Why Fudging is Happening

[Aardvark Barbarian]

I'm personally not a fan of the hero point idea (in my FRPG that is, for a supers game sure), it still just feels like a turn a fail/succeed around as much as swapping a hit/miss or save/fail. The plot twist cards I'm eager to try. I think the difference is that the cards are shuffled and dealt, or at least can be, so my aspect of random is still present. Also they read like they are still semi-specific event type things, so not just turn any result around. From what I saw of the rules though I would still use them sparingly. Maybe 1 card/lvl or 1/session, as I feel like the game would get too chaotic with all these random events happening. I love the randomness of dice, but that randomness doesn't control the events, just the outcomes.

[Kirth Gersen]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

One per session, and they do accumulate.

Actually one per major adventure, not per session, but yes, they accumulate.

[Kirth Gersen]

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:

I'm personally not a fan of the hero point idea (in my FRPG that is, for a supers game sure), it still just feels like a turn a fail/succeed around as much as swapping a hit/miss or save/fail.

Except if it's a reroll, it can still be a failure. All it gives you a second chance, usable once. That's hardly "super." Also, hero points don't negate the game rules -- using a hero point on a Jump check still won't let you leap tall buildings in a single bound.

[TriOmegaZero]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

One per session, and they do accumulate.

Actually one per major adventure, not per session, but yes, they accumulate.

Ooops. Need to drive down to Houston to refresh my memory with another game! :3

[Kirth Gersen]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Need to drive down to Houston to refresh my memory with another game! :3

Anytime -- the door's open.

[GeraintElberion]

Jeremiziah wrote:

GeraintElberion wrote:

There was a time when this was a community, more and more it's becoming just another place on the internet.

You're overreacting just a little bit. What are you offended by? You've admitted to lying, you just don't think its a big deal. James has said - I'm on a phone, ergo the lack of a direct quote - "If that's your D&D, great, it's just not mine".

It's still very much a community.

If it's still a community then it's a much less pleasant one than it was when RotRL came out.

The game provides a framework for fun. I come here to share ideas to make more fun, not to accuse people of moral deficiency because they play a frivolous game slightly differently to me.

I don't think being unpleasant online is any better than doing so in person.

What's so hard about being pleasant to others?

Some community.

[Jaelithe]

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:

This is part of the mentality I associate with the problems of fudging. Some DM's feel (as Kirth put it) that their ideas of what makes a great story [are] better than those of the other people around the table, or what the dice result in.

There's a pair of specious assumptions here—that what makes a great story must invariably be a result of random chance, as opposed to that and an occasional judicious intervention ... and that said intervention must somehow necessarily subvert the desires of the others sitting around the table.

Quote:

They decide that their fiat results will be much better than any of the others that came up. Do you know this for a fact?

Of course not ... but it seems to me that the DM is in the optimal position to make the best educated guess of anyone at the table ... and that, moreover, he or she has the authority and responsibility to do precisely that if in his or her judgment it has become absolutely imperative.

I am not and have never been talking about constant adjustments and putting at naught die rolls and rules at a whim ... and this absolutism seems to me more than a little inflexibly judgmental—as if certain DMs here are projecting onto me and others what their motives for doing such a thing might be under those circumstances, as opposed to allowing that another game master might well have both a different methodology and a different paradigm.

Quote:

Did you see into the future and discern both outcomes of either the dice falling where they may, or your story, which one will be better enjoyed by the players?

Does the DM who chooses not to intervene when in his best judgment he thinks it necessary or desirable have a window into the future ... or is he or she simply choosing adherence to (or, as some might see it, hiding behind) a convention that he or she, as DM, has in my opinion every right to overturn?

Quote:

Maybe some decisions to fudge come from DMs not giving their players enough credit to understand what[']s balanced or viable within the game.

And maybe some decisions to fudge come from giving players precisely enough credit—players who are well aware of a DM's perspective on the game he or she runs and have already placed their trust in him or her to make it an enjoyable and memorable experience.

Quote:

It appears that the[re] is some sense of superiority associated with sitting in the DM's seat, that the story can only benefit from a DM deciding to falsify a die roll.

As opposed to an in my opinion misguided and misplaced egalitarian sensibility that holds a DM's role to be little more than that of a fellow player, and that any alteration made must be done in the service of his or her overweening ego, as opposed to in the interests of all concerned?

One could well argue that the "sense of superiority" in this conversation is more rightly associated with those unjustifiably and unjustly passing judgment on another's ethics, decision-making, campaign and players.

Quote:

As I've said before the most memorable events, because of my players' enjoyment, was the incredible odds of something happening that in all likelihood was almost improbable. Whether it was a BBEG one-shot or a PC death, or a TPK.

And in no way does an occasional intervention alter that, if one possesses the maturity to place it in its proper perspective.

Perhaps I've not made this clear: If in the pre-campaign conversation, one or more of the players mentions their discomfort with certain of a DM's stances (including their take on DM fiat, fudging, contextual disregard of certain rules, etc. [and these subjects are addressed when I consider running a game]), discussion is certainly in order; such might well result in a different way of handling such situations for the duration of that campaign. It's not as if a DM can't say, "OK, since we have certain objections to my default style, and we'd all still like to play and have me run ... roles and statutes will be strictly and without exception followed; and, thus, no one has the right to direct seething resentment at the DM if a bad run of dice or adherence to a rule that makes no sense in context causes the death of a character or party." [Now, frankly, I'd be more inclined to say, "Find another game if you don't like the way I do things ... or, better yet, DM yourself and I'll get to play for a change," but ... I'd certainly be open to changing my style if most or even a significant minority deemed it necessary. I've yet to run across a group that required or even desired this, by the way.]

[Tangentially ... I find the indifference to and impassivity in the face of a random TPK not only offensive, but a total abrogation of a DM's responsibility to provide for an enjoyable gaming experience. Granted, it may be justified within a certain context—in the face of appalling stupidity or obduracy on the players' part, for example—but given the choice between standing aside and watching a group of well-played characters die needlessly, or choosing to intervene, I'll do the latter more often than not.]

Quote:

For me it looks as if some DM's think that the game is more enjoyable for the players if the DM's story is told, whether the dice result in it or not.

Why would one assume that the fudge or rule alteration is not to the purpose of setting aside the DM's story, if the players have taken it a brilliant new direction only to require an intervening nudge at the last moment? Don't presume you know my motivations, Aardvark Barbarian. It's obnoxious.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Very, very much so, if you assume that merely sitting behind a screen somehow grants "perspective on game viability and balance" -- or, conversely, that sitting in front of it somehow "utterly" removes any such perspective.

No, I assume the experience I bring to sitting behind the screen affords me an insight others at the table often (but not invariably) lack ... and the fact that you mention your own degree of experience and that of Houstonderek below means that you, too, acknowledge that such carries a certain weight ... and you're quite right. It does.

And no matter your experience—as a player or DM—you're not going to comprehend the big picture of another's campaign as comprehensively as they themselves do, unless of course you're running a campaign in concert, which is another subject altogether (but would likely alter the manner in which one employed DM fiat).

Quote:

Houstonderek and I, for example, each have about 30 years' playing experience. No matter which one of us is DMing during a particular session, that DM still has 30 years' experience and perspective (no more) -- and the other of us still retains 30 years' experience and the perspective it entails. The screen is nothing more than a piece of cardboard symbolizing an agreement as to which one of us is playing all the NPCs and monsters, vs. playing their PC.

And, again, that's your admittedly well-informed opinion. My equally well-informed opinion (I've been playing and DMing for 33+ years, not that such justifies either of our positions) brings me to a vastly different conclusion. Your perspective, like it or not, admit it or not, is no more enlightened than mine ... and, it seems, never the twain shall meet. That's fine. I respect how you choose to do things for your game, and would think that you might consider affording me the same courtesy.

[If I had another DM or DMs possessing that degree of experience playing in my game, by the way, I'd consider him, her or them (or, for that matter, you) an invaluable resource, and would certainly exploit said resource if I ran into a situation requiring it. (Hell, if he, she or they interrupted and said, "Dude ... what about [insert appropriate screw-up] ...?" I'd heed that as well. God knows I've screwed up enough times to make that a likely happenstance.) The final call would be mine, of course—as it would be another's if he or she were running the game.]

That screen, when I sit behind it, represents a level of discretion and judgment granted me by the full consent of the participating players, and I make abundantly clear before play begins that such is the case. The fact that you choose not to exercise authority that, in my opinion, you nevertheless have is entirely your prerogative. Don't presume to tell me, however, that I'm doing it wrong or you're doing it better, when you have no evidence besides your misplaced affront and dissenting opinion behind it. It's tiresome and more than a bit silly—especially, as GeraintElberion has indicated, over the niceties of "let's pretend."

I've more than justified my stance. If you disagree, so be it. Do so respectfully, and we can all move forward.

[TriOmegaZero]

Well said.

To further put to rest the idea that fudging = bad, let me share the conversation I had at the start of Saturday's session.

I asked my players, if I had the screen up the previous session, what would you want me to do about the fighter dying.

My players told me they would prefer I fudge to save him.

Again, it's all about group preference. No right or wrong answer.

[Brian Bachman]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Brian Bachman wrote:

So should exceptional characters like BBEGs have Hero Points, too? How would that differ from DM fudging?

The use of hero points and/or villain points are for each group to decide, as long as everyone is in on the decision. If by agreement the DM uses "villain points," there should be enough in-game information that the players can deduce who is likely to have them. I'd also limit it to 1 per villain, 2 for a recurring super-villain. And I'd tell the PCs when they're being used (if not point-blank, then as part of the narrative): "It's a once-in-a-lifetime coincidence; you just happened to swing at the exact same time that portion of the ceiling collapsed, so that you chop wood instead of the villain. He should have been killed right there -- and you can see in his eyes that he knows it, too."

Good answer, and I sort of like the system. To me, however, it doesn't sound all that different from good old-fashioned DM fudging. It just has a slightly different feel to it. It certainly isn't the let the rolls fall where they will at all costs style that some folks prefer.

[Jaelithe]

Here's (what I think is) an interesting question: Is a life-saving fudge in the players' favor more (or even fully) justified in a campaign where a return from the dead is functionally impossible—in a setting such as my own, where "dead is dead"?

[Brian Bachman]

Mistah Green wrote:

Lots of stuff, including the assertion that offensive bonuses have exceeded defensive bonuses in the core rules.

I actually agree with you on this point. It was one of the first things I noticed when 3.0 came out (just after I noticed the lightning fast level advancement that had someone hitting second level after defeating a dozen or so goblins). It pretty quickly becomes an issue of not whether you are going to hit, but how much damage you are going to do and whether that will put someone down in a single round.

That said, our typical combats do tend to run longer than yours seem to. Perhaps that has a lot to do with the fact that I am an evil, nasty DM and usually hit my group with encounters at the worst possible moments, frequently from ambush, when they are divided or distracted, or when they are sleeping. Frequently in that case, it will be three or four rounds before they are even able to get everybody into the fight effectively.

Example, last game session the ranger and rogue tried to sneak up on one of the lookouts for a bandit raiding party as they camped for the night. Unfortunately, they didn't sneak as well as they liked and the rogue rolled low damage on his sneak attack, allowing the lookout to scream an alarm alerting the other bandits, who scrambled to put out their fire and respond. The PCs who had been hanging back also charged in at this point, resulting in a lovely, confused meeting engagement in the dark that lasted several rounds and was lots of fun.

Take away terrain and environment, and have that combat occur in daylight in an open field, with neither side surprised, and the PCs probably would have won in one or two rounds due to sleep and entange spells, although it might have taken a few rounds longer to slit throats or take captives. Of course it would have been an even bigger cakewalk if the rogue and ranger had been luckier and able to take out the lookout before he squawked. That's why the dice are rolled.

[Bill Dunn]

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

Are you honestly telling me that you can't differentiate between a participant—one who's on an equal footing with the other players—cheating, and the DM, who possesses a perspective on game viability and balance the players utterly lack, once in a while fudging a die roll or bending a rule?

emphasis mine

Maybe some decisions to fudge come from DM's not giving their players enough credit to understand whats balanced or viable within the game. It appears that their is some sense of superiority associated with sitting in the DM's seat, that the story can only benefit from a DM deciding to falsify a die roll. As I've said before the most memorable events, because of my player's enjoyment, was the incredible odds of something happening that in all likelyhood was almost improbable. Whether it was a BBEG one-shot or a PC death, or a TPK.

Some decisions to fudge may indeed come from the DM not giving their players enough credit. Fudging in those cases may well be mistakes. But Jaelithe is correct that the DM possesses a unique perspective on the game that player do not generally have, and that's a variety 3rd person omniscience in the campaign setting and ongoing adventure. The DM knows what other things are going on or at least has the power to determine them within the campaign and that gives them a different perspective and different authority.

[Mistah Green]

Brian Bachman wrote:

I actually agree with you on this point. It was one of the first things I noticed when 3.0 came out (just after I noticed the lightning fast level advancement that had someone hitting second level after defeating a dozen or so goblins). It pretty quickly becomes an issue of not whether you are going to hit, but how much damage you are going to do and whether that will put someone down in a single round.

Level advancement is rather quick. Without downtime, and following the rules you can leave home at a level 1 nobody in early January and by about that day in March you'll be a level 20 world shaker.

Actual campaigns are going to have a lot of downtime and are not going to have four fights every single day though so this doesn't really bother me.

As for to hit and damage, I think the designers of 3rd edition went on record to state they made enemy ACs relatively low because they wanted 3/4th BAB classes to be able to participate in combat as well. There are multiple problems with this line of thought, overestimating BAB being the biggest.

That also doesn't explain why the ACs of the PCs are also low. What does explain that is that the game underwent almost no testing past level 10 despite having 20 levels.

The damage thing is a result of heavily inflated enemy HP.

If you Fireball a 2nd edition Frost Giant he has a good chance of just dying. Do the same in 3rd, and even double damage won't make him care too much.

Quote:

That said, our typical combats do tend to run longer than yours seem to. Perhaps that has a lot to do with the fact that I am an evil, nasty DM and usually hit my group with encounters at the worst possible moments, frequently from ambush, when they are divided or distracted, or when they are sleeping. Frequently in that case, it will be three or four rounds before they are even able to get everybody into the fight effectively.

I am an evil and nasty DM. My current 3.5 DM is approximately as knowledgeable as I am. The key thing though is that everyone at the table is evil and nasty as well. So while we encounter all manner of mean opponents doing equally mean things, we're giving better than we get. Because ambushes are so deadly we all go well out of our way to avoid being subjected to them as giving any decent enemy a free turn is a ticket to the Bag of Holding. Same for splitting up, or sleeping in unsafe areas. Though if an enemy were to attack at night, it takes a move action to get up and a standard action to cast a spell. That's not multiple rounds. If it were it would be a one way ticket to a new cast of characters though.

In my PF game, we got sloppy and got ambushed. Only reasons it didn't result in > 0 deaths? 1: Our PF DM, while quite familiar with the game is still less knowledgeable than any of his players. 2: The Wizard that was supposed to be the BBEG was replaced with a Magus at my request to gauge its relative functionality.

[Brian Bachman]

james maissen wrote:

Did I judge you? I judged the action of lying to friends to be wrong. I stick with that. If you elect to cheat in a game then shame on you.

=James

James. Seriously? Did you really write that paragraph starting with "Did I judge you?" amd ending with "shame on you"? You write some good stuff on these boards, but I've got to call you on that one. "Shame on you" for cheating doesn't sound non-judgmental to me. Just struck me as funny.

[Brian Bachman]

wraithstrike wrote:

GeraintElberion wrote:

Mistah Green wrote:

Yes, I consider lying to my friends to not only be morally wrong, but personally offensive as well. After all, they're my friends. Why am I hurting them?

That is, to my mind, bizarre.

I lie to people all the time, especially the people I love, respect and care about.

My view is that lying is a fundamental part of our humanity and without it most human relationships would collapse.

I recently told a bride on her wedding day that she was the most beautiful person in the room. I lied. Shame on me?

I don't agree with this at all, and if I have to build a relationship on a lie then I don't want the relationship. White lies for things like throwing a surprise birthday party are one thing, but most women don't beleive you think they are the most beautiful women ever, but they might believe you find them attractive which makes them feel good. Telling a lie that someone is expected to believe 100% is not good. I look at it like this, most people you meet will upset you, or you will upset them, but even after a disagreement people don't stop being friends so I see no reason to lie to people. The only way people don't normally forgive is if person A did something so bad they don't deserve to be forgiven, or if person B is not a reasonable person. In either case maybe the relationship is better off not existing anyway.

Not a lie, anyway. All brides are the most beautiful woman in the world on their wedding day, in my opinion. They deserve that recognition. Look at the poor schmucks they are going to have to put with til death do them part. :)

[pres man]

Brian Bachman wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Brian Bachman wrote:

So should exceptional characters like BBEGs have Hero Points, too? How would that differ from DM fudging?

The use of hero points and/or villain points are for each group to decide, as long as everyone is in on the decision. If by agreement the DM uses "villain points," there should be enough in-game information that the players can deduce who is likely to have them. I'd also limit it to 1 per villain, 2 for a recurring super-villain. And I'd tell the PCs when they're being used (if not point-blank, then as part of the narrative): "It's a once-in-a-lifetime coincidence; you just happened to swing at the exact same time that portion of the ceiling collapsed, so that you chop wood instead of the villain. He should have been killed right there -- and you can see in his eyes that he knows it, too."

Good answer, and I sort of like the system. To me, however, it doesn't sound all that different from good old-fashioned DM fudging. It just has a slightly different feel to it. It certainly isn't the let the rolls fall where they will at all costs style that some folks prefer.

A point system like that has more in common with a cleric with the luck domain or the cyclop's ability than it does with DM fudging.

[Brian Bachman]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

...the DM, who possesses a perspective on game viability and balance the players utterly lack...

We're clearly starting with different preconceptions.

Very, very much so, if you assume that merely sitting behind a screen somehow grants "perspective on game viability and balance" -- or, conversely, that sitting in front of it somehow "utterly" removes any such perspective.

Houstonderek and I, for example, each have about 30 years' playing experience. No matter which one of us is DMing during a particular session, that DM still has 30 years' experience and perspective (no more) -- and the other of us still retains 30 years' experience and the perspective it entails. The screen is nothing more than a piece of cardboard symbolizing an agreement as to which one of us is playing all the NPCs and monsters, vs. playing their PC.

Interesting. Our table has five players, of which I am just one, with that amount of experience, but our style is very different. When someone steps behind the screen, they aren't just one of the gang anymore. They're the man, and we all defer to his judgment and trust him to do what is necessary to deliver awesome good times. Clearly, because he has read (and frequently written) the adventure, he has a perspective that the players just lack, by definition. He's also put a hell of a lot more time into preparing for each week's session than the players, and he'll put a lot more effort into the game during play. He deserves some deference and respect.

That's not to say that I and the other two DMs in our group won't consult each other after a game session about a rules issue or the way a certain encounter worked (or even very quickly in game if we spot an error - they happen to even the best DMs), but we always defer final judgment to the active DM and back each other up. Alright, one of us is a bit of a rules lawyer, but the other two can usually bully him into submission. :)

[james maissen]

Brian Bachman wrote:

james maissen wrote:

Did I judge you? I judged the action of lying to friends to be wrong. I stick with that. If you elect to cheat in a game then shame on you.

=James

James. Seriously? Did you really write that paragraph starting with "Did I judge you?" amd ending with "shame on you"? You write some good stuff on these boards, but I've got to call you on that one. "Shame on you" for cheating doesn't sound non-judgmental to me. Just struck me as funny.

If he is cheating then indeed shame on him and I will judge him.

If he elects to lie to his friends 'for their own good' I will judge that action to be wrong.

That said, I don't know him at all and am not judging him. I don't know what he cares to do and not do. Nor at this very moment without looking back could I say for 100% who 'he' was...

Now some people might not judge cheating at this game as a bad thing (and such directly has been said), but to me I DO see it as a wrong and bad thing. It undermines things in my mind that are valuable in the game.

Many people in this world elect to play solitaire and when losing elect to cheat at it to win. There's no one around, and frankly no one else to know whether or not they did it. I, myself, think it defeats the purpose of the game.. but they have fun with it. I do find it kinda sad, and if someone were to ask my opinion on it I would definitely say as much.

I see cheating at D&D as worse than solitaire as there are others involved. Now it might be that they all are of one mind here, and everyone has fun. But it might be that they are not, yet would feel bad saying 'no Bob the fighter needs to die' when put on the spot.

But to each their own. To me it is cheating and is sad. When this cheating is concealed from others that are ostensibly your friends I'll go further and say that I find it abhorrent.

-James

[james maissen]

Jaelithe wrote:

Here's (what I think is) an interesting question: Is a life-saving fudge in the players' favor more (or even fully) justified in a campaign where a return from the dead is functionally impossible—in a setting such as my own, where "dead is dead"?

Here's a question back at you.. why is 'dead dead'?

Is it meant to accomplish something here?

Honestly I would be questioning this long before I would ask myself whether I wanted to cheat in a game.

If the players are happy with this house rule 'because its more edgy' then you're really going against their wishes by taking away this edge. If they don't feel that way and don't like your house rule.. then perhaps you might want to address the house rule instead?

But if you haven't guessed it, no cheating isn't justified. People can make excuses for it or give reasons for their illicit actions, but its still cheating.

-James

[pres man]

If fudging is so "noble", why do so many try to hide it from the other members of their group? If not fudging is "ignoble", why leave the other members of the group with the impression that is what you are doing?

[Bill Dunn]

pres man wrote:

If fudging is so "noble", why do so many try to hide it from the other members of their group? If not fudging is "ignoble", why leave the other members of the group with the impression that is what you are doing?

Same reason a magician doesn't reveal the secrets behind his tricks. Just because something is hidden, that doesn't make it questionable. We're not running democratic governments where the people have a need to know, we're running games here.

[Brian Bachman]

pres man wrote:

Brian Bachman wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Brian Bachman wrote:

So should exceptional characters like BBEGs have Hero Points, too? How would that differ from DM fudging?

The use of hero points and/or villain points are for each group to decide, as long as everyone is in on the decision. If by agreement the DM uses "villain points," there should be enough in-game information that the players can deduce who is likely to have them. I'd also limit it to 1 per villain, 2 for a recurring super-villain. And I'd tell the PCs when they're being used (if not point-blank, then as part of the narrative): "It's a once-in-a-lifetime coincidence; you just happened to swing at the exact same time that portion of the ceiling collapsed, so that you chop wood instead of the villain. He should have been killed right there -- and you can see in his eyes that he knows it, too."

Good answer, and I sort of like the system. To me, however, it doesn't sound all that different from good old-fashioned DM fudging. It just has a slightly different feel to it. It certainly isn't the let the rolls fall where they will at all costs style that some folks prefer.

A point system like that has more in common with a cleric with the luck domain or the cyclop's ability than it does with DM fudging.

If you say so. Doesn't seem like a lot of difference to me. Sounds kind of like you are saying that if it is allowed in a written rule, then cheating is OK. In that case, I refer you to Rule Zero, which a lot of RAW devotees don't like to admit exists, but it does, and always has, inevery version of the game.

[Brian Bachman]

james maissen wrote:

Brian Bachman wrote:

james maissen wrote:

Did I judge you? I judged the action of lying to friends to be wrong. I stick with that. If you elect to cheat in a game then shame on you.

=James

James. Seriously? Did you really write that paragraph starting with "Did I judge you?" amd ending with "shame on you"? You write some good stuff on these boards, but I've got to call you on that one. "Shame on you" for cheating doesn't sound non-judgmental to me. Just struck me as funny.

If he is cheating then indeed shame on him and I will judge him.

If he elects to lie to his friends 'for their own good' I will judge that action to be wrong.

That said, I don't know him at all and am not judging him. I don't know what he cares to do and not do. Nor at this very moment without looking back could I say for 100% who 'he' was...

Now some people might not judge cheating at this game as a bad thing (and such directly has been said), but to me I DO see it as a wrong and bad thing. It undermines things in my mind that are valuable in the game.

Many people in this world elect to play solitaire and when losing elect to cheat at it to win. There's no one around, and frankly no one else to know whether or not they did it. I, myself, think it defeats the purpose of the game.. but they have fun with it. I do find it kinda sad, and if someone were to ask my opinion on it I would definitely say as much.

I see cheating at D&D as worse than solitaire as there are others involved. Now it might be that they all are of one mind here, and everyone has fun. But it might be that they are not, yet would feel bad saying 'no Bob the fighter needs to die' when put on the spot.

But to each their own. To me it is cheating and is sad. When this cheating is concealed from others that are ostensibly your friends I'll go further and say that I find it abhorrent.

-James

I'm confused, are you judging or not? You seem to contradict yourself in the first three paras. I don't have a real problem with judging, so long as you admit you're doing it. We all make judgments all the time, and sometimes being non-judgmental is just being wishy-washy. But let's not deceive ourselves. That's kind of like lying. :)

[pres man]

Bill Dunn wrote:

pres man wrote:

If fudging is so "noble", why do so many try to hide it from the other members of their group? If not fudging is "ignoble", why leave the other members of the group with the impression that is what you are doing?

Same reason a magician doesn't reveal the secrets behind his tricks. Just because something is hidden, that doesn't make it questionable. We're not running democratic governments where the people have a need to know, we're running games here.

That is not really an answer.

Q: Why is X a good idea?
A: Because Y is a good idea.

Brian Bachman wrote:

If you say so. Doesn't seem like a lot of difference to me.

A player saying out loud to everyone at the table, "I am going to use my 1/day ability to reroll this die." Is no different than a DM rolling behind their screen looking at the result and deciding to change it in secret? Really?

Brian Bachman wrote:

Sounds kind of like you are saying that if it is allowed in a written rule, then cheating is OK.

It is not cheating, it is using an ability, an ability that the player (in the case of the cleric) decide to sacrifice other options to get. Is there a limit on how many times in a session a DM could fudge? You don't see any difference between the two, really?

Brian Bachman wrote:

In that case, I refer you to Rule Zero, which a lot of RAW devotees don't like to admit exists, but it does, and always has, inevery version of the game.

*Yawn* Sorry, I don't take claims of Rule 0 (I'm a DM so I can cheat as much as I want so there!) Seriously. Yes Rule 0 is in place. In my opinion is more for issues of houserules and rule interpretations than for free rein for the DM to cheat/fudge/whatever at a whim.

If you want to claim Rule 0, great, just let everyone know when you are doing it? Would that be so much to ask. If a player does a "lame" encounter ender, why not just say, "I ENVOKE RULE ZERO! THIS DOES NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT!" Why hide behind the screen and play a shell game with the players if it is so righteous?

[Jaelithe]

james maissen wrote:

If he is cheating then indeed shame on him and I will judge him.

If he elects to lie to his friends 'for their own good' I will judge that action to be wrong.

To me, your evaluation of my actions borders on the pharasaical.

Quote:

Here's a question back at you ... why is 'dead dead'?

Because I find the revolving door version of the Outer Planes asinine and trivial, and have no wish to employ it in my games. That, too, is made clear before play begins.

Oh, and your seemingly dismissive categorization of something that's been in place for 30+ years, in every campaign I've run, as "edgy" is wildly off target.

Quote:

Honestly I would be questioning this long before I would ask myself whether I wanted to cheat in a game.

And you'd be well within your rights to address it—just as I reserve the authority to respond with, "Opinion noted, but that's the way it is. No one else in the last three decades has had enough of a problem with my stance on this to mention it. It's unfortunate that you find it objectionable."

Quote:

But if you haven't guessed it, no cheating isn't justified. People can make excuses for it or give reasons for their illicit actions, but it[']s still cheating.

And since you've by no means proven that the manner in which I choose to handle my games remotely qualifies as cheating to any person whose discernment surpasses that of an obdurate nine-year-old, well ...

[james maissen]

Brian Bachman wrote:

I'm confused, are you judging or not?

Depends... what's the object of the word 'judging'?

Is it the person whom I do not know? Certainly not.

Is it the action of cheating in a game? Certainly yes.

Is that more clear?

-James

[Mistah Green]

Bill Dunn wrote:

pres man wrote:

If fudging is so "noble", why do so many try to hide it from the other members of their group? If not fudging is "ignoble", why leave the other members of the group with the impression that is what you are doing?

Same reason a magician doesn't reveal the secrets behind his tricks. Just because something is hidden, that doesn't make it questionable. We're not running democratic governments where the people have a need to know, we're running games here.

A magician is putting on a show that is mostly, if not entirely non interactive. He performs, you all watch. Maybe he calls a member of the audience to assist who might or might not be a plainclothed assistant and not an actual audience member.

This isn't single author fiction.

[james maissen]

Jaelithe wrote:

And you'd be well within your rights to address it—just as I reserve the authority to respond with, "Opinion noted, but that's the way it is. No one else in the last three decades has had enough of a problem with my stance on this to mention it. It's unfortunate that you find it objectionable."

Funny, I'd see that as far more dismissive. But enjoy your games, and I hope your players enjoy your games as well. To each their own.

In my opinion, D&D can be far more than a single person ruling by fiat and decreeing a story to enfold... even if its an exciting and entertaining story.

But to each their own.

Just should we ever play a game together, please respect me and do not cheat at that game, whether it's D&D, chess, checkers, cards or whatever. As whatever game it would be I don't extend to you the authority to ignore the rules, rather I ask, as a gentleman, that we all play within them.

-James

[Kirth Gersen]

Brian Bachman wrote:

Doesn't seem like a lot of difference to me.

I'd point out these differences:

1. It's transparent. Everyone knows when you are doing it.
2. It's limited. There are clear guidelines as to what its use entails, and how many times it can be done.
3. It's done most often at the player's instigation, not the DM's.

If those three differences are inconsequential to you, I assure you that they're important to me. Especially the first one.

[Jaelithe]

james maissen wrote:

But enjoy your games, and I hope your players enjoy your games as well. To each their own.

Take your own statement to heart, then, and kindly refrain from categorizing that which you find distasteful but have by no means demonstrated as "cheating" in that fashion.

Quote:

In my opinion, D&D can be far more than a single person ruling by fiat and decreeing a story to enfold... even if it[']s an exciting and entertaining story.

But to each their own.

And in my opinion, D&D can be more than the slavish adherence to a set of rules and regulations that may or may not prove conducive to the storytelling needs of all participants.

But to each their own.

Quote:

Just should we ever play a game together, please respect me and do not cheat at that game, whether it's D&D, chess, checkers, cards or whatever. As whatever game it would be I don't extend to you the authority to ignore the rules, rather I ask, as a gentleman, that we all play within them.

One last time: If it's agreed upon beforehand by all that the DM may amend or alter the rules if he or she deems it necessary, such becomes part of the rules, and it's therefore not cheating.

[Jaelithe]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

If those three differences are inconsequential to you, I assure you that they're important to me.

And any good, fair-minded DM should take what is important to you into account.

Obviously, were I DMing for Kirth, James, Green and Aardvark, they would make clear in the pre-campaign discussion that fudging was not, by any means, acceptable. Thus, if we decided to move forward, it would be set aside for the duration—which is, of course, not to imply that any of them would want me DMing for them in the first place. >:)

[Kirth Gersen]

Jaelithe wrote:

Obviously, were I DMing for Kirth, James and Aardvark, they would make clear in the pre-campaign discussion that fudging was not, by any means, acceptable.

Obviously you've not been reading my posts. Fudging is acceptable -- so long as it's done transparently, in the open, on a limited basis, and with player initiation and/or consent. Those were the criteria I just cited in the post you quoted, and which pres man has been alluding to, and which have yet again been ignored.

[Jaelithe]

Mistah Green wrote:

This isn't single author fiction.

No, but it is, according to many DMs and players, a multi-author screenplay, with a DM as head writer and editor-in-chief.

[Jaelithe]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Obviously you've not been reading my posts.

Actually, I've only read the posts I thought applicable to the part of the discussion in which I was involved. Evidently I missed or misinterpreted something. It happens. My bad.

[I did read the post to which I replied point-by-point. Any credit for that? ;)]

[Kirth Gersen]

Jaelithe wrote:

Actually, I've only read the posts I thought applicable to the part of the discussion in which I was involved. Evidently I missed or misinterpreted something.

Yes -- in a lot of ways, this is less about "fudging vs. not fudging" (despite that being a convenient binary sound-byte view) and more about "be honest with the players, or make decisions on their behalf without bothering to include them in the decision-making process, and then lie about it to them afterwards." It's the latter I'm against.

[Jaelithe]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

It's the latter I'm against.

Then we're not nearly so apart on this as we might originally have thought, it seems.

[TriOmegaZero]

Can we let this thread die, now that it is no longer a discussion?

[Kirth Gersen]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Can we let this thread die, now that it is no longer a discussion?

Noooooooooooooo! Because then I might look at the Magus threads instead. And that way lies madness.

[Jaelithe]

Finish us off, TriOmegaZero. Then we can all walk away, (relatively) unscathed. :)

[TriOmegaZero]

I already did finish it! No one paid it any attention. :(

[pres man]

I never understand why on messageboards:
1)Someone always feels obligated to call for an end to a thread, in the thread. Isn't that ultimately self-defeating?

2)Why it bothers some that a thread goes on-and-on. If you are not interested, why not go read another thread?

[Kirth Gersen]

Jaelithe wrote:

Then we're not nearly so apart on this as we might originally have thought, it seems.

I see six views being put forth here, which fall along something of a spectrum:

1. Lying is good, and the DM always knows best. He or she should fudge whenever desired and not burden the players' pretty little heads about it, because they lack the insight or ability to know it's all for their own good.

2. Sometimes fudging is needed to avoid totally anticlimactic stuff. Keep it to a minimum, and keep it under the radar.

3. If you're going to fudge, make sure you at least make a token mention of it at the start of the campaign. That way you've sort of included the players in the decision.

4. Fudging may be desireable in some rare cases, but lying to the players is not. If you're going to fudge things, do it openly and without deception. You might even employ some strategy of limitations, checks and balances, and/or player-initiated fudges.

5. Fudging is basically cheating. Doing it with consent sort of robs the game of an important element of risk. Doing it without consent constitutes an irreparable breach of trust.

6. Fudging in any way is always wrong.

--

Geraint ("I lie to everyone!") seems to be at #1. There are a lot of 2's in the early part of the thread. You actually seem like a #3 sort of guy. I'm at #4. James Maissen is at #5. Aardvark is unabashedly #6.

[james maissen]

pres man wrote:

I never understand why on messageboards:

1)Someone always feels obligated to call for an end to a thread, in the thread. Isn't that ultimately self-defeating?

2)Why it bothers some that a thread goes on-and-on. If you are not interested, why not go read another thread?

+1

[wraithstrike]

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

To rephrase, I consider the occasional die roll bluff to fall under the extremely (and if necessary, infinitely) broad umbrella of DM fiat. I always make clear before play initially begins that I claim a right to suspend any rule (or, in this case, result) at any time—especially if in my judgment it serves the purpose of making the game more entertaining for all.

emphasis mine

This is part of the mentality I associate with the problems of fudging. Some DM's feel (as Kirth put it) that their ideas of what makes a great story is better than those of the other people around the table, or what the dice result in. They decide that their Fiat results will be much better than any of the others that came up. Do you know this for a fact? Did you see into the future and discern both outcomes of either the dice falling where they may, or your story, which one will be better enjoyed by the players?

If the DM knows his group then he will know what to do. If the DM does only what he thinks is cool, and ignores his group then he will often use DM Fiat at the wrong times. My group openly discusses the game and if they don't like an issue they are free to let me know. The other DM in the group also admittedly "takes it easy" on lower level characters and newbies, but start sliding the difficulty level towards hard mode as the game progresses. As long as the group knows the DM is doing it, and they enjoy the game it is ok.

If the DM in your above example did not consult with the players to see what they enjoyed then you may be right about that particular group, but your example does not have across the board merit.

[TriOmegaZero]

james maissen wrote:

pres man wrote:

I never understand why on messageboards:

1)Someone always feels obligated to call for an end to a thread, in the thread. Isn't that ultimately self-defeating?

2)Why it bothers some that a thread goes on-and-on. If you are not interested, why not go read another thread?

+1

As a network technician, I consider it spam. It increases the load without a meaningful benefit.

[Kirth Gersen]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

As a network technician, I consider it spam. It increases the load without a meaningful benefit.

You mean like Paladin threads? ;)

Seriously, though, in this case the benefit is that people accustomed to unlimited DM privilege might see there are some players who won'ty tolerate being lied to. On the other side, some players will come to realize that not all DMs really care what they think of the sory-line, if they have something else in mind.

[pres man]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

james maissen wrote:

pres man wrote:

I never understand why on messageboards:

1)Someone always feels obligated to call for an end to a thread, in the thread. Isn't that ultimately self-defeating?

2)Why it bothers some that a thread goes on-and-on. If you are not interested, why not go read another thread?

+1

As a network technician, I consider it spam. It increases the load without a meaningful benefit.

Would this be a case where one person decides unilaterally what is a meaningful benefit?

[TriOmegaZero]

pres man wrote:

Would this be a case where one person decides unilaterally what is a meaningful benefit?

I don't know. What's your opinion on the matter?

Point taken Kirth. I just don't think any of the current posters fit your assessment. Hopefully there are lurkers who do.

[Jaelithe]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

You actually seem like a #3 sort of guy.

I'd actually, on your scale, rate myself a 3.5—if I didn't think the pun police might be dispatched with orders to fire at will. ;)

[Jaelithe]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

pres man wrote:

Would this be a case where one person decides unilaterally what is a meaningful benefit?

I don't know. What's your opinion on the matter?

Beautiful. Now that was adroit.