When should a GM fudge rolls

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Whiskey Jack wrote:

It's not directly related to the thread topic per se, but I just had a nine year old girl in a public PFS game last weekend and she was years ahead in her 1. grasp of the game and 2. maturity level. I've met grown men my own age that show less sophistication in PFS than she displayed- and when it came time to unleash proverbial Hell on her... (a nasty combat where she was separated from the party by "two move equivalents" and suprised)... I didn't fudge or show favoritism. She didn't die (as in the Kitsune case outlined above), but I didn't pull punches either.

Now if she had started crying... well, I'm not an ogre... ^_^ But the point is that age isn't as important as maturity. In the examples above where grown men would cry foul over favoritism in sparing a child's character I would wonder about the maturity level of those grown men.

This, so this!

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

(snipped for space)

First, I think you misunderstand my intent. I did note in my post that I'd be fine with fudging actually being allowed, as long as (if that's the case) we removed the "we don't advocate" line. I.e., it's hard for me to believe that the Guide points that out with the intent of not communicating anything by it. But stranger things have happened, so if that's really the intent, let's get a clarification/wording change. Or if the intent is that fudging is *not* allowed, let's get *that* clarified.

It would actually be my preference that some fudging be allowed. I also agree that fully codifying it would be a fool's errand. But just a little something... Like maybe a "Fudging to do X is never acceptable" or "Fudging's main purpose is to accomplish Y" from Mike.

Not a rule for everything, or even close to everything. Just a little additional guidance. I'd like to think that I would be responsible with fudging when I GM, but I also know that everyone else thinks the same of themselves, and we're not all correct in those beliefs. I think a brief little "Here's the idea" would go a long way.

[LazarX]

Andrew Christian wrote:

But at the same time, the more restrictions you place on GM's the further the job trends toward simple automaton regurgitation of written text.

And from what I've read here that seems to be pretty close to the expectations of certain players.

If I judge anyone reading this at a PFS table in Manhattan, Mepacon, or Double Exposure, and you find me lacking in that standard, feel free to report me to our local venture officers.

[Netopalis]

nosig wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

Alright, if they are to be treated the same, then do you explain why a save DC against a particular spell is 18 when a player asks? I don't. Do you expect your players to be able to explain how they got their numbers? I do. Do you consider it bad form for a GM to run a scenario with perfect information, knowing what is coming next? I don't. Do you consider it bad form for a person who has previously GMmed a scenario to play it, anticipating future events? I do. There is an enormous gap in how the rules treat GMs and players.

ah... I've been staying out of this but...

for the bolded part, my answer would be a yes.
If not in the middle of the fight, at the end I would. It's how the players learn after all.
Judge answer: "Spell Level + Int bonus + racial bonus + spell focus + greater spell focus"
Player :"what's greater spell focus?"

I would after the game, certainly. Not during it. During it would give the players information about what was being cast, the caster level, the stats of the enemy, etc. It would lead to a lot of thoughts like, "Well, if they took Spell Focus, they probably don't have Toughness or Iron Will..." I agree that it's important for players to learn, but I don't want to give them any more fuel for metagaming than they already have.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Jiggy wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

(snipped for space)

First, I think you misunderstand my intent. I did note in my post that I'd be fine with fudging actually being allowed, as long as (if that's the case) we removed the "we don't advocate" line. I.e., it's hard for me to believe that the Guide points that out with the intent of not communicating anything by it. But stranger things have happened, so if that's really the intent, let's get a clarification/wording change. Or if the intent is that fudging is *not* allowed, let's get *that* clarified.

It would actually be my preference that some fudging be allowed. I also agree that fully codifying it would be a fool's errand. But just a little something... Like maybe a "Fudging to do X is never acceptable" or "Fudging's main purpose is to accomplish Y" from Mike.

Not a rule for everything, or even close to everything. Just a little additional guidance. I'd like to think that I would be responsible with fudging when I GM, but I also know that everyone else thinks the same of themselves, and we're not all correct in those beliefs. I think a brief little "Here's the idea" would go a long way.

I believe the current wording is strong enough to discourage most uses of GM fudging. Any GM who fudges willy nilly just isn't GM'ing in the spirit required or necessary for organized play. And that isn't a fault with the wording. They will find a way (just like power gaming players) to abuse their power.

I also believe the current wording is just ambiguous enough to allow for sparing but necessary use of fudging.

You start changing the wording one direction or another, you end up with issues both ways that i don't think either of us knows or is ready for.

This is one instance where table variation is proscribed and is a good thing. As long as the variation doesn't include arbitrary choices to power up the scenario.

[SCPRedMage]

N N 959 wrote:

Well shoot. Then I'm not your pal, guy? See what I did there?

I was going for the South Park reference, although I seem to have gotten the order in reverse.

Quote:

Sounds like you need to put some skill ranks in Sense Motive Forum. We're talking about a game. How is that worth getting in a fight over? And as far as my questions, the were rhetorical, not accusatory.

It's hard to set a proper tone in an all-text medium; you may think you're just asking rhetorical questions, but the reader may see it in an entirely different light; see below.

Quote:

Tell me something: if I'm rolling behind a screen, no one ever sees my roll, I didn't announce I'm fudging the dice, and I don't tell the players later, how, precisely, does this impact YOUR enjoyment of the game?

You really think players are so clueless they don't notice a DM's fudge patterns?

Who says I have a pattern? Like I said before, I gave that anecdote to show when I'd consider fudging, because that particular situation was a combination of things:

1. Wanting the new player to show up at least one more time
2. The character being one-shotted from max HP straight down to dead.
3. This all happening in the SURPRISE ROUND, before anyone had a chance to react.

Remove any one of those, and the game would have gone at the whims of the dice. This venue we're playing at hasn't been around long enough for me to have GM'd enough games with new players that have had this kind of circumstance pop up enough for it to be a "pattern", precisely because one time is not a "pattern".

Quote:

The only reason to roll attack and damage dice behind a screen is to give one's self the option of fudging dice. Come'on Francis, players aren't that clueless. In fact, I never roll combat behind a screen specifically so the players know I'm not trying to fudge dice on them. The last thing on earth I want to do is give players the notion I might be making up the results.

There IS more reason to use the screen than that, though, as Matthew Morris points out a little after your own post.

Also, I usually use a screen simply because I see it as something of a tradition in RPGs.

Quote:

That does suck. But if people are leaving because of RL, I don't see how fudging dice for newbs is the way to fix things.

The only way to combat the kind of player churn I was talking about is to make sure you've got a steady influx of new players, and in my experience, the biggest hurdle to that is getting a new player to come back to play a second time.

I used my judgement in an attempt to avoid a situation that, admittedly, some players would have taken in stride, but for many players it would sour their whole evening. I mean, not only would his character have been taken out with him, or anyone else, being able to have done anything about it, but he'd have been removed from the game barely a quarter of the way through the night.

Quote:

I'm going to say this again. The cornerstone of organized play is fairness. That means everyone plays under the same rule system. There are many ways to ensure newbs have a good time that don't involve fudging dice. In fact, you can do thinks like give a door prize to any newb that dies from a crit. Or post their picture up on a wall of "shame" so they can see all the other people who died in their first adventure. Call it the Hall of Heroes that Never Were. You can also tell them right off the bat they should expect to die.

All those are good ideas, but not one of them helps you if you're not ready for it. Not to mention the fact that the door prize only helps if you have the money to spend on it, and the wall of shame doesn't help a new venue that hasn't existed long enough to build that wall of shame (the store we play out only opened a few months back, and we started playing there the second week of January; to date, we've had no characters die there on their very first adventure).

Also, "fairness" does not trump "fun". You can have a game that's 100% "fair", as you put it, and still have players not have any fun, and you can have games where that "fairness" is skewed a bit, and everyone has a blast. "Fairness" is not some holy grail that makes everything great; so long as you don't trample all over "fairness", to can withstand a slight infraction every now and then without anyone's enjoyment being harmed.

Quote:

So what you're saying is that it's all good if you don't get caught? That the ends justifies the means? You been hanging out with Lance Armstrong?

Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying, that I made millions of dollars in endorsements, passed years of peeing in a cup to test for dice fudging, vehemently attacked anyone who even suggested that I was fudging, all while secretly fudging every single die roll I ever made.

Seriously, if you don't want to sound accusatory, stay FAR, FAR away from comparing GMs fudging dice to criminal conduct.

Quote:

Admittedly, I have trouble parsing that. As I said already, my bad.

Yeah, I was pointing that out more as a joking fashion, really; like I said, it's hard to set a proper tone when a pure-text medium doesn't have any subtext to read...

[N N 959]

SCPRedMage wrote:

South Park reference[/url], although I seem to have gotten the order in reverse.

Never had much appreciation for SP. But they do save a ton of money on animation don't they?

Quote:

Who says I have a pattern?

I could tell you were a fudger from the first sentence. The way you dot your i's. The hitch in you comma's. Dead give away.

Quote:

Remove any one of those, and the game would have gone at the whims of the dice.

I'm not really an "ends justifies the means" guy, so we'll have to disagree.

Quote:

The only reason to roll attack and damage dice behind a screen is to give one's self the option of fudging dice. Come'on Francis, players aren't that clueless.

I think some people missed that qualifier in my original post.

Quote:

I used my judgement in an attempt to avoid a situation that, admittedly, some players would have taken in stride, but for many players it would sour their whole evening.

I don't think I'd want to sit at a table with a player who would take their character's death in stride. I find the fear of not dying is a great motivator for improved play.

Did I mention I was new to this seat?

Quote:

...to date, we've had no characters die there on their very first adventure

Yeah, I think we covered that part :)

Quote:

Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying, that I made millions of dollars in endorsements, passed years of peeing in a cup to test for dice fudging, vehemently attacked anyone who even suggested that I was fudging, all while secretly fudging every single die roll I ever made.

See, that wasn't so hard was it? I often think of myself as Oprah of the PFS forums.

EVERYONE CHECK UNDER YOUR SEATS RIGHT NOW!!

Quote:

Also, "fairness" does not trump "fun".

In organized play? It most certainly does. If everyone doesn't agree to play by the rules, PFS doesn't even get off the ground for us to be talking about this. If "fun" trumps fairness, then lets give every 7 year old girl a 25 point build.

Without fairness, you have nothing. That may not be immediately obvious to you in a single game, but across a community, it is quintessential.

The road to ruin is paved with good intentions.

EDIT:
I was going to try and use a WWII reference, but I know the Godwin's Law brownshirts are out there looking for me so I need to lay low.

[LazarX]

N N 959 wrote:

In organized play? It most certainly does. If everyone doesn't agree to play by the rules, PFS doesn't even get off the ground for us to be talking about this. If "fun" trumps fairness, then lets give every 7 year old girl a 25 point build..

I'm afraid then that you are in a world of disappointment. The main mission of PFS is to provide an environment where players will have reasons to come back. If you think that means that players won't come back unless they're coddled, then you have a low opinion of your fellow players.

And if the players don't have fun, they're not coming back. Your problem is the insistence on seeing this as a black/white, all or nothing equation. If things were that simple, you would not need humans at the judging seat.

The answer to the OP's question is that there is no hard and fast answer on this issue. It's very much a go with your gut, and use your on the table judgement on this matter.

[Zauron13]

Woah woah woah.
Fairness trumps fun?
In a game we all play to have fun, that seems counter-intuitive. Also, some fairness is unatainable. Such as comparing a lvl 1 wizard to a lvl 1 Barbarian. 8.5 times out of 10, wizard smashed.
But hey, lets give it a shot.

Eveyone, kill a number of your characters equal to the most per player in the campaign. We are now on even footing with one another, or "fair"

Everyone, play the same class with the same build. We are all the same, or "fair"

And yada yada yada.

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A JOKEY STATEMEMT MEANT TO BE EXTREMES!

My point being, fun trumps fairness. Yet it doesn't have to be one or the other. We can have fun while fair.

Anyway, let's get along and try to have fun. With a fair amount of "fairness".

[N N 959]

LazarX wrote:

If you think that means that players won't come back unless they're coddled, then you have a low opinion of your fellow players.

Uhhh...No. I feel that players will come back if they are all treated fairly because the fundamental game is already fun as is. It's been fun since Basic D&D. Same rules for everyone. That means no dice fudging.

Quote:

And if the players don't have fun, they're not coming back.

The problem with your logic is that it assumes that a PC dying overrides any other enjoyment that they might have had up to that point. What is abundantly clear is PFS has unequivocally stated that GM's cannot break the rules of the game for any reason. That includes "fun." Nobody thinks a TPK is fun. Yet PFS has done nothing to retroactively reverse them. PFS doesn't even have a method for overturning character deaths when the they happen because of an admitted mistake by a GM.

Quote:

Your problem is the insistence on seeing this as a black/white, all or nothing equation. If things were that simple, you would not need humans at the judging seat.

Terrible terrible analogy. My problem is GM's who think they know better than the guys who eat, breath, and sleep this game. If PFS thought fudging dice was necessary for any reason, they'd advocate it. They have far more at stake than you, me, or any other (non-store owner) GM.

Quote:

The answer to the OP's question is that there is no hard and fast answer on this issue.

The answer to this OP question is you don't fudge dice in organized play. You use other legal methods to avoid PC's deaths, but if they happen, that is necessary part of what makes the game work. The guide explicitly states this.

Mike Brock & Co specifically do no allow rules violations for any reason. That's in black and white.

[Netopalis]

Uhhh...a GM or event organizer can reverse a character death. It's trivial to do.

[SCPRedMage]

N N 959 wrote:

blah blah stuff stuff blah blah

You know what, I'm done here. You obviously intend to argue against a strawman; you kind of gave that away with:

Quote:

I could tell you were a fudger from the first sentence. The way you dot your i's. The hitch in you comma's. Dead give away.

I tried to make it perfectly clear that I believed that fudging is something to do with extreme discretion; not something to be done with reckless abandon. I put forth the fact I fudged that roll because of three specific circumstances, and that anything less would have meant I wouldn't have changed anything.

You, meanwhile, seem obsessed with painting me as someone who advocates fudging EVERYTHING EVAR.

I'm done. You want to argue with me, you argue with ME, not some strawman you prop up next to me. I'm not putting up with that kind of blatant disrespect anymore.

[N N 959]

Netopalis wrote:

Uhhh...a GM or event organizer can reverse a character death. It's trivial to do.

Is that published in the guide? The rules or the reasons one can have their death overturned?

[N N 959]

Quote:

I could tell you were a fudger from the first sentence. The way you dot your i's. The hitch in you comma's. Dead give away.

:facepalm:

It's really unfortunate that you can't see that is 100% sillyness.

[LazarX]

SCPRedMage wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

blah blah stuff stuff blah blah

You know what, I'm done here. You obviously intend to argue against a strawman; you kind of gave that away with:

Quote:

I could tell you were a fudger from the first sentence. The way you dot your i's. The hitch in you comma's. Dead give away.

I tried to make it perfectly clear that I believed that fudging is something to do with extreme discretion; not something to be done with reckless abandon. I put forth the fact I fudged that roll because of three specific circumstances, and that anything less would have meant I wouldn't have changed anything.

You, meanwhile, seem obsessed with painting me as someone who advocates fudging EVERYTHING EVAR.

959 is an absolutist, for someone in his style of argument, if you fudged once for a very good reason you're no different than one who fudges constantly simply because he feels like it.

[N N 959]

LazarX wrote:

959 is an absolutist, for someone in his style of argument, if you fudged once for a very good reason you're no different than one who fudges constantly simply because he feels like it.

Ask yourself why something that seems so reasonable on the surface is not explicitly advocated?

[TriOmegaZero]

N N 959 wrote:

LazarX wrote:

959 is an absolutist, for someone in his style of argument, if you fudged once for a very good reason you're no different than one who fudges constantly simply because he feels like it.

Ask yourself why something that seems so reasonable on the surface is not explicitly advocated?

Ice cream is a nice treat. Eating it all the time is not recommended.

[SCPRedMage]

N N 959 wrote:

Ask yourself why something that seems so reasonable on the surface is not explicitly advocated?

Ask yourself why something you think is so unreasonable is not explicitly banned?

[Netopalis]

N N 959 wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

Uhhh...a GM or event organizer can reverse a character death. It's trivial to do.

Is that published in the guide? The rules or the reasons one can have their death overturned?

Nope. But I imagine that any GM or Venture Captain worth their salt would go back into the event registration page and uncheck the box if they had committed an egregious error and it was pointed out.

There isn't a rule for everything. If there were, this would be a very boring campaign and a very boring world.

[N N 959]

SCPRedMage wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Ask yourself why something that seems so reasonable on the surface is not explicitly advocated?

Ask yourself why something you think is so unreasonable is not explicitly banned?

It's implicitly banned several times:

1. You roll the dice to determine attack and damage outcomes is explicit in the rules.

2. The guide unequivocally states that you can't violate the rules for any reason. "Fun" is not listed as an exception.

3. They specifically mention dice fudging and state it's not advocated. Do you know where this is stated? In the section titled, "Dealing with Death."

I admit, it's odd that they even need to state #3, but it's probably because GM's are notorious for fudging dice in RPG's and they know that the one place that it's most likely to happen is involving newbie death...so the explicitly address it. True, they could have said, "fudging dice is ground for getting your arms chopped off," and didn't, so I'm going with my reverse psychology conspiracy theory.

Back ...and to the left
Back ...and to the left.

SCPR, I'm not here trying to beat you up. What you did is between you and Abadar. I'm just advocating against dice fudging. Why? Because once you rationalize it in one context, you'll be able to rationalize it in another.

[N N 959]

Netopalis wrote:

There isn't a rule for everything. If there were, this would be a very boring campaign and a very boring world.

We're not talking about everything. We're talking about character death. You're trying to tell me the rules allow rule breaking to save a life, but have no provision to save a life when a rule is broken?

Not a convincing argument.

[Netopalis]

It's implicitly allowed in that the Guide doesn't outright say no, unlike how PFS treats Synthesists. Furthermore, it's very difficult to imply things in your position. Implying something from text is a RAI argument. You are arguing *strict* RAW.

[N N 959]

Netopalis wrote:

It's implicitly allowed in that the Guide doesn't outright say no, unlike how PFS treats Synthesists. Furthermore, it's very difficult to imply things in your position. Implying something from text is a RAI argument. You are arguing *strict* RAW.

The rules absolutely do not implicitly allow dice fudging.

[Netopalis]

I'm afraid I must disagree. Saying that something isn't advocated rather than a stronger statement which bans something outright, when other things are banned outright with no unclear language is a pretty strong signal.

[N N 959]

Talk about rules lawyering.

What part of the rules requiring that you roll dice to determine attack and damage outcomes is unclear to you?

[LazarX]

N N 959 wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

It's implicitly allowed in that the Guide doesn't outright say no, unlike how PFS treats Synthesists. Furthermore, it's very difficult to imply things in your position. Implying something from text is a RAI argument. You are arguing *strict* RAW.

The rules absolutely do not implicitly allow dice fudging.

And I would argue that this is a subject that the folks at the top. (Who DO read all threads including this one) have remained silent on and will continue to do so. For what I imagine to be two very good reasons.

1. They don't want to say "go ahead and fudge" as to imply an unlimited license.

2. They also don't want to out right wield a banhammer on this, preferring to let GM's make their own tentative judgements on a case by case basis.

Rest assured that you will find hardnosed GM's who will advocate your absolute No Mercy ON Any Occasion Stance. And I will do my best to keep new players away from them.

[Netopalis]

N N 959 wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

There isn't a rule for everything. If there were, this would be a very boring campaign and a very boring world.

We're not talking about everything. We're talking about character death. You're trying to tell me the rules allow rule breaking to save a life, but have no provision to save a life when a rule is broken?

Not a convincing argument.

Missed this earlier. What I am saying is that some things fall under the common sense exception, and other things are left up to a table GM's discretion. As I stated above, I do not feel that fudging is against the rules. As for improper character death in a situation where a GM agrees that a mistake was made, there are avenues which can be pursued. They are not published because they would turn into appellate courts rather than an avenue to correct clerical errors.

[N N 959]

LazarX wrote:

Rest assured that you will find hardnosed GM's who will advocate your absolute No Mercy ON Any Occasion Stance. And I will do my best to keep new players away from them.

Where did I say a GM should have no mercy on a party?

[Netopalis]

N N 959 wrote:

Talk about rules lawyering.

What part of the rules requiring that you roll dice to determine attack and damage outcomes is unclear to you?

Well, I *am* a lawyer. But that's beside the point. Nothing is unclear; the rules simply leave fudging up to GM discretion. Banning fudging isn't really feasible anyway - most GMs roll behind a screen, and nobody will ever know if fudging occurs. Even if it is known, it is very difficult to prove.

(Side note: I ran two sessions without a screen once. Vowed not to do it again when a player corrected me on a monster's HP and I realized that he was reading the scenario along with me.)

[LazarX]

N N 959 wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Rest assured that you will find hardnosed GM's who will advocate your absolute No Mercy ON Any Occasion Stance. And I will do my best to keep new players away from them.

Where did I say a GM should have no mercy on a party?

When haven't you?

[N N 959]

Netopalis wrote:

Nothing is unclear; the rules simply leave fudging up to GM discretion.

That's completely false.

1. The rules on how attack and damage are resolved are unequivocal.

2. The Guide says nothing...nothing allows a GM to contradict or ignore the rules. This is unequivocal.

1 and 2 unequivocally mean a GM is not allowed to determine attack and damage through any other means. It's unambiguous. There is zero ambiguity.

Trying to claim that merely "advocating" against something is implicitly allowing something is sophistry pure and simple.

Quote:

(Side note: I ran two sessions without a screen once. Vowed not to do it again when a player corrected me on a monster's HP and I realized that he was reading the scenario along with me.)

Now that's funny.

[Netopalis]

N N 959 wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

Nothing is unclear; the rules simply leave fudging up to GM discretion.

That's completely false.

1. The rules on how attack and damage are resolved are unequivocal.

2. The Guide says nothing...nothing allows a GM to contradict or ignore the rules. This is unequivocal.

1 and 2 unequivocally mean a GM is not allowed to determine attack and damage through any other means. It's unambiguous. There is zero ambiguity.

Trying to claim that merely "advocating" against something is implicitly allowing something is sophistry pure and simple.

Quote:

(Side note: I ran two sessions without a screen once. Vowed not to do it again when a player corrected me on a monster's HP and I realized that he was reading the scenario along with me.)

Now that's funny.

The rules also don't say that I have the power to give my NPCs funny voices. Guess I'd best stop doing my accents.

[N N 959]

Netopalis wrote:

The rules also don't say that I have the power to give my NPCs funny voices. Guess I'd best stop doing my accents.

Disanalogy.

[Celestial Pegasus]

I'm going to very briefly go off-topic, then back onto it. First:

Matthew Morris wrote:

I've found it adds tension and means the players can't metagame, "He's asking for perception, here it comes!"

Can I offer a potentially time-saving alternative, specifically for Perception? It's not my idea, merely one I've seen used to great effect at tables before. Specifically, asking players to roll Perception X number of times before the game and tell you the results. Alternatively, ask for their modifier and do the rolls yourself. You take these pre-rolled numbers and set them aside until needed... can even randomize the number they're applied in, to reduce further metagaming if you're concerned about that. You could even make sure that the number of rolls asked for (X) is greater than you'll actually be using. It also works for Initiative and similar rolls.

Back on topic, while I do not GM much I would like to offer a thought on this... it's pretty clear fudging is officially discouraged. Yet we also see some GMs want to reserve the option for extreme situations. Would it be okay if I offer a perspective primarily as a Player as to how I feel on that? If so, my stance generally ties into a few different criteria. If the player has only 1 or 2 games experience: Ask the following of yourself about them...

Are they playing intelligently? If their character was behaving stupidly, let 'em have what's coming to them. If not, punishing a new player for playing correctly and merely being unlucky is probably not the best idea.

Are they contributing to the table's positive experience? They may have tons of rules questions, but ask yourself whether they're being polite and making a genuine effort to learn the rules and do even a little roleplaying. If so, you want to keep them interested.

So long as both of these are true, fudging might be an option. However, communicate with the player afterward! Don't tell them you fudged. Instead, use this as a chance to educate. Tell them something like "Your PC came very close to death this adventure, and I wanted to let you know they're only going to get more difficult from here. You should look up precautions on how to protect against it; things like learning good party marching order, making sure the other characters know where your character keeps their Cure Potions so they can use it on your PC, and so on. Death can happen to your character and it's really hard to revive them, especially at lower levels. You did good for your first session, but remember to be more careful from here on."

This impresses a very important lesson on them, and does so without hurting their pride. It also means they won't rely on fudging as a crutch, and will learn how to play properly.

Yet what if they aren't a new player? In that case, the only situation I would advocate fudging is to make up for a GM's error or an error by the module writer. Did you or the author leave out a clue that would warn off the character from what otherwise seems like an intuitive thing to do? Or mis-apply a rule such that it seriously hurt the PC's situation? It seems fair to cushion the blow in these cases.

Things like "My character uses Detect Magic and checks for traps, then opens the door if it's clear." "They take 15 fire damage," "Why?" "Door was on fire." "...You didn't mention that." "Wait, I didn't?" "No. You just said it was a wooden door with intricate carving details on it. No mention of it burning." "...Okay. Well, I can't really 'take it back', but I can drop it to minimum damage. 6 Fire instead of 15, and if that dropped you into Dying then I'm not rolling for HP loss for the first round of it; someone go heal him and game on." - That seems reasonable.

[Netopalis]

N N 959 wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

The rules also don't say that I have the power to give my NPCs funny voices. Guess I'd best stop doing my accents.

Disanalogy.

How so? The scenario gives me specifically formatted text that I am to read to my players. Is doing it in anything other than monotone a violation of game rules? What if somebody asks me to describe something not covered by red text? At that point, I'm modifying the scenario, and that's wrong.

[SCPRedMage]

N N 959 wrote:

It's implicitly banned several times:

1. You roll the dice to determine attack and damage outcomes is explicit in the rules.

2. The guide unequivocally states that you can't violate the rules for any reason. "Fun" is not listed as an exception.

Really, now?

Core Rulebook, During the Game, page 402 wrote:

Cheating and Fudging: We all know that cheating is bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in a situation where cheating might improve the game. We prefer to call this "fudging" rather than cheating, and while you should try to avoid it when you can, you are the law in your world, and you shouldn't feel bound by the dice. A GM should be impartial and fair, and in theory, that's what random dice results help support. Some players have trouble putting trust in their GM, but dice offer something that's irrefutable and truly non-partisan (as long as the dice aren't doctored or loaded, of course). Still, it's no good if a single roll of the dice would result in a premature end to your campaign, or a character’s death when they did everything right.

Seems to me that the basic Pathfinder rules explicitly state that fudging the dice is, an option for GMs (albeit mentioning it should be avoided, if possible).

Now, since the CRB itself states that fudging is not cheating, if they intended to outright ban it in PFS, why would the only related statement in the Guide state not that it's banned, but that it's not "advocated"?

Fudging is not something that should be a regular occurrence, but something that should be done only with the utmost caution. Both the Guide and campaign leadership have been quite clear that the GM should use their best judgement, while you state that their judgement can't be trusted.

Perhaps you should play some Zork, instead?

[N N 959]

Netopalis wrote:

How so?

There is rule that tells you how to resolve damage. There is no rule that tells you how to read text.

[N N 959]

SCPRedMage wrote:

Core Rulebook, During the Game, page 402 wrote:

Cheating and Fudging: We all know that cheating is bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in a situation where cheating might improve the game. We prefer to call this "fudging" rather than cheating, and while you should try to avoid it when you can, you are the law in your world, and you shouldn't feel bound by the dice. A GM should be impartial and fair, and in theory, that's what random dice results help support. Some players have trouble putting trust in their GM, but dice offer something that's irrefutable and truly non-partisan (as long as the dice aren't doctored or loaded, of course). Still, it's no good if a single roll of the dice would result in a premature end to your campaign, or a character’s death when they did everything right.

If PFS says GM's are not bound by the dice, then I'll concede cheating/fudging is 100% legal (kind of an oxymoron). And this will completely change how I GM. Essentially I'd like to see PFS come out and say GM "cheating and fudging" is legal.

At least this does explain why they use the word "advocate."

Touche SCPR, you may have just contributed to a wave of dice fudging heretofore unknown

[TriOmegaZero]

You say that like it's a bad thing. :)

[N N 959]

SCPRedMage wrote:

Both the Guide and campaign leadership have been quite clear that the GM should use their best judgement, while you state that their judgement can't be trusted.

I didn't state that. Mike Brock and Mark Moreland stated it when they required that scenarios are to be GM'd as written.

Michael Brock wrote:

Mark and I discussed this. The scenarios are to be GMed as written. This isn't a grey area. I'm more concerned with a GM who thinks he can adequately adjust a scenario to better challenge the party and then kills PCs because extra creatures were added, or harder DCs were assigned to traps, or a coup de grace not written in the tactics, or any number of other circumstances a GM could change. There also is the added consideration that if a GM increases the difficulty of a scenario, you are also burning up more resources of the PCs that other players didn't have to, thus causing the PCs at your adjusted scenario table to spend more gold than they should have had to. It opens a Pandora's Box that just doesn't need to be opened. GM the scenarios as written please.

Clearly Mike doesn't trust GM's judgment when it comes to modifying the difficulty to make the game more "fun." Why should I worry about GM's cheating and fudging?

[Netopalis]

N N 959 wrote:

SCPRedMage wrote:

Core Rulebook, During the Game, page 402 wrote:

Cheating and Fudging: We all know that cheating is bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in a situation where cheating might improve the game. We prefer to call this "fudging" rather than cheating, and while you should try to avoid it when you can, you are the law in your world, and you shouldn't feel bound by the dice. A GM should be impartial and fair, and in theory, that's what random dice results help support. Some players have trouble putting trust in their GM, but dice offer something that's irrefutable and truly non-partisan (as long as the dice aren't doctored or loaded, of course). Still, it's no good if a single roll of the dice would result in a premature end to your campaign, or a character’s death when they did everything right.

If PFS says GM's are not bound by the dice, then I'll concede cheating/fudging is 100% legal (kind of an oxymoron). And this will completely change how I GM. Essentially I'd like to see PFS come out and say GM "cheating and fudging" is legal.

At least this does explain why they use the word "advocate."

Touche SCPR, you may have just contributed to a wave of dice fudging heretofore unknown

This is still not a binary proposition, though. The statement in the Guide is not a free license to fudge ALL the rolls. It's a recognition of the fact that *some* rolls should be changed. Just because it's recognized that, in limited circumstances, fudging is good, does not mean that you need to throw your dice out the window.

Yeesh.

[Netopalis]

N N 959 wrote:

SCPRedMage wrote:

Both the Guide and campaign leadership have been quite clear that the GM should use their best judgement, while you state that their judgement can't be trusted.

I didn't state that. Mike Brock and Mark Moreland stated it when they required that scenarios are to be GM'd as written.

Michael Brock wrote:

Mark and I discussed this. The scenarios are to be GMed as written. This isn't a grey area. I'm more concerned with a GM who thinks he can adequately adjust a scenario to better challenge the party and then kills PCs because extra creatures were added, or harder DCs were assigned to traps, or a coup de grace not written in the tactics, or any number of other circumstances a GM could change. There also is the added consideration that if a GM increases the difficulty of a scenario, you are also burning up more resources of the PCs that other players didn't have to, thus causing the PCs at your adjusted scenario table to spend more gold than they should have had to. It opens a Pandora's Box that just doesn't need to be opened. GM the scenarios as written please.

Clearly Mike doesn't trust GM's judgment when it comes to modifying the difficulty to make the game more "fun." Why should I worry about GM's cheating and fudging?

Modifying a scenario is entirely different business. As I said to Jiggy, it's a question of frequency. Do I fudge all of the rolls in a scenario? No. Do I fudge all of the rolls in an encounter? No! Do I fudge any rolls in the vast majority of the games that I have GMmed? No. I've fudged maybe 5-10 rolls, all of which were in about 5-6 sessions. I have 40+ sessions on file. When you change a scenario, you are changing ALL the rolls that affects - this is just one or two rolls in an otherwise RAW encounter.

[N N 959]

Netopalis wrote:

This is still not a binary proposition, though. The statement in the Guide is not a free license to fudge ALL the rolls.

You know, it just turned out that modifying all the roles was necessary in my judgment to improve the game. In my judgment as a GM, it was unavoidable.

[TriOmegaZero]

That must be a seriously out of whack session.

[Netopalis]

N N 959 wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

This is still not a binary proposition, though. The statement in the Guide is not a free license to fudge ALL the rolls.

You know, it just turned out that modifying all the roles was necessary in my judgment to improve the game. In my judgment as a GM, it was unavoidable.

...and now you're no longer contributing to the discussion, so I'm backing out of it. I'll respond to those with more serious points.

[N N 959]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

That must be a seriously out of whack session.

Have you played 4-02?

[N N 959]

Netopalis wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

This is still not a binary proposition, though. The statement in the Guide is not a free license to fudge ALL the rolls.

You know, it just turned out that modifying all the roles was necessary in my judgment to improve the game. In my judgment as a GM, it was unavoidable.

...and now you're no longer contributing to the discussion, so I'm backing out of it. I'll respond to those with more serious points.

So now that Pandora's Box has been opened, you're leaving the room? You don't trust me as a GM? This doesn't have anything to do with my cheating and fudging does it? Trust me, it's perfectly legal.

[TriOmegaZero]

N N 959 wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

That must be a seriously out of whack session.

Have you played 4-02?

Ah, I wish. Unfortunately I haven't wanted to kill my PCs yet.

Edit: Oh, I thought you meant Severing Ties. Yes, I have ran In Wrath's Shadow for them. No deaths even!

[Netopalis]

N N 959 wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

This is still not a binary proposition, though. The statement in the Guide is not a free license to fudge ALL the rolls.

You know, it just turned out that modifying all the roles was necessary in my judgment to improve the game. In my judgment as a GM, it was unavoidable.

...and now you're no longer contributing to the discussion, so I'm backing out of it. I'll respond to those with more serious points.

So now that Pandora's Box has been opened, you're leaving the room? You don't trust me as a GM? This doesn't have anything to do with my cheating and fudging does it? Trust me, it's perfectly legal.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's advisable. There are a lot of things that are perfectly legal that GMs shouldn't do. GMs shouldn't run a scenario cold unless they absolutely have to. That doesn't mean you stop preparing. It's perfectly legal GM while drunk, but should you do it?

[SCPRedMage]

N N 959 wrote:

Touche SCPR, you may have just contributed to a wave of dice fudging heretofore unknown

Yeah... this is why they say they DON'T advocate fudging. I've heard plenty of horror stories of GMs fudging things to make it more "exciting" or more "fun".

Fudging so the bad guys can hit the high AC character robs the player of the benefit of the that expensive full plate he purchased, and the Dodge and Shield Focus feats he took.

Fudging so that the BBEG makes his save against the wizard's Color Spray is robbing the player of the benefit of his high Intelligence, his Spell Focus, and his spell selection.

Fudging so that the bad guy's spell DCs are high enough that the players fail their saves robs the cleric of the benefit of his high Wisdom and Iron Will.

Fudging so that the enemies won't kill the PCs robs them of the consequences of their mistakes.

Fudging so that the enemies won't abush-one-shot a newbie robs him of what, precisely? The newbie didn't arrive at that situation due to any mistake, whether by the newbie, or his party.

Fudging is something that needs to be done with the utmost caution, if at all. I would say that not fudging is the better default policy, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, ever.

As a side note, if you're going to shorten my handle, go with "RedMage"; the "SCP" is just a bit to make it unique. It was either that, or tag some numbers on the end, which I think looks stupid.