Fudging Dice Rolls

[zarion]

I still just keep asking, why introduce a randomizer, if you are just going to ignore the result???

Just choose the result!

Mostly it seems, or at least the most common examples point to, fudging being used to save a PC from death in combat.

If you don't want the PCs to die in combat, use a system where death in combat is not an option.

I hate PC death as it instantly ends all the narrative momentum said PC has within the campaign. However, knowing that their PC might actually die makes players reluctant to engage in combat. I like that in a game, the PCs should be afraid of combat, it's potentially deadly.

 

[TJS]

Leaving the ethical question to one side (as it's very subjective) I think it's potentially harmful to the game.

Partly because I think the players "not knowing" is rarer than people think. As the OP shows, players aren't oblivious and they almost certainly will notice over time. At which point you get into thorny questions like "why is Bob's character worth fudging to save but mine isn't?"

Yes. And I agree. But I also think this dodges the issue a little.

As it’s possible to interpret this as “don’t fudge unless you’re really good at fudging”.

Or “fudge only very rarely and on really special occasions so you don’t get found out”.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

Fudge early, fudge often.

 

[hawkeyefan]

From what I have seen and from many comments here, it seems like most fudging is done to somehow protect the PCs. Either to prevent one or all from dying, or to otherwise mitigate some very negative result.

So why not introduce some kind of mechanic that gives the player the ability to negate such a result? Obviously, this is game dependent, but let’s say in 5E, you allow them to use Inspiration to negate the effect of one die roll.

This puts the ability to resist such a result in the hands of the player. It creates potentially interesting decision points about the use of Inspiration (do I use it now or save it to avoid a lethal hit later).

Once you give the player that ability to mitigate that kind of result, then you’re free from the need to fudge.

It’s a kind of meta-currency, and so not everyone will like this option, but using it or something similar would really get rid of the “need” to fudge.

 

[TJS]

Early on in my Symbaroum game my PCs killed a campaign important NPC in a case of mistaken identity. They actually realised the seriousness of the issue themselves and tried to save him but failed their first aid checks while the NPC failed his death saves before the one PC with healing magic could get there.

If ever there was a time to fudge to everyone’s apparent benefit, it was then.

It basically derailed the whole campaign for a few sessions but was ultimately to the good of the campaign as the players (this was a new group at the time) learnt that I would let things stand.

 

[T. Foster]

From what I have seen and from many comments here, it seems like most fudging is done to somehow protect the PCs. Either to prevent one or all from dying, or to otherwise mitigate some very negative result.

So why not introduce some kind of mechanic that gives the player the ability to negate such a result? Obviously, this is game dependent, but let’s say in 5E, you allow them to use Inspiration to negate the effect of one die roll.

This puts the ability to resist such a result in the hands of the player. It creates potentially interesting decision points about the use of Inspiration (do I use it now or save it to avoid a lethal hit later).

Once you give the player that ability to mitigate that kind of result, then you’re free from the need to fudge.

It’s a kind of meta-currency, and so not everyone will like this option, but using it or something similar would really get rid of the “need” to fudge.

I use "joss factors" in my games that do essentially this - players can choose to spend one to affect a single one of your own die rolls by +/- 15% (or 3 on d20 or 1 on d6), or to reduce an enemy's damage roll to the minimum amount. They have to be spent before the dice are rolled, so they don't undo the past but can help influence the future. PCs generally start with about 8 (1d6+4) and they don't refresh automatically but new ones are generally picked up at a rate of a couple per level as the PC performs significantly heroic (or otherwise class and alignment-appropriate) acts.

I was introduced to this mechanic in 1988, in an AD&D game DM'd by a guy named Gary Gygax.

 

[Winterblight]

I still just keep asking, why introduce a randomizer, if you are just going to ignore the result???

The power of illusion should not be underestimated. The dice, the GM screen (where appropriate), the pages of scribbled notes and other accoutrements all combine to create a believable illusion of a game world that is presented to the players. The dice are but part of the GM's toolbox to create that illusion. In my case they get called as they fall, the characters falling with them if necessary, but I play a lot of grimdark, so that works.

I'm not sure GM's are introducing a randomiser, just to ignore it. The mechanics/rules come with the randomiser built in. They are just choosing to ignore the occasional problematic roll. A simple quick fix for an unexpected outcome not easily predicted, or a case of the GM really being on the side of the PCs? I'm sure there are many other reasons besides.

 

[Caesar Slaad]

Leaving the ethical question to one side (as it's very subjective) I think it's potentially harmful to the game.

Partly because I think the players "not knowing" is rarer than people think. As the OP shows, players aren't oblivious and they almost certainly will notice over time. At which point you get into thorny questions like "why is Bob's character worth fudging to save but mine isn't?"

I think this is a fairly important point. We include risk of character death in a game because it heightens the feeling of tension and excitement. But players get attached to their character, and having a character killed off is something a player can take personally. I think one of the key reasons/features for randomizers in life-or-death situations is to give the GM some social distance from the decision of killing a PC.

 

[Sommerjon]

I still just keep asking, why introduce a randomizer, if you are just going to ignore the result???

Just choose the result!

Mostly it seems, or at least the most common examples point to, fudging being used to save a PC from death in combat.

If you don't want the PCs to die in combat, use a system where death in combat is not an option.

I hate PC death as it instantly ends all the narrative momentum said PC has within the campaign. However, knowing that their PC might actually die makes players reluctant to engage in combat. I like that in a game, the PCs should be afraid of combat, it's potentially deadly.

I have just chosen the results before. Ran a 10 session game(D&D) with the soapbox ranter guy(we call him Chaotic Evil) plus 5 others. 10 minutes into the first session he got on his soapbox, so I ran the rest of the mini-campaign just choosing the results.
At the end he congratulated me on not fudging. Which was when I lifted the screen and showed my d12 and 2d6 that I was using merely as sound effects.

 

[TristramEvans]

I think this is a fairly important point. We include risk of character death in a game because it heightens the feeling of tension and excitement. But players get attached to their character, and having a character killed off is something a player can take personally.

I call that one "Blackleaf's Law"

 

[zarion]

The power of illusion should not be underestimated. The dice, the GM screen (where appropriate), the pages of scribbled notes and other accoutrements all combine to create a believable illusion of a game world that is presented to the players. The dice are but part of the GM's toolbox to create that illusion. In my case they get called as they fall, the characters falling with them if necessary, but I play a lot of grimdark, so that works.

I'm not sure GM's are introducing a randomiser, just to ignore it. The mechanics/rules come with the randomiser built in. They are just choosing to ignore the occasional problematic roll. A simple quick fix for an unexpected outcome not easily predicted, or a case of the GM really being on the side of the PCs? I'm sure there are many other reasons besides.

It's the "ignoring the occasional problematic roll" that is the heart of the issue.

If the system you are using is capable of producing rolls that are problematic, you are using the wrong system, IMHO. Either that or the players or GM does not fully understand the consequences of the mechanics within the system, which means you are using the wrong system.

I too really do not like killing off PCs as it instantly invalidates all of the narrative momentum said PC has gained within the campaign. However, if death is going to be an option, then I make sure the players understand that it will be a possible consequence of combat. Then, when the players participate in combat and their PC is "unexpectedly" killed off they are prepared for it. If they don't want to risk their PC being killed, they should not participate in combat.

Pulling punches as a GM in order to save a PCs life, to me, seems disingenuous. If the system allows even occasional results that need to be fudged in order to "make it work" the way the GM wants, then you are using the wrong system.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's the "ignoring the occasional problematic roll" that is the heart of the issue.

If the system you are using is capable of producing rolls that are problematic, you are using the wrong system, IMHO. Either that or the players or GM does not fully understand the consequences of the mechanics within the system, which means you are using the wrong system.

I too really do not like killing off PCs as it instantly invalidates all of narrative momentum said PC has gained within the campaign. However, if death is going to be an option, then I make sure the players understand that it will be a possible consequence of combat. Then, when the players participate in combat and their PC is "unexpectedly" killed off they are prepared for it. If they don't want to risk their PC being killed, they should not participate in combat.

Pulling punches as a GM in order to save a PCs life, to me, seems disingenuous. If the system allows even occasional results that need to be fudged in order to "make it work" the way the GM wants, then you are using the wrong system.

I agree with a lot of what you say, except the bit about using the wrong system. It implies there is a perfect system out there for everyone.

I do think that the need to fudge hints at a failing of the system, or a failing of the GM to use the system. Such failings can be corrected without needing to discard an entire ruleset in favor of another.

 

[zarion]

I agree with a lot of what you say, except the bit about using the wrong system. It implies there is a perfect system out there for everyone.

I do think that the need to fudge hints at a failing of the system, or a failing of the GM to use the system. Such failings can be corrected without needing to discard an entire ruleset in favor of another.

Houserules! Which in a way, means you are using a different system...

 

[AsenRG]

I too really do not like killing off PCs as it instantly invalidates all of the narrative momentum said PC has gained within the campaign.

I'd object that it doesn't. It just transforms it.
Think of it as a number of ropes tied at one end and being swung around. The PC is the knot. Now if you suddenly remove it...what happens?
Easy, those ropes go flying! So, where do they end up? What are they going to break?
I contend that this is more narrative momentum, not less!

 

[Sommerjon]

Think you guys are stuck in Fudging to save players and wont get past it.

 

[zarion]

Think you guys are stuck in Fudging to save players and wont get past it.

I'm stuck in the "using a randomizer, then ignoring the result, then trying to justify using said randomizer but ignoring the result" thing.

 

[TristramEvans]

It's the "ignoring the occasional problematic roll" that is the heart of the issue.

If the system you are using is capable of producing rolls that are problematic, you are using the wrong system, IMHO. Either that or the players or GM does not fully understand the consequences of the mechanics within the system, which means you are using the wrong system.

I too really do not like killing off PCs as it instantly invalidates all of the narrative momentum said PC has gained within the campaign. However, if death is going to be an option, then I make sure the players understand that it will be a possible consequence of combat. Then, when the players participate in combat and their PC is "unexpectedly" killed off they are prepared for it. If they don't want to risk their PC being killed, they should not participate in combat.

Pulling punches as a GM in order to save a PCs life, to me, seems disingenuous. If the system allows even occasional results that need to be fudged in order to "make it work" the way the GM wants, then you are using the wrong system.

I agree, much as I did with Justin Alexander's similar sentiments

 

[TristramEvans]

Only thing I think I can add to the conversion is this - the dice are, ultimately, like any other game rule, ultimately a tool of the GM. A dice result is nothing besides a number. It's up for the GM to interpret it. "Failure" can mean alot of different things, and the only restriction on a GM's creativity is the GM's creativity. Thus, there's really no reason to fudge a bad die roll....changing the number on a die doesn't change that the interpretation of that number lies with the GM.

 

[SavAce]

Think you guys are stuck in Fudging to save players and wont get past it.

I know I 100% explained that I wasn't, but maybe you don't believe me?

As far as I can tell, aside from the "fudge to save a character" thing, you have talked about fudging for what you think would result in something dramatically appropriate. Possibly fudging to speed up something tedious (rather than using some other method), etc.

If you think we are hung up on just one particular kind of fudging, rather than lament that, maybe explain the other kinds of fudging you are talking about, so we don't get stuck repeating ourselves and kinda arguing against something you're not actually talking about?

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Think you guys are stuck in Fudging to save players and wont get past it.

I'm more stuck in "lying to your players is bad" tbh.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Think you guys are stuck in Fudging to save players and wont get past it.

It seems to be the most common example that’s being offered.

The only other one I recall off the top of my head is to fudge a bit to speed up a combat which is all but done. And I think most folks would be fine with that....just that instead of bothering with all the rolls, they’d just narrate the remainder and move on.

I’m sure that there may be other reasons to fudge a roll, and I expect some have been mentioned in this thread and I’m simply not recalling them. But whatever the reason may be, I expect there’s a better way to address whatever the issue may be than by fudging rolls during play.

 

[TJS]

There's fudging to preserve the precious plot. You even used to get adventures for games that specifically told the GM to do that. E.g. "El Diablo must escape to appear later in the adventure - you should fudge rolls if necessary to ensure this". But it's hard to know what to say about something this egregiously stupid.

The video also seems to suggest fudging to make sure the monsters get to be cool and challenge the players (which I think is a vastly overrated concern even without fudging. Players don't mind getting to wipe the floor with the monsters - if anything, a bigger problem is GMs never actually giving the PCs a chance to just be badass and instead thinking they have to try and make every combat a fight that goes down to the wire).

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

There's fudging to preserve the precious plot. You even used to get adventures for games that specifically told the GM to do that. E.g. "El Diablo must escape to appear later in the adventure - you should fudge rolls if necessary to ensure this". But it's hard to know what to say about something this egregiously stupid.

The video also seems to suggest fudging to make sure the monsters get to be cool and challenge the players (which I think is a vastly overrated concern even without fudging. Players don't mind getting to wipe the floor with the monsters - if anything, a bigger problem is GMs never actually giving the PCs a chance to just be badass and instead thinking they have to try and make every combat a fight that goes down to the wire).

You see that in historical games and games based on literature especially. If your PCs can't kill Mordred they really need to know that so they don't waste their time trying.

And an even worse example in published adventures is "the PCs get captured here".

 

[Winterblight]

It's the "ignoring the occasional problematic roll" that is the heart of the issue.

If the system you are using is capable of producing rolls that are problematic, you are using the wrong system, IMHO. Either that or the players or GM does not fully understand the consequences of the mechanics within the system, which means you are using the wrong system.

I've played games happily for many years before running into dice rolling issues. Shake anything long enough and the lumps will rise to the surface. I realise a lot of people can just read a ruleset and pick out potential issues and toss something aside without ever playing it. I can't do that. I can't perceive the math that way. These things emerge in play. I would say there are very few systems out there that are perfect. I'm guessing there are many players and GMs our there that don't fully understand the consequences of the mechanics until they have put the game through its paces. Just because a ruleset can throw a curve ball from time to time certainly doesn't mean its the wrong system. If it is the case, I've been having way too much fun with the wrong systems for 40 years.

 

[T. Foster]

Recalling times in the past when I’ve fudged rolls it’s generally been because I realized in the moment that the way a combat encounter was playing out was either way harder or way easier than I had expected it to be - either that something I expected to be a minor obstacle was heading towards a likely TPK or that something I expected to be a big dramatic climax was instead going to be over in 1-2 rounds and pose no significant threat.

In both cases I would fudge rolls to make the outcome more like I expected, but then I would take that as a lesson why I had misjudged the encounter difficulty and adjust my designs going forward so that I wouldn’t have to fudge as much, and over the decades I’ve developed enough sense of these things that these situations don’t really come up anymore. Which is how I think it should be. Fudging should be a way to fix an error (by the GM or by the system), not an excuse for a bad system or sloppy design, and especially not as a way to enforce a predetermined story.

 

[Brander]

I do most rolls behind my gm screen because there are times when I don't want you to know what I'm rolling, sometimes because I'm trying to make you nervous, and mostly because I like hearing the dice roll and I'm neither looking at nor caring what the roll is. If you are looking behind my screen to see if I'm cheating then YOU are cheating and I don't want you in my games.

Whether or not I've fudged a roll is absolutely none of your business. Are you having enough fun? If yes, keep coming back, if not you are welcome not to return or try my next game.

I'm not saying whether I do or do not fudge die rolls because it's none of the players business. My job is to run a fun game, not cater to every individual players opinion of what is good or bad fun.

I've had 100s of players over the decades, some repeat players at yearly conventions, some regular players at local games, and some only got to experience my games once. Not one player in an rpg Ive run has ever asked or cared if I was fudging die rolls. It's only on forums or videos that anyone I've ever known of has ever cared either way in an rpg.

 

[ffilz]

For what it's worth, the last Cold Iron campaign I ran in grad school, one of my friends commented that he was glad I was running a campaign and not fudging or pulling deus ex machina to save the PCs. So players CAN care if their GM is fudging.

I finally actually watched the video. I disagree that the GM's role is to create drama. I also don't think the GM's role is to make sure everyone has fun and the GM's role is not to make sure the session or campaign makes a good story.

Now I get it, some people want this kind of GM, but I know others who don't. I choose to be the kind of GM who doesn't do these things and I cater to players who don't want this kind of GM.

I'm starting to think that outside of a respected friend of a GM telling said GM how their fudging (or not fudging) may be giving a different player experience than they expect, or that there are players who don't want that kind of game, telling someone that fudging is good or bad doesn't go anywhere. Clearly this thread has gone in circles.

So if you want some old school fudge free gaming, look me up on Roll20 or Unseen Servant or ODD74 forum, maybe I've got a game that would be of interest to you. If you like a different style, maybe one of the other GMs in this thread runs a game in a style that interests you.

 

[TristramEvans]

It's never come up in a game, but as I said in my first post, Fudging isn't something that ever even really occured to me.

I've also never used a GM screen.

 

[opaopajr]

I am cool with dicing for inspiration during improvisational content generation -- sometimes you don't have the time for the perfect tailor-made random table, so good enough with ignorable outlier results will do -- but other than that why consult the dice if you need to fudge? Just take a breather, do your best, and be honest about your challenge in adjudicating probability. And if it still blows up spectacularly throw it to the mercy of the table (your peers) of what better probability range would they have chosen. You might learn something.

Not everyone is good at impov probability or coherency ranges. No shame, just get more experience and keep the dialogue open. Worry less about appearing infallible, more about honest impartiality in service to a fun time.

edit: Oh, and I love my GM Screens. Handy-dandy oft used tables at a glance, and a place to hide my prepared notes and scribble pad of improv content generation. That and it prevents the mental short-cut of seeing a value and knowing the likely outcome, then mentally checking out of the fiction's description. I know I have trouble with spoiling my fun by accidentally getting a peek because of reading upside-down, excellent memory, or fast calculations, so I feel I am doing a courtesy to those who can do so similarly and want to enjoy the thrill of anticipation. In fact, I have heard as much from some players of mine before.

 

[Baulderstone]

I like my GM screens for reference and hiding notes, but I always try to roll in the open unless there is a very good reason. One reason is the effect on player psychology. I've noticed that if I kill of someone's PC with a roll they didn't see, there is more likely to be some level of resentment. If I kill off someone's PC with a roll I made in the open where everyone knew the odds, the dice take the blame.

Rolling in the open also makes it impossible for me to fudge. As a rule, I don't like to fudge anyway, but I can feel the urge when a PC that I particularly like is at risk. Rolling in the open keeps me honest.

As I mainly game online now, I do have a dilemma. When I am running a game in video chat, I prefer to have everyone just roll actual dice and call out results. I don't game with anyone I don't trust, so I am not worried about cheating. On top of that, dice rollers tend to be more fiddly than just scooping up dice and rolling them. They slow the game down, especially in combat, where I want to keep things moving quickly. Of course, this means that nobody can see my dice rolls. Keeping a fast pace is more important to me than people seeing my rolls, so that's the way I am going for now.

 

[Stevethulhu]

I like my GM screens for reference and hiding notes, but I always try to roll in the open unless there is a very good reason. One reason is the effect on player psychology. I've noticed that if I kill of someone's PC with a roll they didn't see, there is more likely to be some level of resentment. If I kill off someone's PC with a roll I made in the open where everyone knew the odds, the dice take the blame.

Rolling in the open also makes it impossible for me to fudge. As a rule, I don't like to fudge anyway, but I can feel the urge when a PC that I particularly like is at risk. Rolling in the open keeps me honest.

As I mainly game online now, I do have a dilemma. When I am running a game in video chat, I prefer to have everyone just roll actual dice and call out results. I don't game with anyone I don't trust, so I am not worried about cheating. On top of that, dice rollers tend to be more fiddly than just scooping up dice and rolling them. They slow the game down, especially in combat, where I want to keep things moving quickly. Of course, this means that nobody can see my dice rolls. Keeping a fast pace is more important to me than people seeing my rolls, so that's the way I am going for now.

Many moons ago, I spent a few years helping to run Five Rings Online. The third and fourth iterations of the game. I think it's on the 10th now?

Anyway, big online chat based RPG. Sometimes combats with a dozen players.

And the thing that really helps when using an online doce roller is having players who prepare their rolls, so when needed they can just click and give you the result.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

I like my GM screens for reference and hiding notes, but I always try to roll in the open unless there is a very good reason. One reason is the effect on player psychology. I've noticed that if I kill of someone's PC with a roll they didn't see, there is more likely to be some level of resentment. If I kill off someone's PC with a roll I made in the open where everyone knew the odds, the dice take the blame.

Rolling in the open also makes it impossible for me to fudge. As a rule, I don't like to fudge anyway, but I can feel the urge when a PC that I particularly like is at risk. Rolling in the open keeps me honest.

As I mainly game online now, I do have a dilemma. When I am running a game in video chat, I prefer to have everyone just roll actual dice and call out results. I don't game with anyone I don't trust, so I am not worried about cheating. On top of that, dice rollers tend to be more fiddly than just scooping up dice and rolling them. They slow the game down, especially in combat, where I want to keep things moving quickly. Of course, this means that nobody can see my dice rolls. Keeping a fast pace is more important to me than people seeing my rolls, so that's the way I am going for now.

I'm with you on screens for that reason: I have notes and stuff, and when we're sitting around the table, sometimes wandering eyes can factor in, well intentioned or not.

We do all our rolls online, on Roll20, and never really have an issue with it slowing down, though. The only problem we have is the occasional weird internet lag where we hit a button but it doesn't transmit through right away.

 

[AsenRG]

I do most rolls behind my gm screen because there are times when I don't want you to know what I'm rolling, sometimes because I'm trying to make you nervous, and mostly because I like hearing the dice roll and I'm neither looking at nor caring what the roll is. If you are looking behind my screen to see if I'm cheating then YOU are cheating and I don't want you in my games.

Whether or not I've fudged a roll is absolutely none of your business. Are you having enough fun? If yes, keep coming back, if not you are welcome not to return or try my next game.

I'm not saying whether I do or do not fudge die rolls because it's none of the players business. My job is to run a fun game, not cater to every individual players opinion of what is good or bad fun.

I've had 100s of players over the decades, some repeat players at yearly conventions, some regular players at local games, and some only got to experience my games once. Not one player in an rpg Ive run has ever asked or cared if I was fudging die rolls. It's only on forums or videos that anyone I've ever known of has ever cared either way in an rpg.

See, that's the attitude I like from GMs who fudge! (That, or being open about it).
This way, I can try, and decide whether I want to play or not (and you can decide whether you want me to play)...hence, if I decide to play anyway, I've forfeited any rights to ask about whether fudging was happening or not.
Either way, it would save us a whole load of grief!

For what it's worth, the last Cold Iron campaign I ran in grad school, one of my friends commented that he was glad I was running a campaign and not fudging or pulling deus ex machina to save the PCs. So players CAN care if their GM is fudging.

Of course we can.
But a GM wanting players who don't care is also legit. The point is to get players that are a good match for your style, not to prove the Eternal Justice of Fudgeless Games!

I finally actually watched the video. I disagree that the GM's role is to create drama. I also don't think the GM's role is to make sure everyone has fun and the GM's role is not to make sure the session or campaign makes a good story.

+1. The GM is there to simulate the environment....no more, no less, nothing different is needed.

Now I get it, some people want this kind of GM, but I know others who don't. I choose to be the kind of GM who doesn't do these things and I cater to players who don't want this kind of GM.

Exactly!

I'm starting to think that outside of a respected friend of a GM telling said GM how their fudging (or not fudging) may be giving a different player experience than they expect, or that there are players who don't want that kind of game, telling someone that fudging is good or bad doesn't go anywhere. Clearly this thread has gone in circles.

Of course it doesn't! Not any more than the video would make you starting to see your GMing role as "drama-creator"...
But it's fun to share opinions. Even if at the end of the day, we all know the other guys are wrong and the only one who's right is the one that shares our point of view!

So if you want some old school fudge free gaming, look me up on Roll20 or Unseen Servant or ODD74 forum, maybe I've got a game that would be of interest to you. If you like a different style, maybe one of the other GMs in this thread runs a game in a style that interests you.

 

[AsenRG]

It's never come up in a game, but as I said in my first post, Fudging isn't something that ever even really occured to me.

I've also never used a GM screen.

I've used a GM screen several times. Once, the new players told me they've watched Youtube and the GM there had a screen...so I took out a statuette of a cat (about 2 cm high) and proclaimed "this is my GM screen, I need no other".
"We still see your dice".
"That's part of the point I'm making".
Gaming Satori was reached at once!

Another time I was running a game which had a few tables. So I made a screen and plastered the tables on it.
I still rolled outside of the screen most of the time, except when the players shouldn't be aware whether 've succeeded, though.

Does that mean I wouldn't make hidden rolls when not using a screen? No, but I can usually hide them behind my hand, and then I cover the dice with the same hand. So no screen is needed.

Regardless, I believe not using a screen is a good habit...unless you intend to fudge rolls, that is.

I like my GM screens for reference and hiding notes, but I always try to roll in the open unless there is a very good reason. One reason is the effect on player psychology. I've noticed that if I kill of someone's PC with a roll they didn't see, there is more likely to be some level of resentment. If I kill off someone's PC with a roll I made in the open where everyone knew the odds, the dice take the blame.

Rolling in the open also makes it impossible for me to fudge. As a rule, I don't like to fudge anyway, but I can feel the urge when a PC that I particularly like is at risk. Rolling in the open keeps me honest.

As I mainly game online now, I do have a dilemma. When I am running a game in video chat, I prefer to have everyone just roll actual dice and call out results. I don't game with anyone I don't trust, so I am not worried about cheating. On top of that, dice rollers tend to be more fiddly than just scooping up dice and rolling them. They slow the game down, especially in combat, where I want to keep things moving quickly. Of course, this means that nobody can see my dice rolls. Keeping a fast pace is more important to me than people seeing my rolls, so that's the way I am going for now.

Or, you know, you can roll your usual way when there's no great pressure, but switch to the diceroller when the PCs are in a tight spot and you might need that extra help for honesty?

 

[Sommerjon]

I know I 100% explained that I wasn't, but maybe you don't believe me?

As far as I can tell, aside from the "fudge to save a character" thing, you have talked about fudging for what you think would result in something dramatically appropriate. Possibly fudging to speed up something tedious (rather than using some other method), etc.

If you think we are hung up on just one particular kind of fudging, rather than lament that, maybe explain the other kinds of fudging you are talking about, so we don't get stuck repeating ourselves and kinda arguing against something you're not actually talking about?

I look at it like this.
If I, as the person running the game, can tell a player: No.
Then I, as the person running the game, can tell the dice: No.

The dice don't run the game I, the person running the game, runs the game. That means, to me, I use my best judgements through adjudications of the rules and rulings. My job is not to be the interpreter of the dice. That is not what a person running the game is. If you want that style go play one of them GMless games out there. Because you don't need a GM to do that.
The dice are merely a tool in the toolbox. Does that mean I am ignoring the die results all the time? Maybe. I can go session upon session without ignoring a rolled result or I can ignore 5 results in one session. Cuz dice can be fickle.

 

[AsenRG]

I look at it like this.
If I, as the person running the game, can tell a player: No.
Then I, as the person running the game, can tell the dice: No.

The dice don't run the game I, the person running the game, runs the game. That means, to me, I use my best judgements through adjudications of the rules and rulings. My job is not to be the interpreter of the dice. That is not what a person running the game is. If you want that style go play one of them GMless games out there. Because you don't need a GM to do that.
The dice are merely a tool in the toolbox. Does that mean I am ignoring the die results all the time? Maybe. I can go session upon session without ignoring a rolled result or I can ignore 5 results in one session. Cuz dice can be fickle.

Cool (story, bro).

But no, you don't get to tell me "no", not without a good reason... Can I use my PC's ability in this situation? If it doesn't work, there should be a reason, and (likely) an observable one.
And the same applies to the dice as well.

Can you still do it? Sure. Can I modify my playing habits (including to exclude playing with you from my schedule)? Again, sure.
The fact that anyone can do something doesn't mean it's a thing that anyone should do, ever. (I respect you enough to assume you'd be able to think of a few examples of things like that, but we'd cross into politics at that point...so let's skip them).
Thus, my position is that fudging is something that all GMs can do, so it's a choice to decide not to do it. And I maintain that making this choice improves the game for everyone (except for people with different preferences from me, but they're simply wrong, as we know).

Also, I wish it was true that GMless games were functionally equivalent to Refereed games. Alas, they have some downsides, still. As soon as those are resolved, I'd stick to them!

 

[Tommy Brownell]

Cool (story, bro).

But no, you don't get to tell me "no", not without a good reason... Can I use my PC's ability in this situation? If it doesn't work, there should be a reason, and (likely) an observable one.
And the same applies to the dice as well

I guess if you’re not playing in his game then he’s not telling you anything.

 

[SavAce]

I look at it like this.
If I, as the person running the game, can tell a player: No.
Then I, as the person running the game, can tell the dice: No.

The dice don't run the game I, the person running the game, runs the game. That means, to me, I use my best judgements through adjudications of the rules and rulings. My job is not to be the interpreter of the dice. That is not what a person running the game is. If you want that style go play one of them GMless games out there. Because you don't need a GM to do that.
The dice are merely a tool in the toolbox. Does that mean I am ignoring the die results all the time? Maybe. I can go session upon session without ignoring a rolled result or I can ignore 5 results in one session. Cuz dice can be fickle.

Adhering to a set of mechanics is not equivalent to letting the mechanics "run" the game, in the sense that it makes a GM unnecessary. GMs do a ton of things outside the mechanics. Those things can be redistributed in some way to arrive at a GM-less game, but to put "A GM who doesn't fudge" and "Might as well be a GM-less game" in the same bucket seems a bit hyperbolic.

On the other hand, if someone wants to run a fudge happy game with people happy to play in a fudge happy game, it's all cool of course. For me, if I get a sense like a game is fudge-heavy, it is deflating and breaks my "immersion factor", but I'm not every player and recognize I am after a certain style of play.

 

[zarion]

I don't like to fudge cause to me that makes rolling of the dice pointless.

The same goes for the tables of monsters that used to appear in the books of the D&D that I don't play anymore. I would roll and roll and roll until I got a monster I actually wanted to use. Then one day I decided it would be better to not waste my time rolling and just choose a monster. Then later I just choosed the monster without a table cause who cares if the monster "isn't supposed to be in that climate" or whatever.

I forgot where I was going with this but I typed it all so I'm posting it anyway.

 

[Sommerjon]

Guess we will just disagree.