Fudging in RPGs

[sharps54]

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.

Which is why I still feel it is a best practice for players to be aware if fudging is on the table.

 

[Fenris-77]

Which is why I still feel it is a best practice for players to be aware if fudging is on the table.

Especially before they put a rule book down in that shit and it gets everywhere..

 

[Baulderstone]

BedrockBrendan put up this video today. It isn't specifically about fudging. It's more about being ready to go with the game in unexpected directions, but fudging is connected to the topic.


I think it gets at the heart of my problem with fudging. It's not really about ethics or the right way to play. I just get bored as a GM when a campaign is playing out exactly as I expected. I like twists and turns, and I won't get those if I keep overruling the dice.

I imagine some GMs enjoy having a campaign turn out just how they planned, fudging wouldn't get in the way of their fun like it would mine.

 

[ffilz]

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.

Players expectations are going to be very dependent on how they are introduced to the hobby, and their ongoing experiences. Players introduced to the hobby viewing it as a game first are more likely to expect concrete rules, while players introduced as "hey this is a neat way to play imagination" so they are drawing from child's imaginary role play will likely be open to fudging, and may almost expect it, or at least be resistant to die rolls taking the story in the direction they don't prefer.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

I don't think most mainstream gamers line up with Nakana's approach because I think the mainstream opinion is that the GM can and maybe should fudge as they see fit, but that they should always lie about it and say they don't. But merely because an opinion is popular does not make it optimal. And in my view, it makes it less fun, because I enjoy games, and I don't enjoy playing a bluff game against the players. If I want to lie recreationally, I'll play poker.

I roll my dice out in the open, by preference. Whatever happens, the players know it really happened. This isn't because of hanging out on the Forge but from experiences, particularly my exposure to two sets of circumstances.

The first was when I was 10. I experimented with DMing, and since I didn't have a lot of players, I played with my younger brother, and I ended up doing two things I wouldn't do again. The first is that I ran a "GMPC" as it sometimes called. That is, I had my own character, and I pretended it was part of the adventure. So we went through a few sessions, and it happened my cleric was slightly higher level than my brother's character. And we encountered a young white dragon. It used its breath weapon, and my cleric made their saving throw, and his character didn't. And I felt bad, because I felt like I had a bit of an advantage, so I fudged the roll. I let his character live, because I reasoned it would be more fun. Well, I ended up thinking about it a lot, and I still think about it today. I just realized that I was disappointed I had removed the sense of any real stakes. I could make whatever I want, happen. And having "my own" character in the mix made it impossible to be impartial. So I haven't fudged a die roll or had a "GMPC" since 1985. A GMPC is just a bad NPC. When I create an ally for the PCs, what I do now is usually immediately start plotting the NPC's death.

The second thing that hardened my opinion was when I went to college. Well, we had a couple of players who, you know, tended to scoop their die rolls up really quickly after they rolled. And they seemed to roll, you know, often quite well. I should add also that at this point, I had handled so many dice in a decade of playing that I could sometimes "roll" whatever I wanted onto the table. So I had taken to rolling "craps" style as a personal habit, just to actually get really variable results. So, basically, I had players fudging (cheating) at my table. And I realized it didn't matter to me that they were "winning." The problem was that these players didn't face the same risk as everyone. In effect, they took away from everyone the right to have unexpected things, sometimes good, sometimes bad, happen at the table. So I simply started insisting that everyone roll on the table, in view of eveyone, and that no one was allowed to pick up the dice until the result was determined. I didn't have to call anyone out, but I made it a hard rule for all my players. This was cheerfully enforced, even to some adjudication over whether certain dice were sufficiently cocked to not count, or if a roll that fell off the table counted (it did, provided the die remained true, but did not if the dice were disturbed or could not be seen before the result was read). So that solved a certain problem. But it also gave me an insight. The GM is just another player at the table, hoping certain things will happen, or won't happen. The GM isn't on some other level. Everything they do is because the job has been granted to them. For some people, the GM is given the prerogative to "fudge" the rolls. But that's not a right or responsibility I want to take on. It doesn't come with the job. In fact, I think it's usually a detriment to play, and in the long run, a detriment to satisfaction. So they rolled the dice in the open, and I rolled the dice in the open. And if I was not suffficiently impressed with anyone's "random" rolls, they had to roll craps style.

And to be clear, this isn't just an attitude I carried over from hard-nosed AD&D and GURPS play. A few years back, I tried Marvel Heroic Role-playing, and I really liked it. It's a much more narrative game, really more focused on what happens, than who lives or dies, or whatever. But the game essentially loses its power if you ignore the dice. The whole point is to get the dice to lead you to a place, a new place, an unexpected place. You just can't have that if you "fudge." Apart from the difficulties of "fudging" in a format where you have to assemble pools and sets (which would require my more subtle dice manipulation skils), you're just not placing your faith in your ability to have fun if chance doesn't go your way. And while it's a hard lesson, I think it's simply true that in life we are happier people if we make room for chance.

Just as a practical matter, if you "fudge" because you think it will "make a better game," there is nothing on an ethical level that prevents a player from making the same choice. If I were a player in your game, and I decided to start alterting the outcomes of my rolls, it would not be hard to destroy much of the actual chance or risk involved. Dice can be flopped or lazily dropped. They can be quickly changed with a wave of the hand. In a normal die, each number is exactly the opposite of the number that sums up to the size of the die +1. If you see a "1", obviously any roll is better, so simply thumbing the die to any other number can be done quickly, if eyes aren't constantly on you. Did I mention I've studied a little magic? I'm terrible, absolutely terrible at it. But I know enough to subtantially alter my "rolls." And you probably know plenty of players who are equally capable, if they are so inclined. You never know when you have a master storyteller lurking in your midst. So. Ponder that.

 

[AsenRG]

Players expectations are going to be very dependent on how they are introduced to the hobby, and their ongoing experiences. Players introduced to the hobby viewing it as a game first are more likely to expect concrete rules, while players introduced as "hey this is a neat way to play imagination" so they are drawing from child's imaginary role play will likely be open to fudging, and may almost expect it, or at least be resistant to die rolls taking the story in the direction they don't prefer.

Funny, I was going to say it's the opposite!

Players introduced to the hobby as a game might be open to fudging as there's no winners and losers, so nobody's hurt!

OTOH players who see it the dice as a way to resolve disputes between the different ways we imagine things might dislike the idea, as it's one side deciding that it controls the whole process and invalidating the input of the other one...

I suspect it might not be as clear-cut as we'd like it to be.

If I want to lie recreationally, I'll play poker.

For fun and profit - and many fudging GMs should test their mettle and see how good they actually are at bluffing!

 

[pawsplay]

For fun and profit - and many fudging GMs should test their mettle and see how good they actually are at bluffing!

Indeed. Most of the GMs I've encountered online say they "never" get caught, I don't think that can possibly be true. Another thing about poker, is that it teaches you to believe in math. One miracle, it happens. Two in a row? That miracle smells a little funny.

 

[AsenRG]

Indeed. Most of the GMs I've encountered online say they "never" get caught, I don't think that can possibly be true.

Indeed. And if they're that good, hey, they can profit from those hard-earned GMing skills...

Another thing about poker, is that it teaches you to believe in math. One miracle, it happens. Two in a row? That miracle smells a little funny.

My players:
"Asen, if you weren't rolling in the open, I'd have never believed that guy gets such a roll again!"

 

[Fenris-77]

Indeed. Most of the GMs I've encountered online say they "never" get caught, I don't think that can possibly be true. Another thing about poker, is that it teaches you to believe in math. One miracle, it happens. Two in a row? That miracle smells a little funny.

Easy to say online. I'd call shenanigans.

 

[DeadBob]

I used to love playing poker with people who loved to bluff.

Usually it meant I’d have their money by the end of the night.

 

[ffilz]

I used GMPCs for a long time, up through my Arcana Unearthed/Evolved gaming. It was when I decided to go "old school" from there and also decided to remove fudging for sure (not that I fudged much at all post 1985 or so) that I also decided to drop GMPCs. I do allow NPC party companions, and I don't plot to kill them (that doesn't seem to fit "world simulation" very well), but I do start to itch to get them out of the party if they don't have a very specific purpose that justifies their not being in combat.

On player backgrounds, sure, the "everybody wins" attitude plays into things, but that isn't going to come from board games and such (most of the time - there are some cooperative board games). That certainly is a background that might favor fudging.

And yea, if the dice rolls are not so much used in adjudicating conflict, but directing the game in a different way, that starts to really show what fudging does to the game.

And yea, dice cheating is an issue too... We used to allow "dice bowling" where you would roll the 10s die of a d100 first, and then if you didn't like it, toss the 1s die so it would knock the 10s die. Can be used for multiple dice damage rolls too...

On cocked dice, and dice off the table. My rule is always, these situations both call for a re-roll. And if the roll involved multiple dice (d100 or 3d6 or whatever), you re-roll all the dice not just the one that is cocked or off the table. That way you aren't tempted to keep a good die, or pick up a bad one. And cocked is any die that doesn't sit flat on the table. And if being strict, a die that lands on a book or something would count as out of bounds also. Dice trays can be nice. I haven't used one since 1990ish when the cool cigar tray I had was in my briefcase that got stolen. Dice towers are also good. Online dice rollers are great, but you still have to deal with another cheat... Rolling the dice before the roll is called for, and ignoring it if it wasn't good or keeping it if it was good. Best is to not roll dice until called for to remove that temptation.

I haven't seen much dice manipulation since the 1980s, though maybe there was some in my AU/AE campaign, but I've also played with mostly more mature players since college.

 

[sharps54]

I used GMPCs for a long time, up through my Arcana Unearthed/Evolved gaming. It was when I decided to go "old school" from there and also decided to remove fudging for sure (not that I fudged much at all post 1985 or so) that I also decided to drop GMPCs. I do allow NPC party companions, and I don't plot to kill them (that doesn't seem to fit "world simulation" very well), but I do start to itch to get them out of the party if they don't have a very specific purpose that justifies their not being in combat.

On player backgrounds, sure, the "everybody wins" attitude plays into things, but that isn't going to come from board games and such (most of the time - there are some cooperative board games). That certainly is a background that might favor fudging.

And yea, if the dice rolls are not so much used in adjudicating conflict, but directing the game in a different way, that starts to really show what fudging does to the game.

And yea, dice cheating is an issue too... We used to allow "dice bowling" where you would roll the 10s die of a d100 first, and then if you didn't like it, toss the 1s die so it would knock the 10s die. Can be used for multiple dice damage rolls too...

On cocked dice, and dice off the table. My rule is always, these situations both call for a re-roll. And if the roll involved multiple dice (d100 or 3d6 or whatever), you re-roll all the dice not just the one that is cocked or off the table. That way you aren't tempted to keep a good die, or pick up a bad one. And cocked is any die that doesn't sit flat on the table. And if being strict, a die that lands on a book or something would count as out of bounds also. Dice trays can be nice. I haven't used one since 1990ish when the cool cigar tray I had was in my briefcase that got stolen. Dice towers are also good. Online dice rollers are great, but you still have to deal with another cheat... Rolling the dice before the roll is called for, and ignoring it if it wasn't good or keeping it if it was good. Best is to not roll dice until called for to remove that temptation.

I haven't seen much dice manipulation since the 1980s, though maybe there was some in my AU/AE campaign, but I've also played with mostly more mature players since college.

All this is fixed if the GM rolls all the dice

 

[ffilz]

All this is fixed if the GM rolls all the dice

I’ve dice bowled as GM… and been opportunistic with cocked and off the table dice.

 

[sharps54]

I actually like a dice tower for these kinds of shenanigans, the key is getting one with a big enough bowl for the dice to roll into.

 

[sharps54]

Obviously online rollers fix all this but I really prefer rolling and letting players roll the real dice we have all spent so much money on.

 

[Baulderstone]

Obviously online rollers fix all this but I really prefer rolling and letting players roll the real dice we have all spent so much money on.

Online dice rollers are often fiddly too, which slows down the pace.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Online dice rollers are often fiddly too, which slows down the pace.

It drives me insane sometimes playing online when players who won’t use actual dice for some reason struggle to switch between tabs from discord to their character sheet to their dice roller.

It’s like, just use a physical character sheet and actual dice and the problem’s solved. If you like the digital character sheet so much, get a tablet so it’s on a separate device.

 

[ffilz]

Online dice rollers are often fiddly too, which slows down the pace.

Yea, though if players know their stuff, they are pretty quick, and show the results to all the players when using the VTT dice roller. Some use macros to good effect.

Now if I could get an online dice roller for Cold Iron's normal distribution, that would be cool and a time saver...

 

[Fenris-77]

Rolling dice online will never be as satisfying as rolling them for real. /soapbox

 

[ffilz]

Rolling dice online will never be as satisfying as rolling them for real. /soapbox

Sure, and I actually make most rolls for my Roll20 campaigns online and I welcome any player who prefers to roll physical dice.

But a well used dice roller is nice.

 

[ffilz]

It drives me insane sometimes playing online when players who won’t use actual dice for some reason struggle to switch between tabs from discord to their character sheet to their dice roller.

It’s like, just use a physical character sheet and actual dice and the problem’s solved. If you like the digital character sheet so much, get a tablet so it’s on a separate device.

I'm not sure that's been much of a problem in my campaigns. And especially for Cold Iron, the dynamic character sheet has a lot over paper. One player does print her sheets (she's in both games), though she also uses multiple devices...

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not sure that's been much of a problem in my campaigns. And especially for Cold Iron, the dynamic character sheet has a lot over paper. One player does print her sheets (she's in both games), though she also uses multiple devices...

Oh I’m sure it’s table specific. I have a couple of friends who think technology is always better, though, and they use it for everything. And that then winds up slowing them down.

 

[rumble]

Especially before they put a rule book down in that shit and it gets everywhere..

Wanker frosting and fudge? We've gone full cake, people.

 

[Sable Wyvern]

Easy to say online. I'd call shenanigans.

I don't know. Back when I bought into Illusionism, I'm confident I could have gotten away with it indefinitely. For a start, no one was looking for it, so why would they find it?

However, there came a time when I pulled the curtain back myself, and after that happened it turned out that I was unhappy about the situation. My players were so impressed with the way the session had gone and my brilliance, but I had admitted it wasn't really brilliance, and suddenly the whole thing felt rather hollow to me. I'm not even sure if my players cared, but that feeling resulted in a change to my approach.

 

[AsenRG]

I don't know. Back when I bought into Illusionism, I'm confident I could have gotten away with it indefinitely.

Possibly, but unlikely. Are you also good at poker?

For a start, no one was looking for it, so why would they find it?

Even when not looking for something, people spot things.

However, there came a time when I pulled the curtain back myself, and after that happened it turned out that I was unhappy about the situation. My players were so impressed with the way the session had gone and my brilliance, but I had admitted it wasn't really brilliance, and suddenly the whole thing felt rather hollow to me. I'm not even sure if my players cared, but that feeling resulted in a change to my approach.

Exactly the same here, FWIW.
Except in my case, I had to give up on the group, because they requested more of the same even after knowing it. A couple had known all along.
But I wasn't going to continue, because it was "stop that, or stop running RPGs".

 

[Sable Wyvern]

Are you also good at poker?

I'm OK against people that aren't particularly good at poker.

If you understand the odds, and what's worth betting how much on, you'd clean me up. The ability to bluff or read people only matters once you've mastered the fundaments, which I've never bothered to do.