rules for character creation), but have in the past. I've also had multiple players in the past who have fudged their rolls. I generally let it slide unless it becomes a habit, then I'll just make sure to enforce my longstanding rule that rolls can't be made until the player is called upon, and then must be on the table in plain sight of others. Generally my players do a good job of policing each other, using peer pressure to keep it from happening often, so I don't have to get involved.