|
I've fudged regularly in my games, mostly because i am a selfish man who wants to show my players the genius of my game-making skills. They never knew that of course, except for one player.
Then i started running Rise of the Runelords and was asked to take the kid's gloves of by that player. I did. Now, just so that i mention, when i GM i tend to roll crits. A lot. Like every other attack. And any dice i roll tend to come up high.
You can imagine their dismay when goblins started dropping them in the negatives. They have adjusted and the game is proceeding smoothly.
But they tend to gripe about my other games being 'easier'.
Pros: You as a GM get to dictate the importance of encounters and get to save a player from a lucky roll if you think it would be dumb for them to die at that moment.
Cons: You're cheating. Even though you're the GM, it's still cheating, even though it's justified.
Now, for players, there is no excuse.
This isn't at the point where it it's clear there is sarcasm at work here, so I'm just going to respond normally:
What you described is not okay in my opinion. As a GM, I will fudge die rolls/AC/hp when I have clearly made a mistake structuring the encounter.It's either too difficult, too easy, or going to last way too long, and I'll make adjustments.
If the player does something obviously risky or dumb, and they end up dying or nearly dying, I'm not going to save them. If they play it really smart and come up with really effective strategy, they get rewarded for that. I'm not going to make my mooks crit every other roll for the sake of drama or "importance".
There is no fudging. Every call I make from behind the Shield of Fear and Ignorance (known in common parlance as the GM Screen) is fair and balanced. Trust in your GM. Peeking over the Shield is forbidden and will result in summary execution of your character.
I'm not going to make my mooks crit every other roll for the sake of drama or "importance".
For the sake of clarity, I don't think he was suggesting that the fudging go in favor of the monsters. :)
I normally try to play the rolls as they land, as it lends the randomness to the story that can't be achieved any other way. I did have a certain session I was running way back in the day-- part of the Savage Tides adventure path-- where all I could roll was twenties. After I had almost killed my second player I kinda fudged a bit where the next five crits I rolled (triple twenties on one) simply became hits. It was simply bizarre luck on my part, and I was honestly sad about seeing this party killed of completely by astoundigly bad luck.
My players let me know after the session that they could kinda tell from my pained expression when I was actually rolling a crit, but none of them really complained afterwards.
But I generally try to play it straight.
I have a bit of trouble with fudging, so I completely abstain nowadays. It's too tempting to spare a character I like, PC or NPC. And it's important to set an example for a cheater in the group, so we roll all dice in plain view.
However, if fudging works for you, and nobody's complaining, I don't see much wrong with it. I think you miss out on a lot of excitement, though.
I have a bit of trouble with fudging, so I completely abstain nowadays. It's too tempting to spare a character I like, PC or NPC. And it's important to set an example for a cheater in the group, so we roll all dice in plain view.
If the character in question is a pleasure to have in the game and that dynamic will be changed because of an unlucky death - why is it bad to spare that character? I don't get it. If the character is a good contributor to the campaign, what's wrong with a little plot immunity? This isn't to say that letting the dice fall where they may is bad, it's just mystifying to me the number of people who, for some reason, characterize fudging as some kind of weakness, moral or otherwise.
However, if fudging works for you, and nobody's complaining, I don't see much wrong with it. I think you miss out on a lot of excitement, though.
And you get to avoid a lot of frustration in favor of excitement too. Because sometimes it's more exciting to stay in the fight rather than be killed by that lucky x3 or x4 crit on the first shot of the combat.
<sarcastic bored monotone>"Ooo, killed before I get a chance to act. How exciting."</sarcastic bored monotone>
I run plot-heavy games, and these plots could sometimes get derailed by odd dice rolls.
I will neither confirm nor deny that I fudge the dice rolls that are ALWAYS rolled behind a screen... but I will say that I don't let poor dice rolls get in the way of a good story!
I don't like to kill PCs if they're being played well and intelligently, but I happen to roll two crits from a bad guy with a x3 weapon. (I'll usually drop the PC into the negatives in that case, but I won't kill outright.)
I also like to reward cinematic actions. I don't actually use Hero Points, but I will give players an unspecified "cinematic bonus" if they choose to take a grand gesture. (It's unspecified, meaning that it's just enought to let the character succeed... or fail in a spectacularly beautiful way.)
Of course, if the PCs are being reckless or just plain dumb, then the dice fall where they may.
Honestly, my players trust me to spin a good story, and nobody minds it if I choose to override a die roll to tell a satisfying story.
I'm not going to make my mooks crit every other roll for the sake of drama or "importance".
For the sake of clarity, I don't think he was suggesting that the fudging go in favor of the monsters. :)
Now, just so that i mention, when i GM i tend to roll crits. A lot. Like every other attack.
I'm not going to make my mooks crit every other roll for the sake of drama or "importance".
For the sake of clarity, I don't think he was suggesting that the fudging go in favor of the monsters. :)
Now, just so that i mention, when i GM i tend to roll crits. A lot. Like every other attack.
I'm not sure I understand, but I think he was saying that he actually rolls crits a lot? Like, his dice actually come up as 20s? By themselves? As a general tendency?
I might very well be the one interpreting this wrong, though.
I'm not sure I understand, but I think he was saying that he actually rolls crits a lot? Like, his dice actually come up as 20s? By themselves? As a general tendency?I might very well be the one interpreting this wrong, though.
I do not believe you are misinterpreting. Hama's context makes it pretty clear.
If the character in question is a pleasure to have in the game and that dynamic will be changed because of an unlucky death - why is it bad to spare that character? I don't get it. If the character is a good contributor to the campaign, what's wrong with a little plot immunity? This isn't to say that letting the dice fall where they may is bad, it's just mystifying to me the number of people who, for some reason, characterize fudging as some kind of weakness, moral or otherwise.
Not necessarily bad to spare them, but would it have to be bad to change the dynamics of the group? Just because this character was a pleasure to have in the game, does that mean that the next character won't be? Maybe the next character will be even more of a pleasure to have in the game? Isn't that a possibility also?
My personally problem with too much fudging is the following:
A)It assumes that the GM knows for a fact what outcomes will lead to the most enjoyable outcome. Yet in my experience many of the most enjoyable memories and thus outcomes have come about as completely unexpected results. Yes losing a character is annoying, but if it leads to the dwarf in the party saying, "My name is Ironhorn Mountainbeard, you killed my friend, prepare to die." over and over again for the rest of the combat with the entire table, including the player whose character died, laughing their butts off. Wouldn't that be great?
B)It can lead to favoritism issues. If for plot reasons the GM's best friend/significant other keeps getting "saved" by the GM, because they understand the GM better and are able to interact with the plot better. Yet the guy who the GM is least friendly with never seems to get "saved", his characters don't vibe with the plot as well, that can become an issue out of game. If there is no fudging and rolls are made in the open it is hard to have those issues come up as much.
|
I fudge occasionally, but usually run fair.
That being said, I also tend to DM with a little blue speckled atrocity I call 21.
It has a prediliction for rolling /really bad/ or /really good/.
As in 'Multiple dead fiends with +14 fort saves dying of massive damage on DC 15 saves' bad.
I have used my judgement as a DM to judiciously disregard some 'hot streaks' from this thing though or really, really bad streaks when it'd be boring for players to fight some big meaningful fight and then have it feel like the dude was jobbing it.
In general though, the DM is the arbitrator, he isn't the rules engine. Its his job to make up for shortcomings of said engine.
I believe I did read that incorrectly When I saw"when I GM I tend to roll crits a lot" and talking baout fudging dice as meaning he makes his mooks crit that often.
In that case ignore the aspects of my original post that were directed at Hama and focus on the general statement.
[B)It can lead to favoritism issues. If for plot reasons the GM's best friend/significant other keeps getting "saved" by the GM, because they understand the GM better and are able to interact with the plot better. Yet the guy who the GM is least friendly with never seems to get "saved", his characters don't vibe with the plot as well, that can become an issue out of game. If there is no fudging and rolls are made in the open it is hard to have those issues come up as much.
This is it for me. How do you decide when it's ok to let a PC bite it? If you fudge for one character, but not another it is unfair. You can say it's for plot reasons, but if the player found out there's a good chance of hurt feelings. One might ask, if you know the results you want, why even roll dice at all?
I started using a players roll all the dice option after a boring game with a particularly obvious fudging DM. Besides, there are so many ways to circumvent death in D&D, why bother fudging? Not to mention the potential story elements introduced by character death. It makes fudging seem like lazy DMing.
I never fudge rolls, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't occasionally just say a boss monster had about 15 extra HP when he gets critted and immediately killed in the first round.
I want them to at least be able to take an action.
I also "fudge" for the players by occasionally DROPPING enemy HP and AC if they're struggling against a mook type monster because of insanely bad rolls.
It's been a while since I've "had to" fudge for my players, but back when the PCs were low-level in Thistletop they were about to be TPK'ed by a group of goblin dogs because of the ridiculous -4 to hit/-4 to AC they were suffering because of being in small tunnels.
I reduced it to -2/-2 in the middle of combat without mentioning it to my players. They still barely survived.
I do like to roll "critical life or death rolls" in front of all the players, because it vastly adds to the drama, and if you die, you know it was fair and square.
I tend to agree with Haladir's assessment (as I do most of the time. Why do all my posts start, "I agree with Haladir...."): I don't fudge. I ensure that the story is not entirely derailed by an untimely TPK that would render the story over, or stupid. Yes, PC deaths can add interesting wrinkles (heck, my fighter seems to downright enjoy dying in Carrion Crown), but at the wrong time, faced by the wrong enemy, you just hear endless stories of how much it sucked. So for some reason it doesn't happen...
(Ogre fighter crits you with ogre hook and rips your head off = cool epic death demanding RP and vengeance. Random encounter goblin dog in the middle of the wilderness triple-crits you and kills you in an utterly pointless encounter = not so cool.)
If the character in question is a pleasure to have in the game and that dynamic will be changed because of an unlucky death - why is it bad to spare that character? I don't get it. If the character is a good contributor to the campaign, what's wrong with a little plot immunity? This isn't to say that letting the dice fall where they may is bad, it's just mystifying to me the number of people who, for some reason, characterize fudging as some kind of weakness, moral or otherwise.
It's bad when you refuse to allow a character death. I can't take a game seriously if I have no chance of dying just thanks to making a fun character. Fun characters can die. That's why you shouldn't be an idiot with them.
And you get to avoid a lot of frustration in favor of excitement too. Because sometimes it's more exciting to stay in the fight rather than be killed by that lucky x3 or x4 crit on the first shot of the combat.
<sarcastic bored monotone>"Ooo, killed before I get a chance to act. How exciting."</sarcastic bored monotone>
Well, that's the game aspect. If you don't like it, why bother rolling? :P
I fudge rolls or hit points of monsters or somesuch as DM if I think it will make the players enjoy it more. When I'm a player, I'd rather the DM let things stand.
Too much fudging, the GM is being a control freak and trying to control the story too much. If you're not going to let good and bad rolls stand, you're just playing "Magical Tea Party". Why don't you just put away the dice and tell everyone a story?
If something unexpected happens, it's fine. It's not like death is permanent in the game. Stop trying to make a nice happy ending. Maybe the end boss gets slaughtered, maybe a PC gets killed. Oh well.
I beg to differ, most of the time the players can tell when a GM is fudging.
As soon as some players know for certain you’re fudging and fudging often, they will lose interest. Depends on the player though, but it will affect players that are playing for “challenge”.
If your dice roll too high, get different dice, they’re probably weighted. A lot of dice are weighted I find, except for precision dice.
I fudge, but only in extreme circumstances. Maybe once per 20-30 sessions, and it's usually when there's an overtuned encounter.
Too much fudging, the GM is being a control freak and trying to control the story too much. If you're not going to let good and bad rolls stand, you're just playing "Magical Tea Party". Why don't you just put away the dice and tell everyone a story?
Well, before our Pathfinder game, we were playing Amber Diceless Roleplaying... so we're kind of used to that style of play!
I might fudge a roll once every third or fourth session, and that seems about right to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A big problem with fudging dice rolls is that if you do it enough you skew the probabilities in a way that players will eventually notice. For example, why would I take an ability that reduces or eliminates critical hits against me if the DM is going to do that anyway? Or if he is intent on having me critted and thus fudges the rolls so that I use that ability up?
Hero Points are a much better alternative that lets you accomplish most of the things you could do by fudging dice rolls without actually fudging the rolls.
I've been playing Earthdawn for awhile now and Role Playing for many many years. I've talked it over with my players and we've decided to go straight rolls. I've usually fudged in favor of the players or to enhance the plot, so we are trying "Let the dice decide." Being older and wiser, I can adapt the story quicker than I used to, and it's pretty fun. They are alright with making new characters in the event of their untimely demise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to agree with Haladir's assessment (as I do most of the time. Why do all my posts start, "I agree with Haladir...."): I don't fudge. I ensure that the story is not entirely derailed by an untimely TPK that would render the story over, or stupid. Yes, PC deaths can add interesting wrinkles (heck, my fighter seems to downright enjoy dying in Carrion Crown), but at the wrong time, faced by the wrong enemy, you just hear endless stories of how much it sucked. So for some reason it doesn't happen...
(Ogre fighter crits you with ogre hook and rips your head off = cool epic death demanding RP and vengeance. Random encounter goblin dog in the middle of the wilderness triple-crits you and kills you in an utterly pointless encounter = not so cool.)
Why, thank you! I think we have very similar play/GM styles.
[Aside: You're on the short list of Paizo posters that I'd love to play a VTT game with... if only I had the time!]