Fudging in RPGs

[xanther]

Can't see how, though I'm not sure what "strict devotion" means in this situation.
...

For me it means a small shrine with incense in the side room. Every once in a a while I go on a quest through the wilderness to enforce the one-true-way.

 

[xanther]

We are men of honour, so let us be honest. The consequences should always be on the table before the roll gets made, or at least as much as is possible. How can a player make an informed decision when the GM isn't telling them what could happen or what's at stake?

Exactly. I'll also tell them what their character would know, expanding on that information the more the PC has skills, experience etc. related to the world. No need to "pixel-bitch" for information.

 

[Voros]

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil dice. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the results through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his player's keeper and the finder of lost adjudication. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and fudge my rolls. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

Tangent incoming: I remember when this monologue popped up in Pulp Fiction and I was like, huh, I don't remember that passage from Ezekiel. So I went looking for it and it isn't a Biblical passage, Tarantino invented it. I wonder how many people assume it's real.

 

[Voros]

And in AD&D 1E players would never know because they aren’t allowed to look at the DMG
View attachment 81096

The funny thing about this is that 1e seems to assume that players would never also be GMs. Obviously impossible.

 

[Nakana]

Honestly, do we need to do this drill?

If you think we need to...how about, you know, answering me this one:
If every single game out there was telling me to fudge, and I knew that not fudging works better, why would I consider their opinions as anything other than misguided?.

I was specifically asked to support a claim I made by providing examples. So I did.

I’ve got no problem with the opinion that fudging is a bad practice. I can respect that. But it is still just an opinion, not a fact.

What I do have a problem with, is the incessant “you’re a hypocrite, liar, cheater, bad GM who disrespects his players and treats them like children/mushrooms because your opinion is different from mine” bullshit that’s been going on.

I initially stated my opinion and then walked away from this thread - as I see that no opinions will be changed, and no real debate is going to happen because of the claim for moral high ground. But to be quoted in another thread and accused of treating my players like mushrooms? Yea, I’m not going to just be silent and accept ridicule.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Tangent incoming: I remember when this monologue popped up in Pulp Fiction and I was like, huh, I don't remember that passage from Ezekiel. So I went looking for it and it isn't a Biblical passage, Tarantino invented it. I wonder how many people assume it's real.

Tarantino took it from the opening scrawl of Karate Kiba starring Sonny Chiba. Probably as a form tribute, since he loves asian martial art movies. Sonny Chiba later played Hattori Hanzō in the Kill Bill movies.
For those interested, the actual verse in the bible titled Ezekial 25:17 reads like this, "And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them."

 

[Fenris-77]

Tangent incoming: I remember when this monologue popped up in Pulp Fiction and I was like, huh, I don't remember that passage from Ezekiel. So I went looking for it and it isn't a Biblical passage, Tarantino invented it. I wonder how many people assume it's real.

There is in fact an actual biblical passage, just re-written/edited and expanded by Tarantino for flow. The vengeance and whatnot is there though:

Ezekiel 25:17
"'I will carry out great vengeance on them and punish them in my wrath. Then they will know that I am the Lord, when I take vengeance on them.'"

The bible passage is about the Philistines and the first couple of lines of movie dialogue are entirely written by Tarantino.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Ezekiel 25:17
"'I will carry out great vengeance on them and punish them in my wrath. Then they will know that I am the Lord, when I take vengeance on them.'"

The bible passage is about the Philistines and the first couple of lines of movie dialogue are entirely written by Tarantino.

There's lots of translations of this verse. The one you use here is from The New International version. The one I used above is from KIng James Bible.

Ezekiel 25:17

 

[Fenris-77]

There's lots of translations of this verse. The one you use here is from The New International version. The one I used above is from KIng James Bible.

Ezekiel 25:17

I like the King James, it always smacks more of hellfire and apocalypse. The New International feels more the Mr. Rogers audiobook version.

 

[Baulderstone]

There's lots of translations of this verse. The one you use here is from The New International version. The one I used above is from KIng James Bible.

Ezekiel 25:17

Yes, if it is English, it's already a rewritten/edited version of the verse.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Yes, if it is English, it's already a rewritten/edited version of the verse.

Your wish is my command and remember you read from right to left in hebrew:
יז ועשיתי בם נקמות גדלות בתוכחות חמה וידעו כי אני יהוה בתתי את נקמתי בם

 

[AsenRG]

I was specifically asked to support a claim I made by providing examples. So I did.

Oh, OK...I guess you were asked to make a follow-up post with more examples as well?

I’ve got no problem with the opinion that fudging is a bad practice. I can respect that. But it is still just an opinion, not a fact.

Of course it is just an opinion! And every GM/Referee out there is going to use it or not as he sees fitting his game. Depending on whether you share this opinion.

What the actual dividing line is whether you'd mention it to the players if you're doing it. None of the anti-fudgers objects to mentioning it - for some of us it's a point of pride, others might not mention it, but wouldn't hide it, either.
So what the anti-fudgers are asking is "let people know so they could decide whether to play with you in full knowledge of said opinion".

The yes-fudge group, however, seem surprisingly prone to obfuscating it. One might wonder why!

What I do have a problem with, is the incessant “you’re a hypocrite, liar, cheater, bad GM who disrespects his players and treats them like children/mushrooms because your opinion is different from mine” bullshit that’s been going on.

Yeah, that's not what we've been claiming. I mean, some stuff that was said did sound like it, but I think that was hyperbole!

I initially stated my opinion and then walked away from this thread - as I see that no opinions will be changed, and no real debate is going to happen because of the claim for moral high ground. But to be quoted in another thread and accused of treating my players like mushrooms? Yea, I’m not going to just be silent and accept ridicule.

...WTF now, what mushrooms?

 

[AsenRG]

Your wish is my command and remember you read from right to left in hebrew:
יז ועשיתי בם נקמות גדלות בתוכחות חמה וידעו כי אני יהוה בתתי את נקמתי בם

Quote it in Arameic or go bust!

 

[Nakana]

Oh, OK...I guess you were asked to make a follow-up post with more examples as well?

Sure, why not?

Of course it is just an opinion! And every GM/Referee out there is going to use it or not as he sees fitting his game. Depending on whether you share this opinion.

Ah, but when a claim for moral high ground is made, you are effectively trying to treat opinion as fact.

What the actual dividing line is whether you'd mention it to the players if you're doing it. None of the anti-fudgers objects to mentioning it - for some of us it's a point of pride, others might not mention it, but wouldn't hide it, either.
So what the anti-fudgers are asking is "let people know so they could decide whether to play with you in full knowledge of said opinion".

The yes-fudge group, however, seem surprisingly prone to obfuscating it. One might wonder why!

When the rules of a game explicitly state the GM has the right to fudge, and a GM elects to play by those rules, there is nothing to defend. If a GM wants to inform their players that they fudge, that is certainly an honorable and noble thing to do. That does not mean it is dishonorable or ignoble if they don't.

Yeah, that's not what we've been claiming. I mean, some stuff that was said did sound like it, but I think that was hyperbole!

Then I guess I failed my 'detect hyperbole' roll. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

...WTF now, what mushrooms?

Happened in the poll thread on fudging. Brought me back here because I didn't want to turn that thread into a circular repeat of this one.

 

[sharps54]

Mushrooms being a reference to the players being kept in the dark about the numbers actually rolled and fed poop as in made up numbers instead of the real rolls. Not my best moment and I will admit it was a low blow but what was said was said.

 

[Nakana]

Here’s an analogy that I hope illustrates my point better (and then I’m just going to stfu about it again):

A millionaire walks up to you and states “I’m going to give you a document that gives you permission to come into my house and steal anything you can carry out”.

Group A: No. stealing is wrong and I would never.

Group B: Well, if you’re giving me expressed written permission, then it can’t actually be stealing. Ok then!

And then people in group A call people in group B a bunch of thieves. =\

Alright, I’m dropping it/resting my case whatever.

 

[rumble]

Here’s an analogy that I hope illustrates my point better (and then I’m just going to stfu about it again):

A millionaire walks up to you and states “I’m going to give you a document that gives you permission to come into my house and steal anything you can carry out”.

Group A: No. stealing is wrong and I would never.

Group B: Well, if you’re giving me expressed written permission, then it can’t actually be stealing. Ok then!

And then people in group A call people in group B a bunch of thieves. =\

Alright, I’m dropping it/resting my case whatever.

Take my spouse, please!

 

[ffilz]

Page 110 of the DMG (AD&D 1E)
“Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may! Again, if you have available ample means of raising characters from the dead, even death is not too severe; remember, however, the constitu- tion-based limit to resurrections. Yet one die roll that you should NEVER tamper with is the SYSTEM SHOCK ROLL to be raised from the dead. If a character fails that roll, which he or she should make him or herself, he or she is FOREVER DEAD. There MUST be some final death or immortality will take over and again the game will become boring because the player characters will have 9+ lives each! “

I keep thinking about this, the more I think about it, the more I think this is not actually a serious suggestion about fudging. Thinking about this in conjunction with the character roll up methods offered, some of which are absurdly generous, I wonder if this passage and the character roll up methods were actually originally snarky suggestions, not intended to be taken seriously, and then editing removed the snark leaving this passage and the description of roll up methods.

I do still note that even this passage as published, really counsels against fudging, and if you do, to exact a price for it. This is far cry from changing things so the PCs win or even escape with almost no consequence that has dominated what I have seen for actual fudging in many campaigns, including my own in the past.

I would not actually take that passage as:

When the rules of a game explicitly state the GM has the right to fudge, and a GM elects to play by those rules, there is nothing to defend. If a GM wants to inform their players that they fudge, that is certainly an honorable and noble thing to do. That does not mean it is dishonorable or ignoble if they don't.

But beyond that, that is the only example from the games in my current stable that even allows for fudging (or anything that might be called fudging, at least by those who aren't pedantic that changing or ignoring any roll is fudging), and at least some counsel against it.

I get that games that I don't play or read may suggest fudging, but there is a definite movement away from it.

And yes, I have claimed some high ground, because I do think that deceiving your players is doing them a disservice. But I also grant that it's your game and if that's what you and your players enjoy (at whatever frequency of fudging you actually do), then more power to you.

And I guess if the rules are very upfront that the GM can fudge, maybe the players don't need to be told. But someone claiming to be running old school AD&D 1e and then fudging based on the above text without letting the players know the GM is open to fudging, I think that is deception, because most people who don't want to play in a game where the GM fudges aren't going to assume that just because 1e is being played, that fudging is part of the game. The "old school" term is going to suggest to them otherwise. Their faulty memory if going to suggest to them otherwise (assuming they even actually read and absorbed that text).

But also, what do you think of the point that has been made, if you don't fudge to avoid every PC death, how will the player whose character death wasn't fudged away feel? Even if they have bought into it?

 

[xanther]

...But also, what do you think of the point that has been made, if you don't fudge to avoid every PC death, how will the player whose character death wasn't fudged away feel? Even if they have bought into it?

I like to build in a very limited luck, meta currency, to give a redo so if the death would be do to bad luck the player gets a chance. In my fantasy games though death is not anywhere near the end, with the proper raise dead magic. That PC could arise to play another day. In sci fi games, have similar things can do.

 

[ffilz]

I like to build in a very limited luck, meta currency, to give a redo so if the death would be do to bad luck the player gets a chance. In my fantasy games though death is not anywhere near the end, with the proper raise dead magic. That PC could arise to play another day. In sci fi games, have similar things can do.

Something that is built into the game is totally fine by me. I think Burning Wheel is a great game. The meta-currency that allows surviving a mortal blow might not pass muster for some folks, but it allows genre simulation in a meaningful way. Resurrection and other methods that are part of the game are of course totally fine.

 

[AsenRG]

Sure, why not?

Makes it seem like you're trying the same appeal to authority fallacy, that's why.

(Appeals to authority only make sense when there's a whole field of study that we don't have experts on. We've got literally centuries of GMing experience between the people in this thread, orders of magnitude more than Gygax himself had when writing AD&D...so give me a break!)

Ah, but when a claim for moral high ground is made, you are effectively trying to treat opinion as fact.

And both sides are guilty of this.

When the rules of a game explicitly state the GM has the right to fudge, and a GM elects to play by those rules, there is nothing to defend. If a GM wants to inform their players that they fudge, that is certainly an honorable and noble thing to do. That does not mean it is dishonorable or ignoble if they don't.

Yeah, that part, with "part of the rules"? That's claiming the moral high ground just as well. "We're perfectly justified, you're being unreasonable" is about as far from objective and inviting a discussion as I can think of.

I mean, "part of the rules" of which game? It's not like we're even playing the same game. And if we posit that GMing/Refereeing is the same, well, I just quoted you a game which says it's not fine.
(And personally, I'd take Raggi's opinion on running the game over that of the 4e/5e designers. His adventures are way better).

Then I guess I failed my 'detect hyperbole' roll. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes - either you did, or I was unreasonably optimistic.

Happened in the poll thread on fudging. Brought me back here because I didn't want to turn that thread into a circular repeat of this one.

Mushrooms being a reference to the players being kept in the dark about the numbers actually rolled and fed poop as in made up numbers instead of the real rolls. Not my best moment and I will admit it was a low blow but what was said was said.

...while it is humorous, which I like, it's probably not your best moment, indeed!

Something that is built into the game is totally fine by me. I think Burning Wheel is a great game. The meta-currency that allows surviving a mortal blow might not pass muster for some folks, but it allows genre simulation in a meaningful way. Resurrection and other methods that are part of the game are of course totally fine.

You haven't played with Skarg or me, I see...

(Resurrections are one of the first things I remove. About the only game where I'd allow them is Eclipse Phase, barring something like "going to the Underworld and demanding the soul of the departed from Hades").

 

[SavAce]

I definitely have this anti-fudge inclination that can lead me towards wanting to get snarky about it. Really though, the fudging question for me, as primarily a player, is about maintaining the illusion that I'm experiencing and living in a separate world. Not fudging contributes to my ability to buy in. Like, people will talk about "good for the story" or "rule of cool" or "living out their power fantasy" and I don't know that any of that matters to me. Like, maybe it does matter to me sometimes, in some games, but any fudging that would take place in service of that would break the illusion. I have to feel like we're all on stage, juggling, trying to make it work, and that it authentically could fall apart, and I want the GM to feel it along with the rest of the players. What are we all doing here together, man? Is this gonna work? I actually want it to fall apart a time or two just so I know that it's an actual possibility. If I had some paladin that died in a bog while wearing his armor, and that paladin had a really cool thing going on before, it could be a real "Oh... ouch, wow" kind of loss, but it also reinforces the illusion. I've been playing RPGs since '89 and plan to keep playing all the way. I will happily accept the unfortunate or even trivial seeming loss of a beloved character as a sacrifice to maintain/prove that feeling of "playing for real", by which I mean that we are willing to accept failure of the whole endeavor.

I think some might say "Well, if the GM is good enough they can maintain the illusion with some subtle fudging here and there", and to some kind of extent, probably yeah, but then it's changing the dynamic away from what I want. I want the GM to be in on and share some of those same feelings. In my ideal game, I don't want a GM that is there to help me live out my power fantasy, and I'm there to enjoy it. I want to be in a game with other people where I pleasantly surprise the GM and other players, and they likewise with me, and sometimes we all do with each other as we react to what the interactions and rules of these games toss in our collective laps. When it's all said and done, we are able to reminisce about the cool things that came about because of how we all played together. GM & Players as a joint team.

 

[Black Vulmea]

Here’s an analogy that I hope illustrates my point better . . .

Here's my not-analogy.

If I'm a prospective player in your game, I'm going to ask you, "Do you fudge rolls? I prefer to play the dice where they lay, so if that's not cool with you, I'd like to know."

You say fudging is in the rules of many roleplaying games, and that's true: the OPTION may be there for the referee to fudge dice rolls. But if I straight up ask you if you plan to use that rule and you lie to me, 'cause you're the referee and can do whatever you want, well, that's a straight-up dick move. That's not the game I signed up to play. It's a bait-and-switch, and that just sucks.

Something that jumped out at me, just before I left this site for over two years, is the critical importance of good faith between gamers, and that good faith begins with respect. I respect that when you're the referee, the game is yours to run as you see fit; in return, I expect you to respect my good faith preference not to play in a game where the referee puts their finger on the scales.

Ultimately, refereeing is an honor system, and every honor system begins with respect.

I come from the days when roleplaying gamers were more or less synonymous with wargamers and that's still reflected even now in that my approach to developing the game-world is based around the concept of "the scenario," not "the adventure." This is your OOB and this is mine, this is the situation, and after we make our tactical decisions, we turn to randomizers to see how it all turns out. I'm not going to suddenly say, "Hey, you know what, my anti-tank gun missed your Panzer IV after all, 'cause I don't want you to feel bad that I just turned it into a burning slag heap and the crew's grilling like brats."

A big part of my enjoyment as referee is creating a game-world full of moving parts for the players and their characters to explore and engage. Because we're playing a game, that exploration and engagement can bump up against rules that produce random results, and I look forward to seeing what happens when they do, whether that's a fight or navigating a hazard or using a skill or simply a non-player character reaction. I love those moments, because I get to take what the dice gave me and interpret it in the context of that game-world. A trusted ally has a viscerally negative reaction to your character's request for help? WHY? What does that look like? Where does that come from? Roleplaying those results is what makes refereeing like nothing else I've ever done; making it all make sense in the moment is a fucking rush.

And that's just as true for me as a player, so when you take it upon yourself to declare what the dice gave you 'unfun' - Grymbok's word, not yours - you're literally taking one of the best parts of playing a roleplaying game away from me. Why would I ever want to do that? Why would I ever agree to that?

That's why it matters.

 

[Grymbok]

I gave up on this thread pages ago, don't tag me back in like that

 

[Nakana]

Here's my not-analogy.

If I'm a prospective player in your game, I'm going to ask you, "Do you fudge rolls? I prefer to play the dice where they lay, so if that's not cool with you, I'd like to know."

You say fudging is in the rules of many roleplaying games, and that's true: the OPTION may be there for the referee to fudge dice rolls. But if I straight up ask you if you plan to use that rule and you lie to me, 'cause you're the referee and can do whatever you want, well, that's a straight-up dick move. That's not the game I signed up to play. It's a bait-and-switch, and that just sucks.

Something that jumped out at me, just before I left this site for over two years, is the critical importance of good faith between gamers, and that good faith begins with respect. I respect that when you're the referee, the game is yours to run as you see fit; in return, I expect you to respect my good faith preference not to play in a game where the referee puts their finger on the scales.

Ultimately, refereeing is an honor system, and every honor system begins with respect.

I come from the days when roleplaying gamers were more or less synonymous with wargamers and that's still reflected even now in that my approach to developing the game-world is based around the concept of "the scenario," not "the adventure." This is your OOB and this is mine, this is the situation, and after we make our tactical decisions, we turn to randomizers to see how it all turns out. I'm not going to suddenly say, "Hey, you know what, my anti-tank gun missed your Panzer IV after all, 'cause I don't want you to feel bad that I just turned it into a burning slag heap and the crew's grilling like brats."

A big part of my enjoyment as referee is creating a game-world full of moving parts for the players and their characters to explore and engage. Because we're playing a game, that exploration and engagement can bump up against rules that produce random results, and I look forward to seeing what happens when they do, whether that's a fight or navigating a hazard or using a skill or simply a non-player character reaction. I love those moments, because I get to take what the dice gave me and interpret it in the context of that game-world. A trusted ally has a viscerally negative reaction to your character's request for help? WHY? What does that look like? Where does that come from? Roleplaying those results is what makes refereeing like nothing else I've ever done; making it all make sense in the moment is a fucking rush.

And that's just as true for me as a player, so when you take it upon yourself to declare what the dice gave you 'unfun' - Grymbok's word, not yours - you're literally taking one of the best parts of playing a roleplaying game away from me. Why would I ever want to do that? Why would I ever agree to that?

That's why it matters.

I said I was dropping this, but I’m responding for two reasons. 1. You’re addressing me directly, 2. Based on your reply, there may need to be a point of clarification.

If you ask me directly “do I fudge?” and I say “no” and then do it anyway then yes, that IS a dick move. That IS lying. I’m not advocating for THAT.

If you ask me “do I fudge?” My response might be along the lines of “as GM I reserve the right to do so at my discretion if I think it will make for a better game. It is rare that it happens, but it could happen. Additionally, I may or may not divulge if or when it happens.”

Then again I might just say “maybe I do, maybe I don’t”. Essentially, I’m not going to confirm or deny anything. A player can interpret that however they want.

Should I ever give a definitive “yes” or “no” then I’ll keep my word. But I do not feel obligated to provide this info as a disclaimer if not asked.

If the above is problematic for you, I understand. We simply won’t game together. No hard feelings.

What I’ve been so strongly objecting to is all the condemnation that what I’ve stated above is immoral. Or that the practice of fudging itself is by nature immoral.

“I don’t tell them if I fudge or not” is not the same as “I tell them I don’t fudge, when I do”.

But I’m really tired of beating a dead horse on this. I’ve probably soured my rep here enough on this issue anyway. So please, just leave me out of this conversation from here on out. I won’t reply to this thread anymore.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Take my spouse, please!

It would probably be a better solution for you, to sell her on the Dark Web for a pretty penny.

 

[ffilz]

You haven't played with Skarg or me, I see...

(Resurrections are one of the first things I remove. About the only game where I'd allow them is Eclipse Phase, barring something like "going to the Underworld and demanding the soul of the departed from Hades").

I realized afterwards I should have qualified that...

That said, of the two games I'm running, RuneQuest is the only one with resurrection, and you only have a week to do it, and you'll probably end up with a quest, and if you take more than a day, your character is losing something. And it fits in the campaign setting. And yes, my campaign has had one PC resurrected (twice no less!). They were fortunately adventuring in the Big Rubble so the Pavis Chalana Arroy temple was handy, and the deaths were in pursuit of a floating skull that was a priest of Thanatar. I'm actually not sure I've had more than one or two more resurrections in RQ since starting to play in 1978... Divine Intervention has saved a few PCs also (but that's not an after the fact possibility - you need to call for DI as you take that dying blow).

Cold Iron doesn't have resurrection, though a downed PC can be hit with a stasis spell or flesh to stone, and brought back to town to be healed if they aren't killed outright. It's possible the character is too damaged to be practical to save. It requires the stasis spell be cast within several melee rounds and then the PCs be able to retrieve the body, and the body not be further damaged in some way. At least undead have been known to swing at downed bodies...

 

[Voros]

I keep thinking about this, the more I think about it, the more I think this is not actually a serious suggestion about fudging. Thinking about this in conjunction with the character roll up methods offered, some of which are absurdly generous, I wonder if this passage and the character roll up methods were actually originally snarky suggestions, not intended to be taken seriously, and then editing removed the snark leaving this passage and the description of roll up methods.

I do still note that even this passage as published, really counsels against fudging, and if you do, to exact a price for it. This is far cry from changing things so the PCs win or even escape with almost no consequence that has dominated what I have seen for actual fudging in many campaigns, including my own in the past.

I would not actually take that passage as:


But beyond that, that is the only example from the games in my current stable that even allows for fudging (or anything that might be called fudging, at least by those who aren't pedantic that changing or ignoring any roll is fudging), and at least some counsel against it.

I get that games that I don't play or read may suggest fudging, but there is a definite movement away from it.

And yes, I have claimed some high ground, because I do think that deceiving your players is doing them a disservice. But I also grant that it's your game and if that's what you and your players enjoy (at whatever frequency of fudging you actually do), then more power to you.

And I guess if the rules are very upfront that the GM can fudge, maybe the players don't need to be told. But someone claiming to be running old school AD&D 1e and then fudging based on the above text without letting the players know the GM is open to fudging, I think that is deception, because most people who don't want to play in a game where the GM fudges aren't going to assume that just because 1e is being played, that fudging is part of the game. The "old school" term is going to suggest to them otherwise. Their faulty memory if going to suggest to them otherwise (assuming they even actually read and absorbed that text).

But also, what do you think of the point that has been made, if you don't fudge to avoid every PC death, how will the player whose character death wasn't fudged away feel? Even if they have bought into it?

Gygax from all reports refused to be edited so I suspect you're overthinking it. He means what he writes.

 

[Voros]

I said I was dropping this, but I’m responding for two reasons. 1. You’re addressing me directly, 2. Based on your reply, there may need to be a point of clarification.

If you ask me directly “do I fudge?” and I say “no” and then do it anyway then yes, that IS a dick move. That IS lying. I’m not advocating for THAT.

If you ask me “do I fudge?” My response might be along the lines of “as GM I reserve the right to do so at my discretion if I think it will make for a better game. It is rare that it happens, but it could happen. Additionally, I may or may not divulge if or when it happens.”

Then again I might just say “maybe I do, maybe I don’t”. Essentially, I’m not going to confirm or deny anything. A player can interpret that however they want.

Should I ever give a definitive “yes” or “no” then I’ll keep my word. But I do not feel obligated to provide this info as a disclaimer if not asked.

If the above is problematic for you, I understand. We simply won’t game together. No hard feelings.

What I’ve been so strongly objecting to is all the condemnation that what I’ve stated above is immoral. Or that the practice of fudging itself is by nature immoral.

“I don’t tell them if I fudge or not” is not the same as “I tell them I don’t fudge, when I do”.

But I’m really tired of beating a dead horse on this. I’ve probably soured my rep here enough on this issue anyway. So please, just leave me out of this conversation from here on out. I won’t reply to this thread anymore.

You're rep here is fine. You're been reasonable and well spoken. I admire your willingness to argue a 'contrarian' take on a widespread truism in rpg circles.

 

[opaopajr]

I just feel it is an issue of not understanding the tools in the box and misapplying the tools to not-intended tool usage. Like my mom showing me new and improved ways to use a screwdriver, or dinner knife... when she could have used the appropriate tool. e.g. The flathead screwdriver is not a chisel or a crowbar, the dinner knife makes for a poor flathead screwdriver. So expanding from my previous post (My, have you all been busy!) about learning when to use arbitration judgment versus the system's favored resolution method -- and creating new discrete resolution methods as needed to resolve special cases -- I am going to now talk about randomized content and contextualizing its results to the game versus randomized outcomes with pre-defined finite contextualized expectations.

Finding a random answer to creating content, or interpreting a random answer content contextually to the situation, is not for me "fudging" because it is accepting the randomized answer, and further receiving it in digestible degrees within the contextual state of the fiction. The best way of exemplifying this is In Nomine dealing with Divine and Infernal Interventions (a function of its 3d6 (d666) core resolution mechanic, so 111 and 666 are special rolls thematically). The game talked to the game master that Interventions need not be Apocalyptic! each time they appear: opening a writing desk drawer to look for incriminating evidence may constitute a roll, but an Intervention needn't be Biblical! (yes, I'm using theatrical italics for emphasis) in response scope.

I mean, well yes, you can still use GM arbitration judgment to have an actual fire and brimstone rain with subsequent earthquakes and the clouds parting with the choirs from heaven annunciating a grand visitation -- but only you the GM can justify that 'Why?' And you must own that arbitration's logic. Otherwise know that you have always had the power to reinterpret such random content creation outcomes to the situation's context, including the obvious factor here for example, scope. You needn't fabricate an answer to protect the Symphony, the "goodness of the game's developing narrative," you just need to know different ways of seeing an answer applied.

So the published game line gives advice that if you have a drawer opened and it is Intervened, you can also have a quick brownout with whiff of brimstone or brief brightening of the room's lighting with the faintest high chord choral hit -- next a success or failure accordingly to the faction who is doing the opening of the drawer --and then move on with the game. You are not a slave to the whims of the dice if you understand how the dice works for you. It is good to learn how the dice work as a content creation tool as well as an arbiter of decisions tool, different tools to help you.

The success or failure has been marked as special, because its import has now expanded beyond the pre-defined stakes of opening a drawer to find evidence. It has moved from the pre-defined, finite, contextual expectation (draw opens. Evidence? Yes/no.) into a new randomized content creation that needs GM further contextualizing in the present (such as first defining the scope of its dramatic appearance) and likely future import (why it was more than just a "Yes or No" result). The GM is given allowance to pocket that import to create deeper direct connections later, or leave it dangling as part of the ineffable mysteries of faith in action (basically deeper indirect connections elsewhere).

Now this is a function of having the core resolution mechanic constantly consulting for a potential shift in randomizer import, and can get very challenging for new GMs to make sense of at the table. It forces GMs to quickly understanding that 3d6 (d666) probability can quickly get far too frequent, shifting from cinematic to near melodramatic, tempo of Interventions if the dice are over-consulted. The shift from rolls about pre-defined, finite, contextual expectations to this higher realm of Content Creation is always important... and can be overdone. Hence the GM must learn all his tools, which includes a confident acceptance of their own judgment for arbitrating the moment. Sometimes you need the dice to resolve a small issue, sometimes you need the dice to resolve in a smaller range of values, and sometimes you want the dice to be co-creators... and at all times you need faith in you to select its right purpose, including staying in the box.

 

[DeadBob]

You're rep here is fine. You're been reasonable and well spoken. I admire your willingness to argue a 'contrarian' take on a widespread truism in rpg circles.

In my personal experience, Nakana's take would be the mainstream attitude and not a contrarian position at all.

I'd never encountered anyone who took the hardline No-Fudging approach prior to getting involved at The Forge site back when that was a going thing.

Even now, if I asked around among other gamers IRL circles who aren't heavily online at sites like these, I'd expect their attitudes to line up more with Nakana's positions than a strict No-Fudging approach.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think a lot of players probably don't care much. You ask them "Is it ok that the DM changes a die roll because the outcome would be shitty for the campaign?" and they'll probably shrug and say sure. Not everyone, but a lot of people. Outside the shouty confines of the internet a lot of people don't take their hobby quite as seriously in the same way we do.

 

[Agemegos]

Outside the shouty confine of the internet a lot of people don't take their hobby quite as seriously in the same way we do.

Pfft! Losers!

 

[sharps54]

I think a lot of players probably don't care much. You ask them "Is it ok that the DM changes a die roll because the outcome would be shitty for the campaign?" and they'll probably shrug and say sure. Not everyone, but a lot of people. Outside the shouty confine of the internet a lot of people don't take their hobby quite as seriously in the same way we do.

 

[TristramEvans]

I think a lot of players probably don't care much. You ask them "Is it ok that the DM changes a die roll because the outcome would be shitty for the campaign?" and they'll probably shrug and say sure. Not everyone, but a lot of people. Outside the shouty confines of the internet a lot of people don't take their hobby quite as seriously in the same way we do.

This is true. I sometimes feel like us forum scrawlers are engaging in a secondary meta-hobby.

 

[Fenris-77]

This is true. I sometimes feel like us forum scrawlers are engaging in a secondary meta-hobby.

If you layer on enough self-importance it seems more like noble service than wankery.

 

[TristramEvans]

If you layer on enough self-importance it seems more like noble service than wankery.

But if I layer on enough frosting it'd be a cake to jump out of

 

[SavAce]

This is true. I sometimes feel like us forum scrawlers are engaging in a secondary meta-hobby.

I kinda think it is like sports a bit. You can play a casual softball game or round of golf, everybody is chatting, drinking may be happening, the whole exercise is more an excuse to get together with your friends than it is about the game itself. Meanwhile, there are also people who put a lot of effort into their golf equipment and swing, or teams that try to assemble the best players because they get a kind of enjoyment out of taking the game more seriously that they can't find in the casual games. Certain folks might mock these people as over-serious and say things dismissive like "How was your sports ball game?"

Same thing with the RP, I think. It can just be a group of people that want to get together and visit and the game gets them together. Or, some groups might be more choosy about who they would invite to game because they get a kind of enjoyment out of engaging more deeply than they are able to in the more casual games. Certain folks might mock those people as over-serious and say dismissive things about their "elf games".

Both the casual and not-as-casual people are doing legit things, looking to get their kicks the way they prefer 'em.

 

[AsenRG]

This is true. I sometimes feel like us forum scrawlers are engaging in a secondary meta-hobby.

...sometimes?!?

 

[Baulderstone]

I think a lot of players probably don't care much. You ask them "Is it ok that the DM changes a die roll because the outcome would be shitty for the campaign?" and they'll probably shrug and say sure. Not everyone, but a lot of people. Outside the shouty confines of the internet a lot of people don't take their hobby quite as seriously in the same way we do.

I agree. It goes both ways. On casual end, gamers who would expect an RPG to follow rules, just like a board game. Also, I when I first ran RPGs for my nephews, they were very intent on making sure there were solid rules going on behind the screen, that it wasn't just me making stuff up. If I'd been fudging, they would have been disappointed.

It's complicated.