Fudging Dice Rolls

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I wouldn't run a fight like that. First off, the PCs will just outright lose through sheer attrition. So it's just a question if how many orcs they take with them.

Second, there's a physical limit for how many orcs can gang up on a PC. It might vary by system, but 6 is a reasonable number. So rolling 100 attacks is pointless.

But any fight where it's 20 and on, one v the entire football team with substitutes is one you shouldn't be able to win.
I suspect that it's a vague notion of what they would want to do, but filtered badly through an overly literal mode of thinking. A "Horde" of orcs could make for a cinematic combat in lots of ways, -maybe you have to hold a narrow pass or passageway - maybe fight your way through the horde to kill their general and turn the tide of a battle - maybe you tried to sneak passed them and screwed up badly and now the whole horde is after you.

Of course in all of those there would be a goal more interesting then "kill one hundred orcs" and I would not handle any of those situations with a straightforward combat with each orc as a discrete individual unit.
 
Ive never heard of anyone changing character stats to deal with a bad die roll. That's so far past fudging, it just seems nonsensical.
I probably did it back in my fudging days, deciding the encounter was a bit too tough before the die rolls totally sealed the PCs fates.
 
I wouldn't run a fight like that. First off, the PCs will just outright lose through sheer attrition. So it's just a question if how many orcs they take with them.

Second, there's a physical limit for how many orcs can gang up on a PC. It might vary by system, but 6 is a reasonable number. So rolling 100 attacks is pointless.

But any fight where it's 20 and on, one v the entire football team with substitutes is one you shouldn't be able to win.
I'm pretty sure I've handled something like this, maybe not 100 orcs, but still a lot, and my vague memory is skeletons, by rolling all the attacks for the horde, assuming they each would get in one attack before being killed, and then distributing the hits to the PCs. I might have even given each 2 or 3 attacks...
 
Why isn't changing the statistics the same as changing the die roll?
Both are a manipulation of what was in place "beforehand". Why is it wrong for one but not wrong for the other?
Because the statistic is not a random element.

If I am going to introduce a random element to inform the narrative, then decide what the outcome is anyway, there is no point in me using said random element.
 
Last edited:
Because the statistic is not a random element.

If I am going to introduce a random element to inform the narrative, then decide what the outcome is anyway, there is no point in me using said random element.

The "beforehandedness" of the statistic is irrelevant.
And what the players choose to do is not a random element? It get's said all the time here "I have no idea what my players will do" Why can't that random element be the one to inform the narrative?

Sorry the "beforehandedness" of the statistic is completely relevant when you have already been using the statistics to make die rolls, you can't then just change the statistics "cuz reasons"

IS there a game out there that says the dice are sacrosanct?
 
I don't fudge dice rolls apart from in Paranoia. And I'm not sure that counts as the whole point of fudging dice rolls in Paranoia is to be as blatant as possible in the service of humour.

If I don't want the PCs to be wiped out by the possibility of bad dice rolls I'll play a game where that's not possible. Probably something narrative like Blades in the Dark.

If the players are losing I prefer to give them a chance to surrender.

If it's my error (like badly statting an encounter) I prefer to hold my hands up, say I fucked up and agree on a do over.
 
Same as modding HP during a fight, won't change the outcome of any of the die rolls, just the number of die rolls, maybe.

Fudging die rolls is not the same as changing statistics.

Mathematically that's not true. Maybe psychologically you feel a great need to preserve the difference between "I gave the goblin +20 hp in the middle of the fight" and "I subtracted 20 hp from the damage rolled vs. the goblin," but the net effect on the mechanical outcome is identical.

But in other campaigns, it may be perfectly reasonable to decide "hey, we're all getting tired of orcs, guess what, you're encountering blur wolves instead." Or to decide, you've had too many encounters on this journey already, let's skip encounter rolls and you get to the next town safely. And I might even run my RuneQuest campaign a bit that way.

It's the difference between mechanics and procedural content generators.

From The Fudging Corollary: Not All Dice Rolls Are Mechanics:

If you’re struggling to understand why changing the outcomes of a procedural content generator isn’t the same thing as fudging a mechanical resolution, let’s take an extreme example. I’m prepping a scenario for my next session and I need a name for an NPC. So I pop open the Random Name Generator at Behind the Name, select for random surnames, click the button, and get:

Ivonne Eógan Masson

For whatever reason (maybe personal aesthetic, maybe because the Masons are already established as major power brokers in the city and I think it’s interesting this random generator has unexpectedly connected this NPC to the clan), I decide to drop the second “s” from “Masson” and name the character Ivonne Eógan Mason.

Did I just fudge?

Frankly speaking, no. Not by any reasonable/functional definition of the term.

What if instead of tweaking the outcome I actually just ignored it and rolled again by hitting the “Generate a Name!” button a second time? Still no.

What if I move this interaction from prep to actual play (I need to come up with a new NPC’s name on the fly, so I randomly generate one and then tweak it)? Still no.

What if the random name generator is published in the game’s rulebook? Still no.

This isn’t fudging not only because it would make the concept of “fudging” so broad as to be meaningless, but also because treating the outcome of a procedural content generator as a straitjacket or legally binding contract is to fundamentally misuse the procedural content generator. Using a procedural content generator is more like coating the bottom of an agar plate with a growth medium: As it's exposed to your creative subconscious, the growth plate begins to accumulate a bunch of random creativity and odd synchronicities that begin to grow and thrive. (Ivonne Mason, for example, is a very different character than Lea Colton or Caroline Bone specifically because each of those random names provides a different creative stimulus.) Treating the outcome of the procedural content generator as if it were inviolable scripture, on the other hand, is like sterilizing the agar plate; it completely short-circuits the process.

“Ah ha!” you say. “But aren’t all resolution mechanics actually procedural content generators, the results of which are meant to be creatively interpreted by the GM and other players? Is not the narration of outcome the same thing as taking a randomly generated group of bandits and creating the Blood Shield Bandits?”

Basically, no. There’s a similarity of process (roll dice, interpret results), but the function of resolution mechanics and procedural content generators are in many ways actually inverted: A resolution mechanic takes generally non-specific creative input and creates specificity (often literally a binary pass/fail state). A procedural content generator, on the other hand, produces non-specific creative input and expects the GM to create the specificity.

(End excerpt.)

Now, where this can get into a gray area is when similar dice interactions are used both for mechanical and procedural generation purposes. Random encounter tables are frequently a good example of this because the basic concept of "random encounter table" (i.e., rolling on a table to generate a group of monsters) -- while seeming unified -- is actually used in extremely variable ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJS
And what the players choose to do is not a random element? It get's said all the time here "I have no idea what my players will do" Why can't that random element be the one to inform the narrative?
I must be missing something. What the players do is non-random as it was decided by said players. However, the rolls said players make to see if they succeed at a task they wish to perform is random. As I said, I don't understand where you are going with this as it has nothing to do with dice or fudging the outcome of dice rolls.

Sorry the "beforehandedness" of the statistic is completely relevant when you have already been using the statistics to make die rolls, you can't then just change the statistics "cuz reasons"
I deleted that part but you got the quote set up before my edit. Stats are my choice as GM, if I wish to change them I can because I'm the GM. Rolling for a random result, then ignoring said result invalidates said random roll. Again, fudging die rolls, not fudging in general.

IS there a game out there that says the dice are sacrosanct?
Yes, Burning Wheel. It's a fun rule called Let It Ride.
 
Honestly, I hardly ever fudge, but there are a lot of times where I don't even set an actual DC for stuff and just say "roll an X check" and go "did they roll high or low?" and run with it.

I imagine some people would see that as fudging.
 
It's the difference between mechanics and procedural content generators.

From The Fudging Corollary: Not All Dice Rolls Are Mechanics:

If you’re struggling to understand why changing the outcomes of a procedural content generator isn’t the same thing as fudging a mechanical resolution, let’s take an extreme example. I’m prepping a scenario for my next session and I need a name for an NPC. So I pop open the Random Name Generator at Behind the Name, select for random surnames, click the button, and get:

Ivonne Eógan Masson

For whatever reason (maybe personal aesthetic, maybe because the Masons are already established as major power brokers in the city and I think it’s interesting this random generator has unexpectedly connected this NPC to the clan), I decide to drop the second “s” from “Masson” and name the character Ivonne Eógan Mason.

Did I just fudge?

Frankly speaking, no. Not by any reasonable/functional definition of the term.

What if instead of tweaking the outcome I actually just ignored it and rolled again by hitting the “Generate a Name!” button a second time? Still no.

What if I move this interaction from prep to actual play (I need to come up with a new NPC’s name on the fly, so I randomly generate one and then tweak it)? Still no.

What if the random name generator is published in the game’s rulebook? Still no.

This isn’t fudging not only because it would make the concept of “fudging” so broad as to be meaningless, but also because treating the outcome of a procedural content generator as a straitjacket or legally binding contract is to fundamentally misuse the procedural content generator. Using a procedural content generator is more like coating the bottom of an agar plate with a growth medium: As it's exposed to your creative subconscious, the growth plate begins to accumulate a bunch of random creativity and odd synchronicities that begin to grow and thrive. (Ivonne Mason, for example, is a very different character than Lea Colton or Caroline Bone specifically because each of those random names provides a different creative stimulus.) Treating the outcome of the procedural content generator as if it were inviolable scripture, on the other hand, is like sterilizing the agar plate; it completely short-circuits the process.

“Ah ha!” you say. “But aren’t all resolution mechanics actually procedural content generators, the results of which are meant to be creatively interpreted by the GM and other players? Is not the narration of outcome the same thing as taking a randomly generated group of bandits and creating the Blood Shield Bandits?”

Basically, no. There’s a similarity of process (roll dice, interpret results), but the function of resolution mechanics and procedural content generators are in many ways actually inverted: A resolution mechanic takes generally non-specific creative input and creates specificity (often literally a binary pass/fail state). A procedural content generator, on the other hand, produces non-specific creative input and expects the GM to create the specificity.

(End excerpt.)

Now, where this can get into a gray area is when similar dice interactions are used both for mechanical and procedural generation purposes. Random encounter tables are frequently a good example of this because the basic concept of "random encounter table" (i.e., rolling on a table to generate a group of monsters) -- while seeming unified -- is actually used in extremely variable ways.
Not sure if you were assuming I didn't understand, but this is a good rundown.

And yea, a random encounter table might be a mechanic or it might be a procedural content generator. In my example of setting up a West Marches where the encounter generator in part defines the region in a way that the players are expected to be able to rely on, it's a mechanic not a procedural content generator. In my RQ game, the random encounter generator may be more of a procedural content generator, so not following it strictly isn't fudging, but there may be an honesty disconnect, even if the disconnect is actually that there is an expectation that it's a mechanic not a procedural content generator.

Dungeon stocking on the other hand is usually solidly a procedural content generator since the procedure often suggests the GM at least place "interesting stuff" manually. If the procedure tells you to do stuff manually or ignore results you don't like, then it's definitely a procedural content generator and there can't be any fudging. On the other hand, if you intent is to generate a "1st level dungeon" and you repeatedly decide, "no, this room deserves a harder encounter so I'm going to ignore the roll that said it would be a 1st level encounter and decide to roll a 2nd level encounter" then you are being dishonest with yourself, and you players will suffer because they think you've given them a 1st level dungeon when maybe your dungeon really is a 2nd level dungeon.

Frank
 
Honestly, I hardly ever fudge, but there are a lot of times where I don't even set an actual DC for stuff and just say "roll an X check" and go "did they roll high or low?" and run with it.

I imagine some people would see that as fudging.
No that's not fudging. Sometimes you don't have a good idea what the probability should be, so calling for a roll and deciding after the fact whether it's good enough isn't fudging. It MAY not be entirely honest though. Honestly the descriptions I heard of MAR Barker's later in life Tekumel gaming sounded awfully wishy washy to me, too much, roll dice and if they feel good you succeed if they don't feel good, you fail. Now maybe he has a REALLY good sense of things and is making fair judgements, but at least the way it was described it just sounded very wishy washy.

As a player I don't necessarily absolutely need to know my chances, but I want to know that at the end of the day, the probabilities followed some sense of fairness.
 
Honestly, I hardly ever fudge, but there are a lot of times where I don't even set an actual DC for stuff and just say "roll an X check" and go "did they roll high or low?" and run with it.

I imagine some people would see that as fudging.
I generally try to always set a DC in advance to the roll, so I'm clear why I'm asking for a roll.

Sometimes I don't though with things like Perception. I ask for a roll to see who sees rather than if anyone does so I just go with the highest roll.
 
Sometimes Colville is great, sometimes he’s facepalm inducing.

One thing is sure, however. I’ve never seen anyone so in love with the sound of their own voice. He’s the only person who has phone sex with himself.
 
You mean fudging.

I bet you feel very clever having sussed out a meaning that I straight up admitted to.

But again, to reemphasize my prior point, I don't see this as a personal weakness but a weakness of the system. As stated I don't like doing it because I see the mechanics of the game as an agreement among the group how things will be conducted. It's preferable if the system (or house rule) directly addresses these things with forethought rather than falling back on GM fiat. But most table do have some degree of acceptance that the GM has some authority to override the rule. But GMs aren't infallible arbiters either.
 
Last edited:
“I fudge dice rolls all the time...I order to curate the experience for the players, that is our job as Dungeon Masters” “It’s our job to create Drama” -Colville.

The poor, pathetic bastard has never been more wrong. His Kriegspeil comparison is a gigantic strawman. The Referee was NOT fudging die rolls. The Referee was setting aside the rules based on real world statistics and was substituting his own experience for the tables. He was NOT changing results of die rolls to make things seem more “dramatic” and “fun”. Prussia didn’t win two back to back wars and have Europe look to their Kriegspiel sessions because they were “dramatic” and “fun”.

Colville is disingenuously telling boldfaced lies in an attempt to provide a rationale for his “GM as entertainer” style.

The Kriegspiel Referees aren’t examples of fudging. They were examples of Rulings Not Rules.

Ruling is when you, as an impartial referee, make up a rule for something that does not exist or change a rule that does exist because it makes less sense than what you rule.

Fudging in the role of curator is altering what actually happened in order to cater to your players, or your story, something you’d expect from someone who monetises his game sessions.

When will the narrative peeps understand that you’re not a Hero because of what you are, you’re a Hero because of what you do. Drama’s not determined before something happens, it’s determined as or after it happened. A PC dying is a dramatic event, a TPK is a dramatic event. You don’t lose that impact because the Final Fight music wasn’t playing and the monster didn’t have Endgame Boss over his head.

Try fucking Roleplaying, it might change your life for the better.

Jesus God, the guy admits his own players cry foul because they want a real and fair result, so he puts down a die with the result he wants, so he can trick them into thinking things happened they way they actually did.
 
See, I think this is something a lot of people don't understand: How different mechanics affect NPCs and PCs differently. Like crit/crit fails for instance.

Another example of this is the whole D&D thing of giving NPCs full spellcaster slots of a caster of a certain level as well: NPC spellcasters don't have to consider saving slots for further encounters, and unless the GM just marks some slots off, they don't have other encounters earlier to siphon slots away from them.

I think one of the problems with both designers and GMs, is a lack of understanding of math and probability.
Whether or not I have an understanding of math and probability is immaterial, because it has no bearing on the reality of the setting.

NPC spellcasters will have spells memorised that make sense for their current state and what they know. Are the Orcs in a cave system populated with enemies that they are constantly in conflict with, do they know the PCs are about, or some other reason they should be on war footing? If so, then their spell load out is based on that war footing. If not, then they have other stuff going on. Many humanoids will always have at least some offense memorised, for PvP situations.
 
I do this sometimes. If it is clear the combat is over, I'll either have the enemies "fail" their morale roll even if they didn't or (in the case of like undead or something) just have them go down a bit faster than they should. (Oh you rolled 10 damage, wow, it had 9 HP left (it actually had 13 but why drag the fight out any longer)).
The problem with approach is, it frequently ignores things that may be important.

If this is a completely isolated fight, that has no bearing on anything else, then sure, whatever. But how many times to PCs encounter thinking opponents in which those opponents are isolated?

Frequently how quickly the PCs can get rid of a group of humanoids is vitally important, because the longer the humanoids hold out, the longer the humanoids have to respond or prepare for the PC’s invasion. Goblins might run and not care, Hobgoblins might stand firm due to discipline, Orcs might stand and die because Gruumsh curses to Orc Hell those who run and guarantees breeding stock in Orc Heaven to those who die like Orcs. That’s why I always use a Morale system and use modifiers based on the opponent and the situation.

If not every single fight is a Last Stand, then there’s less reason to have to clean things up in the first place.
 
I don't fudge dice rolls apart from in Paranoia. And I'm not sure that counts as the whole point of fudging dice rolls in Paranoia is to be as blatant as possible in the service of humour.

If I don't want the PCs to be wiped out by the possibility of bad dice rolls I'll play a game where that's not possible. Probably something narrative like Blades in the Dark.

If the players are losing I prefer to give them a chance to surrender.

If it's my error (like badly statting an encounter) I prefer to hold my hands up, say I fucked up and agree on a do over.
This goes along with what Justin was saying. If your system can give you results you don’t want. Don’t use that system.
If a simple 5% of a Nat 20 means the PCs take too many crits from a Horde, then change the crit system to one based on skill and level.
If too many hits result in head shots, adjust the hit location table.
If the game is too swingy and you don’t want to switch, give them Luck, Fate, Karma, whatever to deal with wild results.
If you don’t want players to die, play that stupid Japanese game where you only die if you check a box and pretend that all the dramatic stuff that happens to the player is somehow not exactly what you wanted and is worse than death. :wink:
 
Any minute now I’ll be accused of it anyway, so...

Anyone who isn’t Me, Tenbones, AsenRG, TristramEvans, Gronan, Skarg, Black Vulmea, or anyone else who disagrees with me...

F214F08A-394E-4455-B347-AFB9E4D42E4F.gif
 
I must be missing something. What the players do is non-random as it was decided by said players. However, the rolls said players make to see if they succeed at a task they wish to perform is random. As I said, I don't understand where you are going with this as it has nothing to do with dice or fudging the outcome of dice rolls.


I deleted that part but you got the quote set up before my edit. Stats are my choice as GM, if I wish to change them I can because I'm the GM. Rolling for a random result, then ignoring said result invalidates said random roll. Again, fudging die rolls, not fudging in general.


Yes, Burning Wheel. It's a fun rule called Let It Ride.
I Let it Ride as long as the modifiers don’t change. Once the modifiers change to something that’s more difficult than the first situation, I’ll have the player reroll. If it’s something easier (like sneaking through a well-lit, guarded hallway, and then moving to a shadowy unguarded room) I’m not going to force a Reroll.
 
I Let it Ride as long as the modifiers don’t change. Once the modifiers change to something that’s more difficult than the first situation, I’ll have the player reroll. If it’s something easier (like sneaking through a well-lit, guarded hallway, and then moving to a shadowy unguarded room) I’m not going to force a Reroll.
That's how Let It Ride works...
 
The problem with approach is, it frequently ignores things that may be important.

If this is a completely isolated fight, that has no bearing on anything else, then sure, whatever. But how many times to PCs encounter thinking opponents in which those opponents are isolated?

Frequently how quickly the PCs can get rid of a group of humanoids is vitally important, because the longer the humanoids hold out, the longer the humanoids have to respond or prepare for the PC’s invasion. Goblins might run and not care, Hobgoblins might stand firm due to discipline, Orcs might stand and die because Gruumsh curses to Orc Hell those who run and guarantees breeding stock in Orc Heaven to those who die like Orcs. That’s why I always use a Morale system and use modifiers based on the opponent and the situation.

If not every single fight is a Last Stand, then there’s less reason to have to clean things up in the first place.

Damn it's almost like my post included the mention of morale checks...
 
Not sure if you were assuming I didn't understand, but this is a good rundown.

And yea, a random encounter table might be a mechanic or it might be a procedural content generator. In my example of setting up a West Marches where the encounter generator in part defines the region in a way that the players are expected to be able to rely on, it's a mechanic not a procedural content generator. In my RQ game, the random encounter generator may be more of a procedural content generator, so not following it strictly isn't fudging, but there may be an honesty disconnect, even if the disconnect is actually that there is an expectation that it's a mechanic not a procedural content generator.

Dungeon stocking on the other hand is usually solidly a procedural content generator since the procedure often suggests the GM at least place "interesting stuff" manually. If the procedure tells you to do stuff manually or ignore results you don't like, then it's definitely a procedural content generator and there can't be any fudging. On the other hand, if you intent is to generate a "1st level dungeon" and you repeatedly decide, "no, this room deserves a harder encounter so I'm going to ignore the roll that said it would be a 1st level encounter and decide to roll a 2nd level encounter" then you are being dishonest with yourself, and you players will suffer because they think you've given them a 1st level dungeon when maybe your dungeon really is a 2nd level dungeon.

Frank
Is there a troll on the 5th level?
If yes, does the troll come to the 1st-4th levels for food?
If yes, then there’s a chance to see the troll on the 1st level.
Therefore the troll goes on the table.

I make Encounter Tables based on what I think are the chances you could encounter something. I use Rolemaster Style Open-Ended rolls. You’re going through Castle Greyhawk or Undermountain is there a chance to encounter Zagyg or Halaster respectively? Sure, it‘s in the high 300s somewhere, but it’s there.

As a result, my tables are usually pretty specific, like in a city, neighborhood based both Day and Night. If the PCs bloody a gang pretty good, the tables for that neighborhood will change. They happen to roll up the Vampire that hunts in the district though, welp they rolled it. Chances are it won’t be lethal, but it could.

Thems the breaks. The players know everything is real. No victory of theirs has been given to them or taken from them. They are at the mercy of their own decisions and the Gods of Fate.
 
This goes along with what Justin was saying. If your system can give you results you don’t want. Don’t use that system.
If a simple 5% of a Nat 20 means the PCs take too many crits from a Horde, then change the crit system to one based on skill and level.
If too many hits result in head shots, adjust the hit location table.
If the game is too swingy and you don’t want to switch, give them Luck, Fate, Karma, whatever to deal with wild results.
If you don’t want players to die, play that stupid Japanese game where you only die if you check a box and pretend that all the dramatic stuff that happens to the player is somehow not exactly what you wanted and is worse than death. :wink:

There is one major exception to that. If you think your players would prefer it if you fudged rolls for the sake of narrative, or a less lethal game or whatever, ask them in session zero. That's not a game I'd play it, but it's entirely valid. If you have to lie to your players about it, they really don't want you to fudge in the first place.
 
There is one major exception to that. If you think your players would prefer it if you fudged rolls for the sake of narrative, or a less lethal game or whatever, ask them in session zero. That's not a game I'd play it, but it's entirely valid. If you have to lie to your players about it, they really don't want you to fudge in the first place.
Yeah, that’s the thing I really took exception to. He admitted his players called him out on fudging and he lied to them with a prepared die in advance he could show them. He obviously thinks he knows better than his players what’s good for them, his Noblesse Oblige requires him to lie to the Hoi Polloi for their own good. They want everything to be real, but of course we can’t have that, it would spoil the level of Drama Colville wants.

He’s a frickin’ game master, not Edward Longshanks.
 
Damn it's almost like my post included the mention of morale checks...
Yes, you did, but the point was just because the results of the fight are a foregone conclusion, rarely will that be the only factor when taken into context of the larger situation. How long the fight takes or how the PCs win will usually matter, because fights are rarely in complete isolation.
 
Yes, you did, but the point was just because the results of the fight are a foregone conclusion, rarely will that be the only factor when taken into context of the larger situation. How long the fight takes or how the PCs win will usually matter, because fights are rarely in complete isolation.

And I can count that into the mental math if I need to know how long something took, that I intentionally cut something shorter because I thought that an extra minute or two running a combat wasn't worth my or the player's time.

Rough time estimates are often good enough for verisimilitude. I don't need to 100% know the exact number of rounds a combat took.
 
I mean, a group of 5 people taking out a armored flying hyperintelligent magical lizard so large it could dispense with each character in one bite that also breathes spouts of fire is also unrealistic in the extreme.
There's a reason I dont use dragons as combat encounters.
 
CRKrueger CRKrueger did you mean to write "who agrees with me" instead of "who disagrees"? Because as it stands, I'm not sure whether your post means I'm one of those that agree with you, one of those that disagree, and to which group the gif is targetted:shade:.


I wouldn't run a fight like that. First off, the PCs will just outright lose through sheer attrition. So it's just a question if how many orcs they take with them.

Second, there's a physical limit for how many orcs can gang up on a PC. It might vary by system, but 6 is a reasonable number. So rolling 100 attacks is pointless.

But any fight where it's 20 and on, one v the entire football team with substitutes is one you shouldn't be able to win.
I shouldn't:shock:? But the wizard should be able to cast a fireball and win against 20 guys?

Also, I knowa guywho fought against 20+ people and survived. Admittedly, hey used tactics and terrain, but still.

I mean, a group of 5 people taking out a armored flying hyperintelligent magical lizard so large it could dispense with each character in one bite that also breathes spouts of fire is also unrealistic in the extreme.
Well, it's not impossible. Just highly unlikely:thumbsup:.
 
Fudging in the role of curator is altering what actually happened in order to cater to your players, or your story, something you’d expect from someone who monetises his game sessions.
Um the dice don't determine anything. It is nothing more than a randomizer which can be read as is or ignored.

When will the narrative peeps understand that you’re not a Hero because of what you are, you’re a Hero because of what you do.
Can't be true. You are a hero because the dice said you rolled correctly.
If I do the hero things a Hero does, but fail the die roll I wasn't a Hero. You know cuz you can't be the hero until afterwards.

Drama’s not determined before something happens, it’s determined as or after it happened. A PC dying is a dramatic event, a TPK is a dramatic event. You don’t lose that impact because the Final Fight music wasn’t playing and the monster didn’t have Endgame Boss over his head.
Say WTF? OF course you as the person running the game will know if something will be dramatic before it happens.
 
Um the dice don't determine anything. It is nothing more than a randomizer which can be read as is or ignored.

Can't be true. You are a hero because the dice said you rolled correctly.
If I do the hero things a Hero does, but fail the die roll I wasn't a Hero. You know cuz you can't be the hero until afterwards.

Say WTF? OF course you as the person running the game will know if something will be dramatic before it happens.
My point is, that’s not ALL that’s dramatic. Drama doesn’t just exist in things you look at ahead of time and say “This will be dramatic and important”. Drama is an emergent property, and things you might not think are important or interesting can become so very quickly.

It’s kind of ironic that the people who quote Dungeon World’s “Play to find out what happens” are also usually the people that want shortcut rules to “cut to the chase” when all they’re doing is cheating themselves out of discovering anything important or interesting in their quest to cut anything that doesn’t immediately look important or interesting at first glance. :trigger:
 
My point is, that’s not ALL that’s dramatic. Drama doesn’t just exist in things you look at ahead of time and say “This will be dramatic and important”. Drama is an emergent property, and things you might not think are important or interesting can become so very quickly.

It’s kind of ironic that the people who quote Dungeon World’s “Play to find out what happens” are also usually the people that want shortcut rules to “cut to the chase” when all they’re doing is cheating themselves out of discovering anything important or interesting in their quest to cut anything that doesn’t immediately look important or interesting at first glance. :trigger:
Think about all of the times there could have been Dramatics if you had chosen to ignore a rolled number.
 
Um the dice don't determine anything. It is nothing more than a randomizer which can be read as is or ignored.



Can't be true. You are a hero because the dice said you rolled correctly.

If I do the hero things a Hero does, but fail the die roll I wasn't a Hero. You know cuz you can't be the hero until afterwards.



Nothing you are saying here makes sense to me. If, as in your 1st statement, "The dice don't determine anything", then how can your second statement "You are a hero because the dice said you rolled correctly" be true? Logic nit-pickiness aside, people are often declared to be Heroes in both success and in failure. It was a guy's decision to try to get the kids out of a school with an active shooter that made him a hero, and people will think this is the case if he succeeds and survives, or if he is killed along with other people. It was the choice to act in a scary, dangerous situation to aid people that would get such a person declared a hero, or at least called heroic. If no one was ever at risk at any point, then there is no hero. That is at the core of why I'm personally not a fan of fudging and think one should strive to avoid it. It's like inheriting $10 million dollars and being lauded as a financial genius. It's hollow (to me). (My assumptions here are all about a non-narrative style RPG where players are primarily playing characters and not primarily writing a story.)
 
I understand the position 'don't fudge dice because if you don't want a random result, then you shouldn't be rolling,' but it seems to me that it's absolutist--it assumes the only possibilities are 'random result' or 'g.m. fiat.' My guess is that most fudging occurs when a g.m. would be perfectly happy with most of the possible random results, just not the unusual one that actually showed up. You can still argue that then the answer is to explicitly change the possible outcomes in advance, by house-ruling or changing to another game. But in practice, for me at least, that often runs into the Humphrey Bogart objection I noted above--it's easier to make rare fudges than to come up with more systematic fixes.
 
Nothing you are saying here makes sense to me. If, as in your 1st statement, "The dice don't determine anything", then how can your second statement "You are a hero because the dice said you rolled correctly" be true? Logic nit-pickiness aside, people are often declared to be Heroes in both success and in failure. It was a guy's decision to try to get the kids out of a school with an active shooter that made him a hero, and people will think this is the case if he succeeds and survives, or if he is killed along with other people. It was the choice to act in a scary, dangerous situation to aid people that would get such a person declared a hero, or at least called heroic. If no one was ever at risk at any point, then there is no hero. That is at the core of why I'm personally not a fan of fudging and think one should strive to avoid it. It's like inheriting $10 million dollars and being lauded as a financial genius. It's hollow (to me). (My assumptions here are all about a non-narrative style RPG where players are primarily playing characters and not primarily writing a story.)
It was in response to Kreug's post, hence why I was quoting it.
The other problem you are having is, assuming fudging is done to "save the players"
Got a question for you and the others Anti-Fudgers here;
Is there a troll on the 5th level?
If yes, does the troll come to the 1st-4th levels for food?
If yes, then there’s a chance to see the troll on the 1st level.

Therefore the troll goes on the table.
Kreug posted this up thread. The group is on level 2, exhausted, frustrated spent. Well it's time for another check. Uh-oh it's Troll.
What happens next?

I understand the position 'don't fudge dice because if you don't want a random result, then you shouldn't be rolling,' but it seems to me that it's absolutist--it assumes the only possibilities are 'random result' or 'g.m. fiat.' My guess is that most fudging occurs when a g.m. would be perfectly happy with most of the possible random results, just not the unusual one that actually showed up. You can still argue that then the answer is to explicitly change the possible outcomes in advance, by house-ruling or changing to another game. But in practice, for me at least, that often runs into the Humphrey Bogart objection I noted above--it's easier to make rare fudges than to come up with more systematic fixes.
I like continuity with my games. Probably why I was never a fan of the endless treadmills we were doing in the 80s. You know the type of game where Scott died yet again cuz reasons and you swear you hear softly in the background "Red Wizard has joined the game.." and we come across Scott's new toon a couple rooms away or if it was in Dino's game which was 'more mature' henchmen #3 is now Scott's new character who's name is an anagram of Scott's name.
People were just plugging quarters into the slot to keep playing.

Something to really think about. Is there a correlation with Anti-Fudgers being predominately DMs here?
 
It was in response to Kreug's post, hence why I was quoting it.
The other problem you are having is, assuming fudging is done to "save the players"
Got a question for you and the others Anti-Fudgers here;
Is there a troll on the 5th level?
If yes, does the troll come to the 1st-4th levels for food?
If yes, then there’s a chance to see the troll on the 1st level.

Therefore the troll goes on the table.
Kreug posted this up thread. The group is on level 2, exhausted, frustrated spent. Well it's time for another check. Uh-oh it's Troll.
What happens next?

Is there a correlation with Anti-Fudgers being predominately DMs here?

Not sure if there is a correlation or not. I happen to personally be predominately a player that GMs 0 - 6 times a year, roughly.

Regarding your question: I'm assuming the GM and players were on the same page about the kind of game they were playing, and if not, that should have been hammered out beforehand. In this case, taking the set-up into account, there is an encounter with a Troll on level 2. The set-up is reminding me of old school B/X style D&D here, so I'll run with that. Well, in B/X there is the distinct possibility that this encounter will start with a reaction roll, and there is the possibility for surprise. Fortunately "Immediately Attack" is not the common result on the reaction table, so there is a good chance the party can negotiate their way out of danger. If the reaction roll is good, the DM might be like "This Troll is happy and well fed after chewing up a fat goblin he just found on level 2" and if the reaction roll is bad, maybe the troll is hangry. In this case, the party might have to run, leave some food behind to possibly slow the Troll down, etc. It's a rough, difficult, dangerous situation for this group. If the party gets surprise, they can choose to evade the whole encounter safely. If they get surprised and the Troll is looking to eat some people... this could be the end!

Overall, the proposed situation doesn't strike me as one that calls for fudging. The party is in peril, but they aren't locked in a cage with 2 HP forced to fight to the death, arena style.

When you say, "The other problem you are having is, assuming the fudging is done to 'save the players'", I'd say that is not my problem or my assumption. It seems you are advocating for fudging to preserve drama, or move the game to follow a certain satisfying arc, which could sometimes mean making things more difficult for characters, even. My personal dislike of it as a player is that if I become aware of it, it breaks the illusion. In video game terms, it's like a world that levels up with the player, or an MMO that isn't Eve Online (heh), where I feel safely strapped in, and don't worry, the GM will make sure that things proceed in what he believes is an entertainingly dramatic fashion. I need to believe that utter failure is possible (and not just a story beat), before I am able to fully enjoy the possible, but not guaranteed success. Both players and GMs want a kick-ass game, and I like the dynamic of both GMs and players reacting to what the game throws at them together as a challenge they rise to. Say a GM decides that randomly rolled Troll encounter was too much. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't and could have led to the most memorable moment of the whole game, but the GM didn't think they players had it in them. Ideally, "Find a game you trust, players you trust, a GM you trust, and play dangerously (in all senses, for both player & GM)" is the kind of game I'm looking for.
 
Think about all of the times there could have been Dramatics if you had chosen to ignore a rolled number.

Yes, but at the cost of a different type of narrative.

To use an example from my previous Advanced Fighting Fantasy campaign.

The players managed to get themselves badly injured in a fight against a group of orcs. That was a bit their own fault (they decided to make lots of noise rather than launching a sneak attack) but a lot of it was some truly appalling dice rolls.

On the flipside, they managed to take down the big bad in two rounds with a few critical hits.

I'd suggest that fudging would be very unlikely to produce either of those results. And especially with the second "you took down the big bad quickly because you rolled" was exciting for them in a way "you took down the big bad quickly because I decided it would be cool for you" wouldn't have been.

It was in response to Kreug's post, hence why I was quoting it.
The other problem you are having is, assuming fudging is done to "save the players"
Got a question for you and the others Anti-Fudgers here;
Is there a troll on the 5th level?
If yes, does the troll come to the 1st-4th levels for food?
If yes, then there’s a chance to see the troll on the 1st level.

Therefore the troll goes on the table.
Kreug posted this up thread. The group is on level 2, exhausted, frustrated spent. Well it's time for another check. Uh-oh it's Troll.
What happens next?

Assuming healing potions aren't available, why aren't the group making a tactical retreat and coming back another day if they're "spent"?

That aside, the described encounter doesn't necessarily lead to combat. The troll is looking for food? Offer the troll some food. Even trolls may well prefer easy food to food that tries to stab you. Try and avoid the troll if you hear it coming. And even if it does come to combat, retreat is still possible.

I like continuity with my games. Probably why I was never a fan of the endless treadmills we were doing in the 80s. You know the type of game where Scott died yet again cuz reasons and you swear you hear softly in the background "Red Wizard has joined the game.." and we come across Scott's new toon a couple rooms away or if it was in Dino's game which was 'more mature' henchmen #3 is now Scott's new character who's name is an anagram of Scott's name.
People were just plugging quarters into the slot to keep playing.

I'm mostly the same these days. If I run the kind of meatgrinder you're describing it's a deliberate change from my normal games and is pitched as that.

But most of the time I just run games with lower lethality levels or (more frequently) run games where combat is so lethal the players avoid it as much as they can.

Something to really think about. Is there a correlation with Anti-Fudgers being predominately DMs here?

Interesting question, but I don't think we can extrapolate too broadly from it.

Apart from maybe TBP GMs are always overrepresented on RPG forums and the Pub leans even further in that direction than most. (We have more people actively running rather than on hiatus or at least that's my impression).

As I said above, if you really want to know what your players (who realistically are the only players that matter) think of fudging the only way of finding out is to ask them.
 
There's a few issues here.

If the GM fudges and the players don't know is any harm being done? It's possible that this could make for a better game (at least from the players side) - but there is of course the fact the the players don't know. If they did know it wouldn't really be fudging it would be overruling - so there's the inherent deception there - which I guess is an ethical question rather than practical. It feels as if insisting that this could never be beneficial is basically just dodging the ethical side of the equation. But this is assuming we're talking about a decision in the moment rather than a general philosophy. I would argue that a general approach to gaming where the players know you won't or can't fudge is preferable.

I was brought up with fudging. It seemed to be the philosophy when I started gaming that GMs just fudged, I'm not sure where it came from exactly - it was just the culture. Possibly it's because a lot of games from the 90s couldn't really be run as written* (One guy in my group is running Shadowrun at the moment, at it's a bit stunning how the whole thing is written with precise measurements and distances but nowhere does it assume the use of grid or minuatures) I've always assumed the whole point of GMs screen was to hide the rolls you were fudging. Gradually over time I moved away from it. I'm not sure exactly what started it - but I think it was probably because I realised that GMing was a lot less stressful when the dice were made responsible. If I'm fudging die rolls, then, should I let a PC die, I'm personally responsible for it. If I fudged other rolls, then I could have fudged that one, plus players feel that they're in an internally consistent world - I don't have to kill a PC for them to feel threatened.

These days I'm all about making a PC responsible for their own fates. I lay out consequences in advance. If I ask a pc to make a climb check to go up a cliff, I don't wait for a failed roll to decide if they fall. I'm very clear in advance "If you fail this roll you will fall to your death". Or "It's a long climb it will require 6 checks. Two failures in a row will mean you fall to your death." And once you learn to do that, there isn't even any real temptation to fudge.

*Or if they could so often had a higher level of rules complexity and detail then players and GMs wanted, so we took to ignoring huge swathes of them.
 
Last edited:
Think about all of the times there could have been Dramatics if you had chosen to ignore a rolled number.
Better think of all the times when there could have been "Dramatics" if you hadn't chosen to ignore a rolled number:thumbsup:.


There's a few issues here.

If the GM fudges and the players don't know is any harm being done?
In my book, yes, very much so!
I realize other people are reading a different book, but that's my opinion:devil:.

Gradually over time I moved away from it. I'm not sure exactly what started it - but I think it was probably because I realised that GM was a lot less stressful when the dice were made responsible. If I'm fudging die rolls, then, should I let a PC die, I'm personally responsible for it. If I fudged other rolls, then I could have fudged that one, plus players feel that they're in an internally consistent world - I don't have to kill a PC for them to feel threatened.

These days I'm all about making a PC responsible for their own fates. I lay out consequences in advance. If I ask a pc to make a climb check to go up a cliff, I don't wait for a failed roll to decide if they fall. I'm very clear in advance "If you fail this roll you will fall to your death". Or "It's a long climb it will require 6 checks. Two failures in a row will mean you fall to your death." And once you learn to do that, there isn't even any real temptation to fudge.
Yeah, same here...much to my shame to this day.
But that feeling of internal consistency is exactly what you lose by fudging:shade:. Despite what some people would say, no, you can't imitate it. I've seen enough people trying and failing.

Again, I don't (or rather, no longer) see fudging as a Gaming Sin. Now I just find it mildly distasteful and do my best to avoid partaking in it from either side of the screen:grin:!
 
Last edited:
If the GM fudges and the players don't know is any harm being done? It's possible that this could make for a better game (at least from the players side) - but there is of course the fact the the players don't know. If they did know it wouldn't really be fudging it would be overruling - so there's the inherent deception there - which I guess is an ethical question rather than practical. It feels as if insisting that this could never be beneficial is basically just dodging the ethical side of the equation. But this is assuming we're talking about a decision in the moment rather than a general philosophy. I would argue that a general approach to gaming where the players know you won't or can't fudge is preferable.

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?"
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top