my players have let me know in no uncertain terms that fudging will not be tolerated
What I'm curious about is what exactly do they mean when they say "fudging"? Does this just include "changing die rolls to give a more desirable result" or does it also include:
-Changing the antagonists who will appear in a scene that has not happened yet in response to how beat up/healthy the PCs are (or based on how loud or sneaky they are.)
- Deciding a round or two into a fight that the buffs the bad guy has will be expiring before the fight is over (i.e. if the buff was cast 9 minutes and 42 seconds ago and lasts 10 minutes, it's done by round 4.) Does it matter if I decided this fight would be "buffs fall off round after round" three days before the game and put it in my notes?
- Deciding, after the PCs surprise you by bringing the supposed Kingpin to justice (either karmic or otherwise) to drop clues that this individual was not the true power, and to point at whoever is so that the PCs have something else to do next.
- Intentionally using tactics in fights that, while likely significantly sub-optimal, are in at least very much character with whichever entity is performing them.
Or anything else the GM can do behind the scenes to stack the deck that doesn't involve dice.
but if the GM does it in a situation like this? What's your take (citizens of the interwebs)?
GM fudging is good and necessary.
The main "rule" is this: Don't take away player agency.
You can't always save your players (or screw them) - you want a balance. And you want players to be able to both take harm from mistakes they make and reap the rewards of good planning.
Fudging is best done when the issue is purely random chance being a dick. Sometimes everyone just rolls badly, even if the party is using sound tactics and playing it safe. While, sure, bad things happen sometimes, those are the times to soften the blows, because they PCs had no control over them.
The same goes for monsters. If a bad init roll and a lucky crit would take out a major badguy before he can go, I usually fudge a bit and give the monster some bonus HP - just enough so that it can have a single round to do its thing. Part of that is not wanting to have wasted an hour on an enemy that never even gets to roll a die, but part of it is also to make the monster seem scary, even if it is getting it's ass punked.
Epic
Epic is fine, but it is not the only way to have a great game.
|
]Gee, that sounds a lot like, "If you don't play the way I do, your game must suck." Which is a very strange thing to assume.
Hm, it's difficult to talk about when houstonderek isn't here to chime in, but that's actually exactly the feeling that I get from him saying "we do it this way or I won't partake". Might not have been a problem in your game, because everyone had the same opinion or was at least willing to compromise on that point. Would certainly have been a problem if I had been one of the potential participants.
But just to repeat myself: I didn't say anything about fudging behind the players back. I was talking about the GM admitting that fudging might be part of his arsenal and the players accepting that to be the case. And I don't believe one bit that such a game would, from any objective point of view, be substantially worse than the actual game you've had.
So no, it's not about running the game a certain way. It's about assuming that running the game a certain way is objectively superior to other ways of running the game. Which is what someone is doing if he says that fudging is wrong no matter the circumstances (or, to do it the other way round, if I would claim that a game can't be fun without the GM fudging)
For me, it doesn't matter.
I'm basically asking people who say "fudging is bad, I won't do it" what, precisely they are ruling out. Can I make the Ogres really tactically careless? Can I give the PCs an easier or harder time by changing the guard patrols? Can I change which buffs the antagonists have at the start of the fight?
Is the only thing we're objecting to is "changing die rolls"? If so, can I add or subtract appropriate circumstantial bonuses or penalties?
There are a *lot* of things a GM can do to ensure things don't go that far off of the anticipated result, I'm wondering if all of them fall into the "forbidden" territory for people who care about such things, or if it's just the dice?
It varies from person to person.
So if hypothetically I get players who say "absolutely no fudging full stop" do I have to go case by case down everything I can think of that I could use to manipulate circumstances to see if it's okay or not? Should I assume anything that I didn't think of then, can't be used unless I clear it with the players first? So every week will start with a discussion of a half-dozen things I thought of that could, potentially, be seen as forbidden?
If the ogres do not fight to the very best of their ability (e.g. they pick targets basically at random and don't use teamwork) and I justify that with "ogres aren't very smart" have I potentially committed some sort of breach of trust?
I'm really unclear how games proceed when players are deeply suspicious of the GM not having their best interests in mind. This seems like a really difficult way to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they have such a strong opinion then I'd just put the burden on them to define what is and is not fudging.
You could also just raise your own concerns had reach a mutual understanding through discourse.
In general just communicate expectations.
|
I'm really unclear how games proceed when players are deeply suspicious of the GM not having their best interests in mind. This seems like a really difficult way to play.
Maybe by talking to them? And finding out if they really are these paranoid individuals you are so worried about, so you can tell them that this group doesn't seem like it will work out.
If you have that kind of players, they want to play against the system and have you on board as a manager who keeps the system going.
I mean, if I,as the GM, have absolutely no say in what happens and I'm just there to be a referee, I don't think I would want to GM anymore. I don't see how that can possibly be fun for me.
For me, I already have say in what players encounter, what the world does, and so many other things. I have thousands of characters already, I don't need to control theirs too.
But I mean saying:
"You can't have the ogres be stupid, they have to fight us to the best of their ability."
"You can't invent a power behind the BBEG so killing the BBEG early in the story is no longer a win condition"
"You can't have extra heavy/light guard patrols"
etc.
are restrictions on me and how I can control the entire world that is not the PCs, which is supposedly my job as GM. It is literally possible for an NPC to put a Geas spell on the PCs (this both happens in a Paizo AP and is possibly the least subtle railroading imaginable) so saying "I control everybody except the PCs" does not preclude you from nudging the PCs around, after all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I GM, I GM. I'm in charge.
If I'm going to bust my hump for 12+ hours per week putting content together for one session I'm not going to be hampered by demands about GM style.
"You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an a$#@~~%."
I had an interesting thought after reading this thread that I'm curious about... What about story fudging?.
I remember I made a murder mystery type session once and the players came to the "wrong" conclusion of who the culprit was based on my notes... but after listening to them talk over the clues and debate with each other I realized that it would make way more sense for their suspect to be the culprit. So I quickly improvised a few different details at the end so they were right. I never actually told them it wasn't the person I had in mind at the beginning of the session.
95% or more of the time I do something I would consider "fudging" it's either "the players thought up something more interesting than what I prepared" or "I thought of something more interesting in the moment than what I had prepared." So I go with the thing I think is more interesting rather than the thing I had written down on paper.
I've even done sort of "Schrödinger's murder mysteries" where the actual culprit is not decided until the PCs put together the clues.
None of the vehement anti-fudging folks will tell me whether this is out of bounds.
If they are against a 20 turning into a 19, or a 10 turning into an 11 then they have to, by logic, be against Jody suddenly being the killer when it was previously Lily originally. Otherwise they have more respect for the dice than they have for the plot, and since in both cases it is the same thing... Something being changed secretly to help/hinder/alter the situation it falls under the same umbrella. Logically anyway.I had an interesting thought after reading this thread that I'm curious about... What about story fudging?.
I remember I made a murder mystery type session once and the players came to the "wrong" conclusion of who the culprit was based on my notes... but after listening to them talk over the clues and debate with each other I realized that it would make way more sense for their suspect to be the culprit. So I quickly improvised a few different details at the end so they were right. I never actually told them it wasn't the person I had in mind at the beginning of the session.
95% or more of the time I do something I would consider "fudging" it's either "the players thought up something more interesting than what I prepared" or "I thought of something more interesting in the moment than what I had prepared." So I go with the thing I think is more interesting rather than the thing I had written down on paper.
I've even done sort of "Schrödinger's murder mysteries" where the actual culprit is not decided until the PCs put together the clues.
None of the vehement anti-fudging folks will tell me whether this is out of bounds.
Your logic anyway.
Just because I like to play the game by letting the dice roll the way they roll doesn't equate to what you just said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also the game has systems for determining what that dice result means. It doesn't have systems for who the murderer is and whatnot.
Given that the assumption is that you are using the games systems (this is implicit by playing the game unless stated otherwise) some people might take offense to the integrity of those systems being ignored, altered or otherwise subverted.
Given that the assumption is that you are using the games systems (this is implicit by playing the game unless stated otherwise) some people might take offense to the integrity of those systems being ignored, altered or otherwise subverted.
I tend to view systems as useful only insofar as they assist in telling stories (primarily as means of conflict resolution). Insofar as a system gets in the way of a good story, I feel it is my responsibility as the GM to ignore, alter, subvert, or replace the system. I feel like the CRB says as much, even.
It is the exact same thing... Its like saying: "A 10 has to remain a 10, but its okay to change the creature's attack bonus to a +12 from a +11..."
So, is it okay if I change a creature's stats on the fly to hit when I should have missed, or miss when I should have hit? If it is then I might as well just change the die result as it is the same thing.
This i don't like. Because it invalidates what I've built as a PC. When I'm playing i don't enjoy it when a GM decides to change dice rolls or creature's stats in the middle of a fight. I won't play in those kind of games.
I enjoy building a competent character using the rules provided and beating challenges with those rules.
For Example: If my AC is 30 and you on the fly change the enemies attacks to be able to hit me...why the hell did i spend resources on my AC.
If I have written all of the game notes as to who the killer is, and I change it on the fly, I'm literally doing the same thing. It is down on paper, it has been decided, all of the investigation rolls made until this point all were giving information that X person is the killer... Then I change it... Because the players guessed wrong?
How is that okay but changing a die once in a while isn't?
Story elements I'm okay with being changed. Sometimes you have to change stuff on the fly if the players are doing stuff you didn't expect as a GM.
It just amuses me that some people suddenly are very shocked when you show that what would be the result when you give them all they wish for. Sudden denial is a common reaction.
OK, there have been many bridges designed by engineers. Some of them have failed and collapsed.
Therefore "engineering" automatically and inexorably leads to bridges collapsing, so we should always design them without reference to any sort of math or science, to avoid the possibility.That's exactly what you're saying, when you claim, "DMs following the rules automatically and inexorably leads to 4e."
Your point would be more accurate (and better taken) if you said, "It seems to me that approach might lead in the direction of something like 4e, although that needn't be the case." Why is that more accurate? Because I can point to games that start with that approach (mine, for example) and demonstrate that they clearly are NOT 4e.
TL;DR: "A+B=C" does not imply "A+X=C for all possible values of X."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I consider fudging, I generally only apply it to dice results. That's generally how it has been defined to me. I don't fudge dice results and generally don't like it as a GM and Player. I roll the majority of my dice in the open. I think most people don't like fudging dice rolls because the dice are seen as a sort of neutral arbiter between the players and the GM. And if you are simply ignoring them, then it can seem like it's done to screw over the players. And sadly, in my experience, I generally see it done to harm the players rather than help them. I find that fudging is a symptom to something, rather than the actual problem.
Generally, when you fudge a dice result, it stems from a desire to maintain control over the situation and the results in favor of a certain outcome. Mind you, this isn't always negative. A good example is dialing back damage a bit to monsters because they are creaming the PCs. That is something done with a good intention and I cannot fault a GM for doing it. However, at least for me, there is a bit of a loss of tension and drama when I know the Gm will simply soft ball us a win. I enjoy feeling that danger when my character is in a bit over his head, or the possibility of failure can happen. It's not that I like an adversarial GM, but I do like legitimate consequences for failure.
So back to fudging and control, there are several methods to set up your encounters and obstacles where there is little need to change your dice rolls. Here are some things I do.
So balance? I generally don't balance encounters. While I may look at the Challenge Rating for a pound-for-pound gauge, I find that CR rarely works. It doesn't take into account players' tactics and crits and stuff. So I generally just eyeball stuff. But I let all my players know before I run a game that combat is more lethal and that sometimes, they might be in over their head. Especially if they just run in like it's a WoW raid and try to mow everyone down.
Secondly, I strongly encourage player ingenuity. One of the strengths of playing a TTRPG is that you can do clever things to circumvent and overcome an obstacle. So at the beginning of every campaign I run, I always let my players know that they can go at any situation how they want, not just running in with swords blazing, taking turns smacking each other. It just ends up making a better game. I once had players take on a red dragon several levels above them by causing a mudslide on the dragon. It was severely weakened and they went in for the kill. It was still a tough battle, but because the players executed a clever strategy that worked out, they were able to take on something much stronger than them and to this day, still talk about that battle. I find that new players are more likely to do this than experienced gamers, so sometimes I'll have an NPC do something clever to give them ideas.
Thirdly, I tend to remove binary pass-or-fail obstacles, instead preferring a more spectrum of failure. Tell me if this has happened to you. You guys are sneaking around and someone fails a stealth roll. Suddenly, the enemies are all somehow alerted to you and now you have to fight them anyways. And from then on, most people don't try using stealth again. That kind of bites, no? So I tend to make each failure bring about a new complication, rather than complete failure. So with the above example, instead of the enemies automatically firing at the PCs, I have them instead alert but unsure, going towards the sound that the PCs made. This gives the players a chance to recover from their failed stealth check, and it can even open up the chance to use disguises if they take down the enemies. I do the same in combat. Not everyone fights to the death like it's Final Fantasy. I'll have some enemies run away if the going gets tough, or, like in Cabbage's example, there can be ogres that are too dumb to do good tactics. That's not fudging, and while it may be softening the encounter some, I actually don't think that's a bad thing. I believe a variety of difficulties is great for a game. Sometimes I throw easy baddies at my players and other times I make them really difficult. Lately, I've been running an M-Space campaign and many of the xenofauna will spend a round to threaten the players before charging. And most will simply avoid or run away.
That leads to number four. When I make a scenario, I like to use obstacles that bring about complications and force the players to be clever and innovate. Looking at the example above, the players were just spotted and now stealth has a chance to go out of the window. They can't just stay hidden in the same place, so now, because of the danger, they have to improvise. They could fight and take down the soldiers, or cause a distraction, or go to another hiding spot. That simple little obstacle suddenly forced the players to have to think on their toes, sink or swim. Again, we are encouraging players to try different things, but not funneling them into one singular action.
For five, as the GM you are in charge of describing things. You are the players' senses, so I tend to overdescribe things. Things may seem obvious to us GMs because we are the ones thinking and writing the adventure, but the players can't see our minds or notes (and if they can, you have some bigger problems there mate :D ). So I tend to describe five key things in a location. That tends to get the creative juices going for making a plan. So if I say, for example, that there is a chandelier above some orks, then the players may think that hey, we can shoot it and drop it on the orks! So don't be afraid to get a bit detailed.
And six, I generally don't prep things like a story or plot. That's a big problem new GM's have is that they imagine everything coming together like their favorite novel or TV show. The problem with that is that in those mediums you have a single person or group that controls everything that happens in that book. Aragon has no say in his future or destiny. Neither does Luke Skywalker or Bruce Wayne. But in TTRPGs, the players control the characters and will do things that you won't expect. That's the nature of RPGs because it allows for creative freedom and lateral thinking to problems. It would be like having five authors all arguing over what happens to the Fellowship of the Ring. It just doesn't work out. So it's good to player to the advantages of the medium you are in.
What I generally do is that instead of prepping a full plot, I string up a series of goals that the antagonist is looking to meet for their end game. If the players don't act, or fail, then they complete a goal and go on to the next. But if the players do stop one of their goals, then you can improvise what would reasonably happen next as a consequence. Keep it loose and flexible. Also, I feel that if there is something that you simply want to happen and there isn't any way the players can feasibly interfere, then instead of rolling it, just let it happen. Using my example of goals above, if I really want the players to have an epic showdown against a cultist trying to summon Lucifer or Cthulhu or Ron Simmons, then I simply have all of their goals completed except the last one. And for the adventure, I would frame it more as a mystery leading up to the revelation that the world will succumb to Sweating to the 80's unless the PCs stop them. Again, that's not fudging and not really railroady, because the players are still using their wits and actions to solve a puzzle. Maybe they sneak into the ritual dressed as cultists, or maybe they come barging in on an APC.
Which brings me to my last way to minimize fudging dice. You have to get good at improvising. That's one of the skills a GM needs to cultivate to really step up their game, fudging or not. No plot or adventure module survives first contact with the players, ever. One of the most common mistakes GMs make is relying too hard on the adventure modules's structure and becoming inflexible when the players do something that the module doesn't cover. One of the best ways I did that was to force myself into situations in the middle of the game where I had to think on my toes or else the game would plop. Another thing I do is find random prompts and make adventures out of them in a set time limit. Start with half an hour, then shave off five minutes. I'm at the point where you can give me a verb-noun phrase and I can conceive of a basic plot in as little as five minutes. But it takes practice and dedication. And being in the right headspace.
Right now, there is this thought that the players against fudging are somehow entitled snowflakes with pitchforks making unreasonable demands. That's not what I want you to think about, although there are sadly some that do this. Most players against fudging have had adversarial GMs that screwed them over with it and don't like it. No one is saying that you have to cater to unreasonable demands, merely that there are other ways to provide an excellent, sometimes even better playing experience without having to change dice results. Really, this isn't about player agency or GM fiat, but a more mutual respect to make the game fun.
If you fudge, you aren't a bad GM, full stop. Especially Cabbage, who is doing it to make their game better. I cannot fault the intent, and I think it's great that as a GM, you still want to make your game as good as it can be. Most GMs get a bit full of themselves and believe that since they do all of the work, then it's their way or the highway. That's a bad way of thinking, whether you are a GM or a player (or in life in generaly). There are just better ways to get the desired results, and in addition, there are changes in the thought process when running a TTRPG. Whether it's an OSR sandbox, or a more story driven fox hunt (a more positive term for railroad I once read), these things really will help you out.
And this is coming from years of experience in many many game systems. I've been GMing for over half of my life and much of this I've learned the hard way. But currently, I've got a great group of players and we are having fun. I remain very transparent with my GMing and we are all pretty respectful of each other and what we want from the game.
Given that the assumption is that you are using the games systems (this is implicit by playing the game unless stated otherwise) some people might take offense to the integrity of those systems being ignored, altered or otherwise subverted.I tend to view systems as useful only insofar as they assist in telling stories (primarily as means of conflict resolution). Insofar as a system gets in the way of a good story, I feel it is my responsibility as the GM to ignore, alter, subvert, or replace the system. I feel like the CRB says as much, even.
It is true that you shouldn't let the rules, nor the dice, get in the way of a good story. However, something that one must look at is to make sure that the GM isn't getting in the way of a good story. That is a very difficult thing to do, and it's something I used to have trouble with in my early years of GMing.
|
|
Given that the assumption is that you are using the games systems (this is implicit by playing the game unless stated otherwise) some people might take offense to the integrity of those systems being ignored, altered or otherwise subverted.
I can understant that but that might also pose the difference to my approach. When I'm playing the game, I'm roleplaying first and then playing Pathfinder, D&D or whatever second. This is important insofar as even when I'm changing the system, I'm still doing the same activity. Meaning that the rules are exchangable and in the end don't matter very much to me. I could basically even imagine using the Shadowrun rules to play in Golarion. It's just that I'm a very lazy guy as far as the rules are concerned and shy away from the conversion work necessary (which is also why I'm not using 2e, 3e, 4e or 5e). I'd probably change that for 13th Age, to be honest, but again, it's not worth the effort to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think my point of view can best be explained with an analogy.
The GM has a toolbox which includes all sorts of things: game rules, dice, visual aids, tone of voice, silly accents, research, source books, pre-planned scenarios, random tables etc. Each of those GM tools is like a spanner of a different size. A good GM selects the right tool for the job. One of the tools in the GM toolbox is special, it is GM discretion, GM fiat, GM privilege or whatever you want to call but it includes the authority to overrule any dice roll. This tool is like a shifter, you use it when you don't have the right sized spanner. You don't use it all the time because you might strip the nut (not a perfect analogy, sorry, but hopefully my point is clear). If you do have the correct spanner, use it! Don't fudge a roll unless you have to.
I think it is a worthwhile ambition to improve your selection of spanners, but to decree that you shouldn't have a shifter at all, really? Does that really make sense?
I'll take argument people are never going to see eye to eye on for 100 Alex.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A group of low level characters faces a powerful (for them) wizard. Let's say the group is level 2 and the wizard is level 5, with a couple henchmen. As a GM, I wanted a tough fight as the final event of a story arc.
When the fight starts I realize that designing the encounter I overlooked something, as I had the wizard memorize a fireball that can easily destroy the group.
So, what can I do to avoid a TPK?
1) To some people, nothing: the encounter is set in stone as it was designed, and I have to play the wizard to the best of his abilities: the fireball is cast, damage is rolled, and most of the group goes down; in the following round, short work is made of the rest.
2) Others will accept that I play the wizard as it didn't have the fireball ready and change his 3rd level spells to something different and less deadly, or say that he already used that slot. Or even alter the wizard on the fly, making him level 4.
3) Less people will be ok with the fact that the fireball could be cast, but is not. That would mean that the wizard isn't doing his best to wipe the opponents: isn't he supposed to be smart?
4) The no-fugde faction will be horrified at the thought of a fireball that is indeed cast, but pretending that the wizard rolled close to minimum damage.
5) Even worse if, being new to the system, I don't realize the destructive power of the wizard's fireball until I roll the dice, and then I pretend the wizard rolled close to minimum damage.
Now, let's analyze.
Option 1, IMO, only makes sense in a sandbox-style campagin where the wizard is level 5 and does like fireballs, so the PCs had better done some research on him before engaging; realizing he was too strong for them yet, they had the option to go somewhere else and gain more power (and HP), or to buy scrolls of Fire Resistance.
Not every campaign is like that. In most cases, I find silly to say that the GM shouldn't tweak down badly-designed encounters on the fly, when he designed them himself and could had made them different from the start.
Of course sometimes it's not a matter of bad design, but the situation: the group is low on resources and pushing too far; it's not necessarily the characters' fault, as they may be forced to intervene ASAP lest something bad happen to the hostages, the world, or whatever. This is the case where opinions will differ the most: let things happen, or intervene to preserve the campaign. But let's go on.
So, changing the encounter is one of the tools of the DM to 'save' the group. Comparing options 2 and 3, the outcome is only slightly different: what changes, combat-wise, if the wizard does have a fireball ready but doesn't use it, or if he just has readied Tongues today, or if I remove his level 3 spells by reducing his class level or his INT score?
If you accept that the GM may change what spells the wizard has memorized or can memorize, you should also accept that he doesn't fight at his best: the effect is more or less the same.
Of course if I change things to give him Fly or Magic Circle against Good, instead of Fireball, things are slightly different; but it still means that I'm not running the encounter as I had designed it, where the wizard had a clear winning option.
Now, options 4 and 5. Conceptually what I'm doing is different, but the outcome is exactly the same: if you accept 4, you should also accept 5 because it's just a matter of when I realize that I made the encounter too difficuly for my party. And while I'm interfering with the Fireball spell rules in a way that many won't find acceptable, I think it may be a better option than just not casting the spell.
My opinion is that letting the GM design encounters but deniying him the power to change them is, in most cases, incoherent.
And while I'd rather take the options 2 or 3 instead of changing (or just plainly deciding) what happens with the dice, the result is the same or may even be better with these options 4 or 5. So I don't understand such a resistance aginst them.