But why bother with rules if you're going to ignore them the moment they determine an outome you don't want?
That's like playing Monopoly and follwing the rules "most of the time" but deciding to "fudge" that you rolled 1 extra when you were about to land on Go To Jail because it's not "fun" to be in Jail.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But why bother with rules if you're going to ignore them the moment they determine an outome you don't want?
I don't think anyone advocating fudging is suggesting that. I suspect that most DMs who fudge rolls usually accept the result - but every now and again judge that the group will have more fun if a different result occurs than that dictated by the die roll.
It's not all or nothing - the choice isn't between "accept every result" and "make up whatever you feel like".
That's like playing Monopoly and follwing the rules "most of the time" but deciding to "fudge" that you rolled 1 extra when you were about to land on Go To Jail because it's not "fun" to be in Jail.
I guess. Or it's like putting a hundred bucks under the board for whoever lands on free parking. If the players prefer that modified rule set, what's the problem?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There isn't a "correct" way to play. For you three, the DM fudging rolls would be dishonest and/or would reduce your fun and would therefore be a bad choice. That doesn't mean it's wrong at other tables though.
Do you really think it's so all-or-nothing? I suspect the fans of fudging do enjoy the random element the d20 provides in almost all cases - just notall the timewhen it matters.
This edit has been brought to you by Ashiel's not-always-witty armory of pointy things.
If you are going to fudge a roll that doesn't matter, why bother?
Do you really think it's so all-or-nothing? I suspect the fans of fudging do enjoy the random element the d20 provides in almost all cases - just notall the timewhen it matters.This edit has been brought to you by Ashiel's not-always-witty armory of pointy things.
If you are going to fudge a roll that doesn't matter, why bother?
I don't think your edit is correct either. I doubt they consider their fudging efforts to be when it matters and the times they accept the result as when it doesn't matter.
No doubt they accept the result when it matters a lot of the time.
Depends on what the perceived job of the GM is. Which, is almost always, group specific.
My players expect me to give them a fair shake, and not to leave the success of the campaign entirely to chance. So, I cheat. I have to. But in the capacity of being a GM, it's not cheating. It's Rule Zero.
Their trust comes in trusting that I will not abuse Rule Zero to screw them. But they are all aware that I will fudge die rolls, and lightly bend mechanics to make sure things go smoothly.
I do not know of any GM that does not do this.
I roll openly. Well recently I stopped doing it with saves, but that was so the party would not know if the bad guy did not fail the save because he was immune or because he made the save. It also helps if they accidentally target an illusion.
Attack and damage rolls are out in the open though.
PS: I do think think more GM's fudge than do not fudge however.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't like the idea of either party fudging rolls and consider it cheating. What's the point of using dice if you just change the result for plot purposes, just do freeform in that case.
That's like playing Monopoly and follwing the rules "most of the time" but deciding to "fudge" that you rolled 1 extra when you were about to land on Go To Jail because it's not "fun" to be in Jail.I guess. Or it's like putting a hundred bucks under the board for whoever lands on free parking. If the players prefer that modified rule set, what's the problem?
Wrong.
That is a houserule, an agreed upon CHANGE to the rules that lasts throughout the entire game, and becomes a part of the ruleset. Breaking taht rule is then as bad as breaking any of the others.
What fudging is is BREAKING the rules when it suits you, because the rules have become inconvenient. As my first analogy shows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's like playing Monopoly and follwing the rules "most of the time" but deciding to "fudge" that you rolled 1 extra when you were about to land on Go To Jail because it's not "fun" to be in Jail.I guess. Or it's like putting a hundred bucks under the board for whoever lands on free parking. If the players prefer that modified rule set, what's the problem?Wrong.
That is a houserule, an agreed upon CHANGE to the rules that lasts throughout the entire game, and becomes a part of the ruleset. Breaking taht rule is then as bad as breaking any of the others.
What fudging is is BREAKING the rules when it suits you, because the rules have become inconvenient. As my first analogy shows.
I doubt anyone fudges just when it suits them I suspect they fudge when they think it will increase the groups enjoyment. Just like (one interpretation of) the rules tell them to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt anyone fudges just when it suits them I suspect they fudge when they think it will increase the groups enjoyment. Just like (one interpretation of) the rules tell them to.That's like playing Monopoly and follwing the rules "most of the time" but deciding to "fudge" that you rolled 1 extra when you were about to land on Go To Jail because it's not "fun" to be in Jail.I guess. Or it's like putting a hundred bucks under the board for whoever lands on free parking. If the players prefer that modified rule set, what's the problem?Wrong.
That is a houserule, an agreed upon CHANGE to the rules that lasts throughout the entire game, and becomes a part of the ruleset. Breaking taht rule is then as bad as breaking any of the others.
What fudging is is BREAKING the rules when it suits you, because the rules have become inconvenient. As my first analogy shows.
"When it suits them" and "when they think it will increase the groups enjoyment" are literally the same thing. You are rephrasing things to make the cheating sound nicer.
"When it suits them" and "when they think it will increase the groups enjoyment" are literally the same thing. You are rephrasing things to make the cheating sound nicer.I doubt anyone fudges just when it suits them I suspect they fudge when they think it will increase the groups enjoyment. Just like (one interpretation of) the rules tell them to.That's like playing Monopoly and follwing the rules "most of the time" but deciding to "fudge" that you rolled 1 extra when you were about to land on Go To Jail because it's not "fun" to be in Jail.I guess. Or it's like putting a hundred bucks under the board for whoever lands on free parking. If the players prefer that modified rule set, what's the problem?Wrong.
That is a houserule, an agreed upon CHANGE to the rules that lasts throughout the entire game, and becomes a part of the ruleset. Breaking taht rule is then as bad as breaking any of the others.
What fudging is is BREAKING the rules when it suits you, because the rules have become inconvenient. As my first analogy shows.
No, I'm adopting a different interpretation of what fudging is - just as the rule books say I should. There are several schools of thought (according to the gamemastery guide) as to whether fudging is cheating.
It's not the definitional fait accompli that it's being portrayed as. There are different ways of playing and different assumptions underpinning those ways.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have ran for a group that expects to win. I think in those cases fudging for them is fine, but at the same time they want to believe they won on their own. However if any of them GM they will fudge to keep you alive or to keep the battle going. It was during this time when I realized some players do not always know what they want.
On the other end of the spectrum I have known players who would get upset if you fudged for or against them. Their outlook was basically "let the dice lie where they lie".
What should be present in a game is the chance for as much fun as possible without impeding too much on anyone else's fun. Sometimes this means certain people should not play at the same table because one person's fun is another person's anguish.
I prefer open dice rolling as a player even if I means I get a brand new character sheet. Do I prefer to live? Of course, but I also look at my character being an adventurer as his chance to become a hero. This is dangerous, and it may lead to him dying. Not everyone makes it on the quest to save the world/city/etc. Some die a tragic death along the way, whether it is by the hand of a superior opponent, or just bad luck.
Just to be clear that is just the outlook my characters have, and if you want to see your character as the hero from the moment he is created that is fine.
What would I do if there is a TPK in a place where it is not realistic to have allies find their bodies or have new heroes pick up where the party left off? I don't know. I have never had to deal with it. I would likely talk to the group OOC, and ask them if they want to continue on.
|
Today were have mechanics that serve as a virtual theater for stories to unfold. We have rules for all sorts of stuff, including environments and weather. Where once there was a game that the only thing to the game was combat mechanics, today combat mechanics make up a much smaller portion of the overall game than ever before.
I'm trying to figure out what you are getting at here. You seem to be implying that the game is less like a wargame now because there is a lower percentage of the rules that are related to combat than there used to be, like adding a lot of rules for weather and environment effects outside of combat changes how rules heavy combat is.
Sure there are a lot more rules about how things work outside of combat, in the early days of D&D there would be a few pages in the DMG regarding all of it that basicly told the GM to make it up as you see fit. There were also a lot less rules for combat too, with some of them going along the lines of "The DM will adjudicate such matters with common sense" (thats from the 1st edition PHB on who strikes first in combat) So, hardly a rule and more of a guideline.
Pathfinder today plays way more like a tactical wargame than than any of the pre-third edition versions of D&D ever did. Combat was presented as being in the "theatre of the mind" rather than played out on a grid. To me, that's exactly opposite of what I interpert you as saying
Well that escalated quickly…
I'm not advocating fudging (can't actually think of a time I've done it myself), but hypothetically, if a player is trying to do something that is roughly DC 15-20, and they roll a 13+5, what do you do? Keep in mind that I said roughly DC 15-20, meaning that it's a task that is not explicitly described in the CRB as having a fixed DC. Say… trying to convince an NPC of something. Just how reasonable the argument comes across and just how likely the NPC is to be swayed is up to the GM. Yes, you should have settled on either 15 or 20 BEFORE the roll, but let's say you hadn't actually made up your mind which it was before the player rolled. Do you tell them to hang on while you think about it, and then ask them to re-roll? Since they rolled a 13 the first time, the odds are against them getting a better result, and they'll probably be disappointed (and slightly confused) if you ask them to re-roll, but as the GM you do have the power to tell them straight-up that they succeeded or failed. I would not judge a GM harshly for choosing any of those three options. Sometimes a PC starts interacting with an NPC that you hadn't fully statted out yet and you HAVE to make judgement calls like that on the fly. "Just how many points of bluff or sense motive would I have put on this NPC if I had been planning ahead?"
I doubt anyone fudges just when it suits them I suspect they fudge when they think it will increase the groups enjoyment. Just like (one interpretation of) the rules tell them to.I suspect a lot of fudging occurs because the GM has a preferred story in mind and the roll would make that hard to move on with. Say the PCs need to find a particular clue to advance, and all roll badly on the skill to find it and didn't happen to come across it another way, the GM will "modify" the result of the check so someone succeeded rather than failed. My response is that if you want particular results then you should play a game that supports that rather than one which has a significant random factor involved; Gumshoe, say, in the Find A Clue example.
Well, yeah - that's my preference too. Nonetheless, there are people who like playing Pathfinder-with-fudging.
What I'm arguing against is the idea that they're doing it wrong because...Cheating! When the rules specifically say there are many competing interpretation of what fudging a die roll is. It's not necessarily cheating and if that's what everyone at the table likes and understands what's going on then I really dont see the problem.
Perhaps there are "better" games in this specific regard, but that doesnt mean they're better overall (they may want to play Paizo APs and not have the time or energy to convert, for example).
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.
Some GMs prefer to roll all of their dice in front of the players, letting the results fall where they may. Others prefer to make all rolls behind a screen, hiding the results from the PCs so that, if they need to, they can fudge the dice results to make the game do what they want. Neither way is the "correct" way; choose whichever you wish, or even mix and match as feels right for you.
I should have dug that out, I guess. It's exactly my point. Fudging a die roll is not (necessarily) cheating - unless you're all of the view that die rolls should never be adjusted by the DM.
Personally, I think it's one of those things to talk about before the game. If the players dont want to play in that style the DM can act accordingly (or the players can find a different game). I'm not advocating lying - just seeing "the rules" from a broader perspective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt anyone fudges just when it suits them I suspect they fudge when they think it will increase the groups enjoyment. Just like (one interpretation of) the rules tell them to.I suspect a lot of fudging occurs because the GM has a preferred story in mind and the roll would make that hard to move on with. Say the PCs need to find a particular clue to advance, and all roll badly on the skill to find it and didn't happen to come across it another way, the GM will "modify" the result of the check so someone succeeded rather than failed. My response is that if you want particular results then you should play a game that supports that rather than one which has a significant random factor involved; Gumshoe, say, in the Find A Clue example.
A bad habit that could be fixed at its source by just learning to GM better. This is probably the biggest reason that most GMs that I've seen that are apt to cheat are also bad GMs even if they've been GMing for a long time.
I'm trying to figure out what you are getting at here. You seem to be implying that the game is less like a wargame now because there is a lower percentage of the rules that are related to combat than there used to be, like adding a lot of rules for weather and environment effects outside of combat changes how rules heavy combat is.
I'm saying that the game has evolved to be much more than a wargame. Where what was only combat is now much more. I've had many a session where players engaged in absolutely no combat whatsoever but did tons of stuff, using class features, spells, and various checks and other tests.
If anything the game has gotten progressively less focused on combat from a mechanical perspective. Long ago there was combat and...make it up as you go. Today we have a framework in which to create stories. This framework creates verisimilitude as the universe functions consistently within its confines. If you walk up to a door and try to break it down, you have a reasonable idea as to how difficult it should be. If you are lost without food, you know how long it'll take you to starve. If you want to follow the tracks of the orcs carrying the hobbits, you know how to do that. There is far, far more to the game than simple combat mechanics.
That's not to say that this game isn't massively focused on combat. Merely that the game is less focused than it used to be, based on the amount of combat rules vs everything else. :o
I don't think all fudging comes from a GM from a desire of the GM to want a certain outcome for himself. Some GM's only fudge to avoid catastrophic(campaign ending failure). To some catostrophic is "they killed my BBEG in two rounds". That to me is just the dice gods playing their hand, and I think a GM should accept it unless he think the players would be disappointed by it. However some players enjoy smashing BBEG's.
However, I do think some GM's do fudge for themselves and not for the players, but they tell themselves it was for the players benefit.
With that said if a GM uses his power to "fake" saves to continue the story then he should not allow a PC to die because that PC might have lived had the fight not been extended. At the very least he should find a way to offer a free rez, but some players just hate the idea of dying, because to them it represents failure.
PS: Before anyone ask I have spent hours building an enemy, only to have him one rounded by a string of lucky and/or unlucky rolls so I do know how annoying ti can be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't fudge die rolls - I roll everything out in the open except for stuff that has to be secret - but I'll throw extra monsters in on round 2 "from the next room" if it looks like an important fight is going to be anticlimactic (and I can do it without it being ridiculous), sometimes let monsters take feats they don't qualify for, change villain spell lists on the fly, pick different things off a random encounter table than what I rolled, etc.
I don't know if that makes me a liar and a thief, but my players seem to be having fun.
I don't fudge die rolls - I roll everything out in the open except for stuff that has to be secret - but I'll throw extra monsters in on round 2 "from the next room" if it looks like an important fight is going to be anticlimactic (and I can do it without it being ridiculous), sometimes let monsters take feats they don't qualify for, change villain spell lists on the fly, pick different things off a random encounter table than what I rolled, etc.
I don't know if that makes me a liar and a thief, but my players seem to be having fun.
That is also fudging, just in a different manner. As for whether or not it makes you a "bad GM" that is up to your players to decide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A DM, by definition, cannot cheat.
The DM controls the entire game world, outside of the player characters. If the DM decides it's a rainy night, then it's a rainy night. If the DM decides that the door has a DC 45 falling slab trap that will do 200 damage, the door has a trap. If the DM decides a room will have 3 goblins, it has three goblins. If the DM decides the orc's greataxe crit does 18 damage instead of 28, then it does.
It's no more cheating than using a house rule is cheating, and I'd wager that everyone who's supporting the sanctity of die rolls uses or has used a house rule or two.
A DM, by definition, cannot cheat.
The DM controls the entire game world, outside of the player characters. If the DM decides it's a rainy night, then it's a rainy night. If the DM decides that the door has a DC 45 falling slab trap that will do 200 damage, the door has a trap. If the DM decides a room will have 3 goblins, it has three goblins. If the DM decides the orc's greataxe crit does 18 damage instead of 28, then it does.
It's no more cheating than using a house rule is cheating, and I'd wager that everyone who's supporting the sanctity of die rolls uses or has used a house rule or two.
My house rules affect both sides of the table. If the orc's greataxe crit deals 18 damage instead of 28, the players does too. This facilitates trust between you and your players.
My players have told me, repeatedly, that they both trust me to be fair with whatever I include in the game. Also, when something bad does or does not happen to a PC, they know it's fair. They know when a badguy succeeds or fails, it was fair.
Yes, I can add house rules. If I add such a rule, everyone will be made aware of it and it will affect everyone. That's part of being fair. That's part of being trustworthy.
Is there a reason you would want a GM that is untrustworthy? Would you not rather know that if you failed it was 'cause you rightfully failed? If you succeeded, wouldn't you rather know it was truly your achievement? Would you really want a GM who decided your martial's critical hit would bring the fight to an end too soon and just inflate the enemy's HP so your crit effectively didn't happen?
If so, why exactly? You don't need to cheat to have awesome games with scenematic adventures or to keep a story moving.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying that the game has evolved to be much more than a wargame. Where what was only combat is now much more. I've had many a session where players engaged in absolutely no combat whatsoever but did tons of stuff, using class features, spells, and various checks and other tests.If anything the game has gotten progressively less focused on combat from a mechanical perspective. Long ago there was combat and...make it up as you go. Today we have a framework in which to create stories. This framework creates verisimilitude as the universe functions consistently within its confines. If you walk up to a door and try to break it...
I guess if that's your experience, then that's your experience. I would say that the game is much more heavily focused on combat now than it ever has been. Although we had less rules to guide exactly how the non-combat portions of the game went, they were still there and every bit as important to the game and story as they are now. That's my experience from BECMI through 2nd edition.
It was only towards the end of 2nd edition with the introduction of books like Players Option: Combat and Tactics that we started to see rules for combat that even begin to get close to what we have now. You say that there was only combat in previous editions, but the many sessions that I had back in the 80's where there wasn't a single attack roll made tell me a diffrent story.
I am not trying to dispute your experience with the game, but perhaps you assume too much that everyone played the earlier editions in a specific way. I had been playing D&D for over 10 years before I even heard of anyone actually using miniatures on a map to represent combat, that's how divorced from the rules wargaming was.
A DM, by definition, cannot cheat.
The DM controls the entire game world, outside of the player characters. If the DM decides it's a rainy night, then it's a rainy night. If the DM decides that the door has a DC 45 falling slab trap that will do 200 damage, the door has a trap. If the DM decides a room will have 3 goblins, it has three goblins. If the DM decides the orc's greataxe crit does 18 damage instead of 28, then it does.
It's no more cheating than using a house rule is cheating, and I'd wager that everyone who's supporting the sanctity of die rolls uses or has used a house rule or two.
I agree, but for the purpose of this conversation I think cheating also includes breaking the social contract of the table. Some players don't mind the GM "cheating". Others would result in an empty table.
edit: A house rule stated up front is not cheating. A house rule that nobody knows about, or that is changed at random is a different story.
I think referring to a GM doing his job as "cheating" is hyperbole, and a mountain is being made out of a molehill.
So, I'll jump on the hyperbole train, and say apparently, the guy or gal that invented the DM screen needs to be tar and feathered and is a dirty cheating cheater that cheats, and shouldn't be trusted to pet sit for people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A DM, by definition, cannot cheat.
The DM controls the entire game world, outside of the player characters. If the DM decides it's a rainy night, then it's a rainy night. If the DM decides that the door has a DC 45 falling slab trap that will do 200 damage, the door has a trap. If the DM decides a room will have 3 goblins, it has three goblins. If the DM decides the orc's greataxe crit does 18 damage instead of 28, then it does.
It's no more cheating than using a house rule is cheating, and I'd wager that everyone who's supporting the sanctity of die rolls uses or has used a house rule or two.
My house rules affect both sides of the table. If the orc's greataxe crit deals 18 damage instead of 28, the players does too. This facilitates trust between you and your players.
My players have told me, repeatedly, that they both trust me to be fair with whatever I include in the game. Also, when something bad does or does not happen to a PC, they know it's fair. They know when a badguy succeeds or fails, it was fair.
Yes, I can add house rules. If I add such a rule, everyone will be made aware of it and it will affect everyone. That's part of being fair. That's part of being trustworthy.
Is there a reason you would want a GM that is untrustworthy? Would you not rather know that if you failed it was 'cause you rightfully failed? If you succeeded, wouldn't you rather know it was truly your achievement? Would you really want a GM who decided your martial's critical hit would bring the fight to an end too soon and just inflate the enemy's HP so your crit effectively didn't happen?
If so, why exactly? You don't need to cheat to have awesome games with scenematic adventures or to keep a story moving.
A DM is not a computer. There's more to running a game than if (value equal than or greater): true -> result. If everything were determined solely by the dice rolls, there would be no need for a DM, games could be run directly from a book choose your own adventure style. Part of a DMs job is making sure a game is fun and interesting.
Success isn't measured by beating up a monster, and failure is bigger than a single die roll. From a big picture view, you succeed if achieve the goal, save the town, rescue the captive, defeat the demon army, discover the ancient sword. You fail if you don't. A single die roll in a story is a grain of sand on a beach, and to focus on it is to miss the view.
My players trust me to run a game that's engaging, a game that's memorable, and a game where their choices affect the world. We're not gambling, no money is on the line. In the context of a game I'd much rather be trusted to run a game people enjoy than be trusted to always use every die roll. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but neither are they interrelated.
Why do I exercise the power of a DM? Because it makes the game better to do so. If you choose not to, I would imagine you'd say it's for the same reason. I'm no more a cheater than you are a computer.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have, in the past, played under a GM who fudges rolls.
I am, presently, playing under a GM who does not.
The essence of who these two people are, how they GM, and how they behave, cannot be summarized by whether or not they fudge their rolls. They both have their own styles, they both put in different amounts of effort, and they both run their own games.
And when all that is said and done, I have complete and utter trust in the GM I am presently playing under.
I do not trust the GM that I used to play under, whom I know fudges his rolls. And I have no reason to ever think he has done anything but fudge rolls to the benefit of his players and the campaign. Yet, I do not trust him anywhere near as much as I trust my present GM.
Is the fudging, or lack thereof, the sole reason I trust one GM and not the other? Probably not. But it DOES affect it, and it affects it significantly.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can sort of understand. The fudging GMs have trouble appreciating the chance part of the game like I do. Is it more fun for the BBEG to insta die? Well is it more fun for the party fighter to roll under 5 for the entire combat?
The answer is NO. Neither of those situations are very fun, but they are part of the game. As the GM, you create a world. That is the only universal GM "job". A good GM makes a compelling world for the party. Chance is that one equalizing element between both the NPCs and the PCs. Sometimes fate works against the PCs plans, sometimes it foils the GMs plans. That is part of the game.
That being said, the GM has a screen for a reason. Sometimes the GM doesn't have the time to rewrite the adventure and the BBEG has to pass his saves and get away. I don't buy all this "cheating is fun" nonsense, but I can accept, "I spent 30 hours on this module. I'm not spending 30 more rewritting it just because you decided to baleful polymorph the town crier who was actually the BBEG in disguise and he rolled a 1".
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I too have been running games since the era of BECMI and 1e, and I agree that the current editions seem much more combat focused than the old editions. Heck I've pulled out BECMI in recent years and it's refreshing to be able to run an adventure where a major combat can be over in 20 minutes, and an incidental combat in 5. When I was in high school we used to play eight hour 1e sessions where we didn't touch dice. We would have loved the heck out of VtM back then.
As a GM, yes I'll fudge rolls. But here's the thing - I can't remember the last time I fudged a roll in a bad guy's favor. If the players 1-shot the BBEG so be it. I find pulling that sort of thing off occasionally is really fun for the players. Usually if I fudge a roll it's to make a bad guy miss, or fail to confirm a crit, or to fail a save. Some players handle character death better than others - I have friends who are okay with it, and friends for whom character death means they are done with that campaign. Some players see their PC as the hero of their personal fantasy story and don't care about that story if their hero is gone. Perhaps you could call that immature but I just call it different expectations of the game. So I'll fudge a roll if it keeps a favorite PC/player from being removed from the campaign. Heck I've been known to have a bad guy fail a save he should have made just because of RL time constraints - game is supposed to end at 10, but it's 9:55 and Mr Evil is still at 90% efficiency - seems like a good time to have him succumb to a SoD effect. For that I need to read my players - are they enjoying the extended battle and still raring to go? Pause in mid fight and pick back up next time. Are they just tired of it and want it to end? Holy crap he rolled a 1 on his save vs. disintegrate, roll for damage!
I also play with groups for whom all rolls are in the open let the dice fall as they may. That works fine for those groups too.
Fudging isn't for making my "predetermined" plot come out as I expect - it's for reading the players and delivering the game that they want. It's for correcting my statting mistakes on the fly when a challenge isn't what I intended. It's for improving player fun, whatever that entails. If I have a group of players whose fun is diminished by any fudging, then that group would have no fudging. Fudging is a bit of a crutch for poor GMing - a perfect GM would almost never need it. But I'm not perfect. It's there as a resource if needed.
And yes, in general I'd totally let a player reduce his die rolls if there was no advantage to doing so but it was desired for story or enjoyment reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The BadfunWrong is strong in this thread.
Personally, I don't see a problem with the rare use of fudging in dice rolls. Sometimes a GM, especially one with not a lot of experience, can misjudge the challenge of an encounter by overestimating the PCs capabilities, or not realize how lethal such an encounter is. A TPK in such circumstances, especially with novice players, can not only kill the campaign but potentially kill any RPG interest. And new players in general can often...make very poor tactical decisions.
I don't think I would fudge die rolls for the bad guys however. If I made a villain too weak via tactics or stats, that my fault and I should deal with the consequences. But if I made a situation too lethal, well...that is also my fault, and I don't see how punishing the players does anyone any good.
Next time I get an opportunity to GM, I would probably give the players hero points to compensate, and not have to deal with fudging dice at all.