Fudging in RPGs

[PolarBlues]

Just out of curiosity… what other games/sports/activities would the participants actively ignore/change violate the rules?

I’m sure there are examples, but I’m struggling to think of any beyond bending rules to take it easy on kids or beginners.

But aside from that, what other examples might there be?

The best comparison I think of is informal sport games in the park. You may be keeping score, you're likely ignoring all the fussy rules and number of people on each time may vary as people drop out to grab a drink. So, kicking the ball around, showing off your skill (or lack of) is part of the fun, but there is a wider context of being outdoors and among friends.

 

[Lofgeornost]

Just out of curiosity… what other games/sports/activities would the participants actively ignore/change violate the rules?

I’m sure there are examples, but I’m struggling to think of any beyond bending rules to take it easy on kids or beginners.

But aside from that, what other examples might there be?

I think comparisons with other games are not very useful in this regard, because the GM's role--in traditional RPGs anyway--is so different from a player's role in most games and his or her powers are so much greater than any player's. And, though I like the term 'referee,' because I'm old, the GM's role isn't really much like a referee in a sports' contest.

In competitive games, most people would of course be upset if one player unilaterally changed the rules, because it would be an unfair advantage. A GM in a traditional game has so much 'advantage' that changing the rules, or fudging rolls, is pretty inconsequential in terms of control of the game. Especially if the alternative to fudging is 'just tell the players what happens without making any roll.'

I have played board games where we changed the rules quite a bit. Our LotR Risk games used several rules we made up because we thought they improved the game, like 'stacking limits.' And it didn't take too many games of Trivial Pursuit back in the day before we got tired of the way it made you wait forever to get the final piece of your pie, and altered the rules to eliminate that feature. Of course, the rules-changes were agreed on in advance, but these were competitive games among equal players.

 

[sharps54]

If GMs that feel fudging is fine are resistant to admitting to their players that they occasionally fudge I submit they know I am right.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think a lot of the notional weight here rides on what exactly people think the primary role of GM is. There's a big conceptual gap between, say, neutral arbiter and story facilitator. I don't think one single term does the role of GM any justice at all, but I know a lot of people seem to and have strong feelings about it.

 

[sharps54]

I think a lot of the notional weight here rides on what exactly people think the primary role of GM is. There's a big conceptual gap between, say, neutral arbiter and story facilitator. I don't think one single term does the role of GM any justice at all, but I know a lot of people seem to and have strong feelings about it.

I think the role of GM could be either or both of these things. I don’t think story facilitator justifies lying to your players regarding whether you are using the dice to adjudicate or not. Some players won’t care, some will, but either way it is rude for a GM to assume they know best for the players. Give them a choice whether they want to play in a game where the GM fudges. That is all I ask, let the players decide if they want you to fudge or not.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think the role of GM could be either or both of these things. I don’t think story facilitator justifies lying to your players regarding whether you are using the dice to adjudicate or not. Some players won’t care, some will, but either way it is rude for a GM to assume they know best for the players. Give them a choice whether they want to play in a game where the GM fudges. That is all I ask, let the players decide if they want you to fudge or not.

I agree that the role is nuanced. Lots of people don't get that nuanced with the idea though, that's all. I might describe those people as having ideology on the topic.

 

[TristramEvans]

Just out of curiosity… what other games/sports/activities would the participants actively ignore/change violate the rules?

I’m sure there are examples, but I’m struggling to think of any beyond bending rules to take it easy on kids or beginners.

But aside from that, what other examples might there be?

Calvinball?

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I think one reason this particular argument gets frustrating is that lots of different arguments get conflated. To try and tease the main ones out.

Only bad GMs fudge and MANLY MEN do not under any circumstances and if your player say they like fudging it's because they are WEAK. Fudging is a moral evil regardless of what an individual group does or doesn't like. This argument is often favoured by people with YouTube videos and blogs and other commerical enterprises that benefit from clicks. But I don't think anyone on here is arguing this so it doesn't really need addressing.

Not only is fudging always acceptable, every GM fudges and if they say they don't they're lying. These people somehow manage to be even more obnoxious than the first group who at least don't go as far as to claim that anyone who disagrees with them is a liar. But again, don't think anybody on here thinks this.

So we're left with the other argument which is, in simple terms:

"You should discuss the possiblity of fudging with your players because it's an important game element" versus "it is fine to fudge and deliberately keep that from your players".

And honestly, I've not yet seen an argument that actually explains why this should be kept from players. (Ok, someone on Reddit compared their players to children who believe in Santa, but that's so obviously dumb I still don't know if it's a grog doing Poe's Law).

To acknowledge the two arguments that have been brought up and are reasonable:

"I'm not going to do that every time I fudge a roll because that isn't fun for everyone".

Valid and I agree that's a step too far. But I think most of us who say you should discuss this with players first mean in Session Zero or the pitch, not with individual rolls.

"My group have been playing for 20 years and of course they know my GMing style".

Entirely reasonable and I suspect in most of these cases the argument doesn't apply to you in the first place because your group knows how it works. But it's still basically allowing player buy in - not all social contracts are verbalised. I'd only say it becomes an issue if you're recruiting a newbie who doesn't know the group norms already.

But that's pretty much the argument. I don't think anybody is saying "don't fudge" as an absolute. They're saying "don't fudge without player consent".

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Just out of curiosity… what other games/sports/activities would the participants actively ignore/change violate the rules?

I’m sure there are examples, but I’m struggling to think of any beyond bending rules to take it easy on kids or beginners.

But aside from that, what other examples might there be?

Free Kreigspiel wargames maybe? But that's more a case of that being how the rules work in the first place. There's something similar in megagames but again that's less "violating the rules" and more a case of having an open "if you want to do something outside the rules the ref team will adjucate it for you" rule.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Um, No. I have never fudged a die roll, honestly. I still, for the reasons I brought up earlier, don't even understand the point of it.

That's me reporting a particularly bad argument, not supporting it. :p

 

[Moracai]

Just out of curiosity… what other games/sports/activities would the participants actively ignore/change violate the rules?

I’m sure there are examples, but I’m struggling to think of any beyond bending rules to take it easy on kids or beginners.

But aside from that, what other examples might there be?

Street basketball IME

 

[TristramEvans]

That's me reporting a particularly bad argument, not supporting it. :p

ah, fair enough, I misread.

 

[Lofgeornost]

Limiting the discussion only to traditional games, where GMs have almost unlimited power to affect the flow and outcome of the game, I am still left with the conundrum of why anybody cares about fudging. You can have a railroad without it; you can have illusionism without it, and so on. Especially if the alternative is "don't roll; just narrate the outcome you've decided on."

My best theory is that it actually has nothing directly to do with player agency, or any of those other things. It is instead symbolic, a form of communication. In essence, saying 'I won't fudge rolls' is a way of saying 'I will play fair and not screw you over.' Note that never fudging rolls doesn't, in itself, guarantee either of those things in the sort of traditional systems I like. You can never fudge a roll and still screw your players over like crazy. But the 'I won't fudge rolls' statement is a gesture to communicate the GM's commitment to fairness.

 

[sharps54]

Limiting the discussion only to traditional games, where GMs have almost unlimited power to affect the flow and outcome of the game, I am still left with the conundrum of why anybody cares about fudging. You can have a railroad without it; you can have illusionism without it, and so on. Especially if the alternative is "don't roll; just narrate the outcome you've decided on."

My best theory is that it actually has nothing directly to do with player agency, or any of those other things. It is instead symbolic, a form of communication. In essence, saying 'I won't fudge rolls' is a way of saying 'I will play fair and not screw you over.' Note that never fudging rolls doesn't, in itself, guarantee either of those things in the sort of traditional systems I like. You can never fudge a roll and still screw your players over like crazy. But the 'I won't fudge rolls' statement is a gesture to communicate the GM's commitment to fairness.

Neither A Fiery Flying Roll said anything about the GM promising never to fudge rolls. We are asking for a good reason a GM wouldn't have the discussion about fudging with the players at some point.

 

[Lofgeornost]

Neither A Fiery Flying Roll said anything about the GM promising never to fudge rolls. We are asking for a good reason a GM wouldn't have the discussion about fudging with the players at some point.

I was not replying directly to his post. I am just trying to figure out why so many people seem to care so much about fudging rolls when it doesn't really affect games one way or another, in a big-picture sense. Why is it something you need to discuss with your players in session 0? If a GM in a traditional system can screw with the players, railroad them, etc. to his or her heart's content without fudging rolls, why does the fudging issue have such weight?

 

[sharps54]

I was not replying directly to his post. I am just trying to figure out why so many people seem to care so much about fudging rolls when it doesn't really affect games one way or another, in a big-picture sense. Why is it something you need to discuss with your players in session 0? If a GM in a traditional system can screw with the players, railroad them, etc. to his or her heart's content without fudging rolls, why does the fudging issue have such weight?

Because in rulesets where a specific die roll has a specific result, such as an 8 doing 8 points of damage, players assume those die rolls matter. If in a particular GM's game the dice don't matter the players should be allowed to know that so they can decide if they want to play in such a game.

 

[TristramEvans]

 

[sharps54]

Seriously, it isn't the idea that fudging is bad, it is the idea that a GM pretending that they don't do it is bad. This isn't about limiting GMs it is about the social contract between the GM and the players. If the GM wants to run a game without half orcs that is cool, just tell the players so they don't make one. If the GM wants to run a game where they fudge dice, or might very rarely fudge dice, just tell the players so they are aware. I don't see why there is resistance to making players aware that there will be a chance of fudging during a game.

 

[TristramEvans]

Seriously, it isn't the idea that fudging is bad, it is the idea that a GM hiding that they do it is bad. This isn't about limiting GMs it is about the social contract between the GM and the players. If the GM wants to run a game without half orcs that is cool, just tell the players so they don't make one. If the GM wants to run a game where they fudge dice, or might very rarely fudge dice, just tell the players so they are aware. I don't see why there is resistance to making players aware that there will be a chance of fudging during a game.

It seems to me what we might be talking about, in a wider sense, is illusionism. And illusionism only works if the players don't know they are being illusioned I guess?

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I was not replying directly to his post. I am just trying to figure out why so many people seem to care so much about fudging rolls when it doesn't really affect games one way or another, in a big-picture sense. Why is it something you need to discuss with your players in session 0? If a GM in a traditional system can screw with the players, railroad them, etc. to his or her heart's content without fudging rolls, why does the fudging issue have such weight?

I don't think GMs should do those things either, but I think they're harder to catch in a Session Zero because most GMs don't think they're railroading. If it's an adverserial "player versus GM" game (and I enjoy that style as an occasional diversion) then yeah, that's something I think to talk about ahead of time. In the same way, I've recently started a very PvP focused game and that was definitely something the group discussed in detail before play.

It seems to me what we might be talking about, in a wider sense, is illusionism. And illusionism only works if the players don't know they are being illusioned I guess?

Even that I'm not sure is the case. If it's agreed fudging *might* take place the players can just choose to suspend belief and enjoy the ride. It's not my preference (I'll just go full freeform for that kind of game) but I can see why it might appeal to some groups.

 

[sharps54]

It seems to me what we might be talking about, in a wider sense, is illusionism. And illusionism only works if the players don't know they are being illusioned I guess?

I'm not saying it has to be discussed every time it happens. What else falls under this illusionism that players aren't aware of? Is it seriously weird for me to think players assume the die rolls will be followed? I submit that players are actively aware other means of illusionism might be employed. Why shouldn't they know this type of illusionism might also be employed?

 

[TheoryofGame]

Hey! This is where I can toss out my favorite term: Play Preference. People just like to play a certain way and instead of possibly attempting to shame them or change their minds I think we could all follow the infallible teachings of Lady GaGa:

"I think tolerance and acceptance and love is something that feeds every community."

 

[TristramEvans]

I'm not saying it has to be discussed every time it happens. What else falls under this illusionism that players aren't aware of? Is it seriously weird for me to think players assume the die rolls will be followed? I submit that players are actively aware other means of illusionism might be employed. Why shouldn't they know this type of illusionism might also be employed?

I still am trying to wrap my head around the point of fudging at all, it just...doesn't logic to me, so I dunno, that was a shot in the dark, but I don't know enough about games where "illusionism is on the table" so to speak to really offer more than a hypothesis.

 

[sharps54]

Hey! This is where I can toss out my favorite term: Play Preference. People just like to play a certain way and instead of possibly attempting to shame them or change their minds I think we could all follow the infallible teachings of Lady GaGa:

"I think tolerance and acceptance and love is something that feeds every community."

What about the player’s play preference?

 

[TristramEvans]

Hey! This is where I can toss out my favorite term: Play Preference. People just like to play a certain way and instead of possibly attempting to shame them or change their minds I think we could all follow the infallible teachings of Lady GaGa:

"I think tolerance and acceptance and love is something that feeds every community."

I opt for shaming them. Lady Gaga's milkshakes don't bring any boys to her yard.

 

[Sable Wyvern]

As a GM, while I create my world with vast piles of fiat, during a session I want to be surprised. So one of the reasons I don't like fudging so much is because I don't want to be in control of outcomes. When an outcome feels obvious, I will use my ongoing power of fiat to say so (and my players are welcome to voice disagreement if they feel I've made an error of judgement). Otherwise, I rely on the dice.

As for my players, while I'm sure some -- perhaps many -- of them would actually be perfectly fine with me fudging, I often run my game with an adversarial demeanour. I chuckle gleefully when the PCs end up in a terrible predicament, and roar with bloodlust when a monster strikes a heavy blow. In no small part, I do this because it gives the players a greater sense of accomplishment when they overcome the odds, through luck or skill, and seize victory.

Relying on the dice gives me the freedom not to play nice. These are the agreed rules; within that framework, this bloodthirsty killer is fully intent on killing your character.

• If I was fudging to make things harder for the players, then I am robbing them of successes they have earned.
• If I was fudging to make things easier for the players, then everything I mentioned above is a scam. And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that -- magicians lie to everyone all the time when they're performing -- but I don't see my role as a magician (those preaching Illusionism perhaps do).
• If I was fudging to make for a more interesting story, then I'm doing one or both of the above, as well as robbing myself of the ability to be surprised.

On a related note, during my ACKS campaign, I started making an effort to rely more on dice between sessions. I would think to myself, "This should be the outcome of events going on in the background," but then I would think, "Well, that's the likely outcome ... but who knows for sure?" so I I would make a weighted die rule and resolve to live with the outcome. It enhanced my enjoyment a great deal.

And, as a closing note, when I have a player tell me I am far and away the best GM they've gamed with, it's not because of constant, deep and moving NPCs, awesome voices or any other of those Mercerish things are often held up as what makes a great GM. It's for simpler things, like knowing that I am fair and consistent and reasonable, that the players are able to feel they have earned their successes and that they know the risks and dangers are real, and they have no plot immunity (beyond any provided by clear and unambiguous mechanical effects). I have no doubt there would absolutely be a sense of betrayal, or at least a shadow fallen over some great memories, if this were to turn out to not be true.

Edit to add: While I am sure that my biases creep in, and I am not the 100% impartial arbiter I might aim to be, that isn't a reason to just give up completely in striving for that ideal.

 

[Baulderstone]

I was not replying directly to his post. I am just trying to figure out why so many people seem to care so much about fudging rolls when it doesn't really affect games one way or another, in a big-picture sense. Why is it something you need to discuss with your players in session 0? If a GM in a traditional system can screw with the players, railroad them, etc. to his or her heart's content without fudging rolls, why does the fudging issue have such weight?

I feel there is a kind of contract when a die roll is called for. If I am sneaking through a dragon's cave, I get that the GM can arbitrarily have the dragon wake up or be asleep. However, if the GM calls for a stealth roll to see if the dragon wakes up, I expect him to abide by that roll.

I think people that with GM experience are especially good at sensing when someone is fudging. Once I get a sense that a GM is fudging rolls, it really robs die rolls in general of the tension they add to a game.

 

[Baulderstone]

On a related note, during my ACKS campaign, I started making an effort to rely more on dice between sessions. I would think to myself, "This should be the outcome of events going on in the background," but then I would think, "Well, that's the likely outcome ... but who knows for sure?" so I I would make a weighted die rule and resolve to live with the outcome. It enhanced my enjoyment a great deal.

The big advantage to that is getting more interesting results. If a big faction is attacking a small faction and the players aren't present, it's easy to make a ruling that the big faction wins. The problem there is that a world where the most likely thing always happens is boring. Give the small faction a 20% chance of winning the conflict. The big faction will probably still win, but if they don't, you've now had a real shakeup in your setting.

Ideally you can get a plot hook or two from the shake-up. Even if you can't, it at least will make the world feel more dynamic.

 

[TheoryofGame]

What about the player’s play preference?

For the purposes and machinations of this thread players can be people too.

 

[rumble]

In a way, this entire discussion is comedy gold.

We're not in a sport, and barely in a game with a stable, codified ruleset--unless we choose to be.

There is no RPG that says "this way or the highway". Well, maybe something like Adventure League.

Rather, most RPGs have a rule zero that says," make of me what you will, because I love you more than my own internal consistency--or maybe there was a typo I missed."

So to call out any player for re-jiggering rules or mechanics on the fly for whatever reason seems... meh.
Am I saying we shouldn't have any rules at all? Nah.
What I'm saying is that using specific criteria to fudge dice rolls is no different from house ruling a game. It's just a matter of scale, consistency, and (optionally) openness with other players.

 

[rumble]

However, if the GM calls for a stealth roll to see if the dragon wakes up, I expect him to abide by that roll.

And what about the GM who calls for a stealth roll even though they have already decided the dragon is awake?

 

[sharps54]

In a way, this entire discussion is comedy gold.

We're not in a sport, and barely in a game with a stable, codified ruleset--unless we choose to be.

There is no RPG that says "this way or the highway". Well, maybe something like Adventure League.

Rather, most RPGs have a rule zero that says," make of me what you will, because I love you more than my own internal consistency--or maybe there was a typo I missed."

So to call out any player for re-jiggering rules or mechanics on the fly for whatever reason seems... meh.
Am I saying we shouldn't have any rules at all? Nah.
What I'm saying is that using specific criteria to fudge dice rolls is no different from house ruling a game. It's just a matter of scale, consistency, and (optionally) openness with other players.

Using that logic it’s ok for players to fudge their dice rolls as well as the GM

 

[sharps54]

Again, I honestly don’t care if people fudge rolls, what I am curious about is why they are so determined not to tell their players they fudge dice rolls.

 

[Baulderstone]

For my part, I really don't care what other people do at their table. I'm just stating my preferences.

And what about the GM who calls for a stealth roll even though they have already decided the dragon is awake?

I was just pulling an example out of the air on the presumption that you needed to avoid waking it to sneak past it. I'm fine with the GM calling for a roll under any circumstance as long at the roll has an actual meaning.

 

[sharps54]

Seriously, people are happy to admit they fudge rolls to enhance their player’s experience at the table here on the Internet, why are they reluctant to tell those same players to their face?

 

[Voros]

Again, on a fundamental level, it seems to me that people are treating this fudging as though they were playing a game of Monopoly and found out somebody was sneaking money from the bank.

The problem with the analogy is that, in traditional RPGs, the GM controls the environment. He or she can say--along the Monopoly analogy--all your money burns up, or your hotels all slide into the ocean. And Park Place is now a radioactive crater.

Now, personally, my preference is that the GM not fudge combat rolls or anything similar, where the players have calculated their risks and staked something on the outcome. But if he or she makes a roll for, say, weather, and changes the outcome for something that seems better, I'm fine with it.

Yes, the ability of the GM to pretty much invent nearly anything in-game has made the tough guy posturing of some 'killer' GMs hilarious to me. You can kill the PCs? Well you can decide almost anything in the game, congrats asshole!

 

[TristramEvans]

I feel there is a kind of contract when a die roll is called for. If I am sneaking through a dragon's cave, I get that the GM can arbitrarily have the dragon wake up or be asleep. However, if the GM calls for a stealth roll to see if the dragon wakes up, I expect him to abide by that roll.

I think people that with GM experience are especially good at sensing when someone is fudging. Once I get a sense that a GM is fudging rolls, it really robs die rolls in general of the tension they add to a game.

That's putting to words some thoughts that I couldn't.

I think about the GM/Player relationship in RPGs, and it's very much like the GM is the substitute for the senses of the player characters who are otherwise blind, deaf, and whatever not-having-olfactory is called. They are brains in jars in a dark closet, and that is a situation where trust is important. Its not a tremendous degree of trust required, the stakes are infinitesimal; "you might not enjoy playing a game of make believe" isn't exactly something that inspires much in the way of risk aversion. But no matter how little trust needs to be extended, it is still a relationship based entirely on that trust.

 

[rumble]

whatever not-having-olfactory is called

Anosmia

 

[TJS]

We're not playing poker here.

If the rules and randomisers throw up an unexpected and unfun result, what's wrong with optimising for enjoyment?

I don't think that's really the issue.

It's the GM doing it in secret in such a way that the fact that this is being done is hidden which is the real issue.

It's not overulling the randomiser, it's pretending that you didn't.

 

[Brander]

Just out of curiosity… what other games/sports/activities would the participants actively ignore/change violate the rules?

I’m sure there are examples, but I’m struggling to think of any beyond bending rules to take it easy on kids or beginners.

But aside from that, what other examples might there be?

Hockey. Where fights were against the rules but a part of the game. Or at least they used to be. They certainly were back when I played. See also "Canadians Are Not Always Nice"



(Not my meme, just one I found a while ago) I'm not Canadian, but I played them in Hockey. Nice off the ice? Sure. On the ice? Not in the least.