Fudging in RPGs

[Skarg]

With a single attack? With what kind of weapon?

Depends on the system and its focus. (What I meant was, in the situation supposedly represented in the game, when someone has a weapon that would, if the situation were real, have some chance of hitting and killing the PC.)

I am pretty happy with TFT's version on this, where a strong hit with a large weapon could kill most people in one blow, a particularly heavy blow from even a shortsword will do enough to kill most people, and even a light weapon could kill most people in one blow, with a good double or triple damage blow BUT 1) those are rare 2) there's a whole maneuver game in the way, so minimizing the number of attacks you're exposed to in the first place, is a major part of play, and one of the main ways to survive, and that involves the entire situation in play.

I'm even happier with GURPS' version, which adds many more details that I love, more ways to defend oneself, and has rarer cases where someone can just attack and get triple damage on you, but also there are more ways to get killed or defeated, and in general things feel to me more like a real situation with more ways to interact with it that make sense to me.

D&D and similar combat systems tend to fail for me on this point because they have less of a maneuver/situation element (unless the GM brings one in through rulings), and the numbers are tuned so it's less possible to avoid getting hurt at all in a combat, and also more possible to just have a lot more hit points than your foes' weapons can do (which never spikes for triple damage), which is often what survival comes down to - a safety zone where you probably won't die, until it wears down, so then hopefully you retreat to safety and rest up.

Cold Iron does qualify, though the thug may have a one in a million chance or less..

Ok. I don't know Cold Iron.

In Classic Traveller, unless the thug is armed with a pretty bad ass weapon or the PC has almost no STR, DEX, and END, there's no chance of a single shot kill.

I didn't like Classic Traveller's combat system much. The wearing down of one attribute at a time doesn't make sense to me, and provides too many points compared to weapon damages, as you say. And yet it also has "simultaneous" attacks and tends to not involve maps (so little/no way to avoid getting hurt), so it has several aspects that I didn't like much. After brief playtesting, I quickly replaced them with TFT mechanics for maps/range/damage/to-hit, and attack sequence.

Now I'd use GURPS Traveller, which adds postures and gun fighting tactics, cover modifiers, etc etc.

RuneQuest even with my alterations of the critical and impalement rules, at least if the PC isn't armored, the thug with a dagger can one shot kill, though for a PC with a high CON and SIZ, so HP is enough to give the head more than 6 points, he will need a crit. The character can even have a bit of head armor and still be vulnerable to a crit.

That sounds pretty good.

What do you feel about super hero games?

I don't have much interest in super hero games unless they're NOT trying to genre-emulate physics-defying abilities, or comic-book-type stories. I can be interested in occasional games or scenarios where you have some people who are extremely armed and/or capable vigilantes, or even people with supernatural powers, but only if the rest of the world, physics, lethality, etc, behaves in a relatively normal way. For example, I've enjoyed playing in a low-powered modern psionics campaign, where again, everything else was entirely realistic.

I like Robocop and Kick Ass, for examples. Or Super with Rainn Wilson (which feels like it could be a low-powered GURPS Supers game to me).

I could enjoy playing something like those three, using GURPS. Mostly though I don't do super-hero games, because they don't make enough sense to me to be interesting, and I don't like many of the genre conventions.

 

[ffilz]

Ok. I don't know Cold Iron.

Cold Iron has escalating hit points, but it also has open ended crits so the thug has a theoretical, if very low chance of doing enough damage to kill a high level character.

Cold Iron is an alternative to D&D that borrows hugely from RuneQuest and TFT.

I like it because it allows for some of the heroics of D&D while also providing some of the grounding of systems like RuneQuest and TFT.

 

[AsenRG]

Skarg I'd like to point out that a Traveller thug can reasonably drop and incapacitate even a mighty PC with an attack with a lowly short sword...

Completely understood. I'm just being friendly , not seduce you to the dark side.

Thanks - much appreciated...well, other than the fact that it was "trying to score a point", not "being friendly"...

But you couldn't seduce me to the dark side anyway. Been there, tried it, the cookies suck!

I would be totally cool with that, my position is more about the GM being "god" of their games and no tools being off limits than any problems playing under someone else's style and rules.

Oh, make no mistake, my position is a bit more extreme than yours. "Gods are merely NPCs, a Referee is a higher power than that".

That doesn't mean I'm going to abuse said power. Great power, great responsibilities, you know?

Among my long term friends who I rarely get to game with (online anymore), one is a railroader, one fudges all the time, and another is a borderline sadist (to the characters, not the players). We all play together when we can and have a blast even though our styles are wildly different.

I sort of thought "benevolent tyrant" covered that, but I like the magician comparison made elsewhere. It's informal and I cover things like not using the "change the environment" benny rules in Savage Worlds or that I give players a free edge and 2 extra attribute points. And I do cover things like "dice on the table flat only" for players. And "don't look behind my screen" sure gets mentioned. I do the magic, if you are entertained, please return. If you aren't, then no hard feelings, I'll be happy to play if you want to run and see if I have fun.

So, strong indicators, but it's never mentioned?

I have seen plenty of games that tell the GM to cheat but some newer games, like ICRPG, do recommend the GM rolls in the open.

Indeed, and it is a welcome change.

I think one reason why you see the advice to fudge less in game books is that when it is given it's usually suggested to be done in the name of story or drama.

Modern systems tend to see this is as a failure of design. Why would I fudge in 2d20? The whole point of the Doom/Threat mechanic is to give the GM an open way within the mechanics to nudge the game. And that's just an example, there's a whole lot of ways that modern games side step this issue from Fortune point mechanics to cushion sudden arbritrary death to full on storygaming design. (And of course some of these mechanics like Fortune points aren't even that modern).

Yep, that's what is called "correct conclusion from erroneous logic and methods". Sometimes it happens, and is always amusing.

Especially as modern narrative RPGs have gone against it hard to the extent of some of the most prominent ones removing GM rolls entirely. I generally see the "fudge for story" stuff as very 90s advice; VtM etc.

Agreed, I also associate it with 90s and VtM!

To be fair I believe you can find a quote from Gygax advocating it in some cases as well but that doesn’t mean it is good advice.

You can probably find the opposite quote from Gary as well...

Gary said a lot of stuff. :p

Ain't it true!

And some of it wouldn't hold well today.

I do like the idea of wounds or fighting until defeated, which might mean death or might not, but I do like for those things to be codified before play starts.

Well, in some systems, it is.

I've used fake rolls the past, not so much to create tension, but so as to ensure the simple act of rolling dice isn't providing the players with meta-information. It's not as necessary in a game where I'm making regular procedural rolls anyway, but where rolls are few and far between, it can make a difference.

And I just treat it as part of my OOC talk.

 

[Voros]

Lots of extensive posts already but two points I'd make on the subject:

1. Fudging becomes a non-issue in players-only-rolls systems. Except for the kind of player who tries to fudge their own roll, which I find kinda hilarious when someone attempts that as it is so clear what theyre trying to do.

Note this isn't a statement that players-only-roll is somehow a superior way to play, just an interesting observation that didn't occur to me 'til now.

2. Fudging to me is not only poor GMing but often suggests that there's a gap in expectation between the GM/players and the ruleset.

Some rulesets seem inadvertently instead of intentionally deadly, produce nonsensical results, a mismatch between chargen & lethality, etc. If you find yourself fudging rolls you should probably consider a different ruleset.

 

[Skarg]

Cold Iron has escalating hit points, but it also has open ended crits so the thug has a theoretical, if very low chance of doing enough damage to kill a high level character.

Cold Iron is an alternative to D&D that borrows hugely from RuneQuest and TFT.

I like it because it allows for some of the heroics of D&D while also providing some of the grounding of systems like RuneQuest and TFT.

Cool. Sounds interesting. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[AsenRG]

Lots of extensive posts already but two points I'd make on the subject:

1. Fudging becomes a non-issue in players-only-rolls systems.

I used to think so as well, until I realized that you can always fudge the target numbers, especially if the game compares Degree of Success!

 

[PolarBlues]

I used to think so as well, until I realized that you can always fudge the target numbers, especially if the game compares Degree of Success!

Not if you tell the player what the target number is before they roll.

 

[sharps54]

I used to think so as well, until I realized that you can always fudge the target numbers, especially if the game compares Degree of Success!

If the players know the target number before rolling I don’t see how you can fudge them. Fudging isn’t an all encompassing term for when you change something to go easy on the players, it is specifically when you generate a randomizer, roll the dice, and lie about the result to keep the game going in the way you, the GM, want it to go.

Edit to add I suppose adjusting NPC stats on the fly during the encounter could also fall under fudging but I think it is a related but slightly different topic than ignoring the dice during combat to further the GM agenda

 

[TJS]

Yeah. Probably the most common type of fudging I've seen is when the GM calls for a roll and then afterwards decides the target number.

This is why, in such systems, I always try to make an effort to announce the target number with the roll. (Eg Make a DC 12 Athletics check - not "make an Athletics check)

However, in some of the players roll systems that kind of fudging is unworkable too. In Powered by the Apocalypse the difficulty is set, and in Numenera you can't even really roll the dice until you know the difficulty.

 

[Brander]

The idea that fudging the dice is cheating and that doing so without prior permission of the players is lying to them is not limited to this forum, it is also discussed on various podcasts with the general consensus often being that it is wrong with the consent of the players.
Here is a recent podcast that discussed it

There are probably, videos, blogs, IRC channels, Usenet groups, google groups, magazines, books, pages, people, things I can't recall to list, and maybe even AI's that advocate for it. I was being illustrative not exhaustive.

I have seen plenty of games that tell the GM to cheat but some newer games, like ICRPG, do recommend the GM rolls in the open.

It's explicitly not cheating in a game that tells you it's explicitly not cheating no matter that word you use. I don't run ICRPG and it's been a while since I read it, I recall loving the style and art of it but not thinking it was something I'd run.

To be fair I believe you can find a quote from Gygax advocating it in some cases as well but that doesn’t mean it is good advice.

Agreed for the record. He's an interesting example with early design cred not an authority to me.

Gary said a lot of stuff. :p

Yes he did, much of it contradictory and yet fascinating given the history.

 

[AsenRG]

Not if you tell the player what the target number is before they roll.

Definitely not, but that's not a given with all Referees. And assuming you have a Referee who does fudge, he can simply elect to not tell you the TN.
So the system doesn't prevent it 100% - though it still does make it better, and it's easier to spot a fudge...


And then we have the players who simply roll before I've even told them the TN!

Bonus points if those guys accuse the Referee of fudging after you announce the TN afterwards and it turns out to be a failure...I'm a mere human, guys, sometimes I even I need at times to check what TN this NPC/situation is imposing!

If the players know the target number before rolling I don’t see how you can fudge them.

Fudging isn’t an all encompassing term for when you change something to go easy on the players, it is specifically when you generate a randomizer, roll the dice, and lie about the result to keep the game going in the way you, the GM, want it to go.

First, it's not necessary to lie to make it easier on the players - making it harder counts as well.
Second, I'd say that it doesn't matter who's handling the randomizer, but as long as the Referee GM is lying about the result to make the game do what he wants, it still counts in my book!

I mean, the only reason we associate fudging with dice is if that most rulesets do ask the GM to roll.

Edit to add I suppose adjusting NPC stats on the fly during the encounter could also fall under fudging but I think it is a related but slightly different topic than ignoring the dice during combat to further the GM agenda

I don't think it's different. The GM is changing stuff that only he's privy to, on the fly, in order to further his agenda. There might be a roll, or no roll, doesn't really matter.

Yeah. Probably the most common type of fudging I've seen is when the GM calls for a roll and then afterwards decides the target number.

Yes, this!!!

This is why, in such systems, I always try to make an effort to announce the target number with the roll. (Eg Make a DC 12 Athletics check - not "make an Athletics check)

Yes, and that's great! But see above my not on quick-fingered players...

However, in some of the players roll systems that kind of fudging is unworkable too. In Powered by the Apocalypse the difficulty is set, and in Numenera you can't even really roll the dice until you know the difficulty.

Ahem, how does Numenera prevent that? It's a d20 roll either way, what prevents a player from rolling?

About the only game where I can see that not working is a dicepool game where the opposition determines bonuses and penalties on the number (or type) of dice you roll. Then, yes, you can't roll without checking the modifiers, because you'd need to re-roll if you estimated it too high.

 

[TJS]

Ahem, how does Numenera prevent that? It's a d20 roll either way, what prevents a player from rolling?

The main mechanic involves the player spending from their pools to bring the target number down. That's the only way your stats influence the roll.

So technically the player could just roll a D20 but it would be a flat D20 with nothing added to it. The player really needs to know the difficulty so they can decide whether to spend from their stat pool and how much.

In some cases too, if the player doesn't spend anything it might be literally impossible for them to succeed.

A first time player might just start rolling but they would quickly learn that's a bad idea.

In fact we had the opposite problem playing it, the game became painful because the GM couldn't get used to it and he kept saying "make a roll" and then we had to stop him each and every time and say "what's the difficulty?".

 

[Brander]

Thanks - much appreciated...well, other than the fact that it was "trying to score a point", not "being friendly"...

The only point I can think of that I might score here would be to have a fun game with someone who maybe wasn't sure they would have a fun game based on some philosophical quibble on a game forum.

I'll try to score that point at all times. And I'd be happy to have anyone here try out one of my games, we can argue how many gaming angels fit on the point of a D4 all day and I'm still happy to run a game for them if the opportunity were to arise. Despite my best efforts, people seem to like me.

Oh, make no mistake, my position is a bit more extreme than yours. "Gods are merely NPCs, a Referee is a higher power than that".

That doesn't mean I'm going to abuse said power. Great power, great responsibilities, you know?

I think you can tell I reject the idea that it's even possible for there to be any abuse in this case.

So, strong indicators, but it's never mentioned?
...

Sure, I don't recall it coming up specifically, like ever, and not just in this game.

Regarding this game, for what it's worth, I'm sure there are plenty of things that are strongly implied or included but never mentioned. I didn't mention that I have provided meals and drinks for most of the game sessions for everyone and not just my kid(s). I didn't mention that I was able to negotiate to get the venue for free despite there normally being a charge (The library normally charges for the use of meeting rooms after hours). I didn't mention that I often pick up players before and drop off players after (one lives an hour away from my home and I have picked them up and dropped them off). I can assure you that keeping the option to fudge die rolls in my toolkit likely wasn't even in the top 100 things anyone in this game (or really any of the other hundreds of games I've run) have ever cared about (in person or online) if they did at all. The first time it would be, would be if I ran a game for someone here who had an opinion about it.

This is proof of nothing, but I think it's fun to share, and sure she's my kid, but since it's apparently never specifically come up:
Tonight when I asked my teenage daughter (who also plays in a DnD game run by a schoolmates mom) if she thought it was OK if a GM fudged dice rolls she said "sure it's OK..." She then said "... but I'm more scared when you have my brother* roll the dice for you, because you can't fudge those and he rolls way better than you do." I asked her if she thought I had fudged any rolls. She said "I doubt it, you like killing characters too much, you just roll crappy."

*Her brother has special needs and isn't quite up to playing yet so some nights he rolls my dice for me, but he rolls them in front of him not me. He likes to sit opposite me at the table, not next to me, so not near my GM screen.

 

[PolarBlues]

And then we have the players who simply roll before I've even told them the TN!

I have on many occasions told players who pick up the dice in haste to hold fire while I am still figuring out the target number (and potentially also the wider implications what failure and success failure look like in this instance).

 

[TJS]

I've had players who have picked up and rolled the dice before I've even had a chance to tell them that no roll is necessary.

I've one player who always looks slightly disappointed when I tell him that no he didn't fumble because I wasn't going to ask him to roll to climb a ladder.

 

[sharps54]

I've had players who have picked up and rolled the dice before I've even had a chance to tell them that no roll is necessary.

I've one player who always looks slightly disappointed when I tell him that no he didn't fumble because I wasn't going to ask him to roll to climb a ladder.

I usually tell them I wasn’t going to have them roll but since they did…

 

[DeadBob]

So, just in practical terms when designing, what does skipping rolling imply?

For example, it's clear that both GMs and players like rolling ( gambling is fun, clacketyclackclack is fun).

It's also clear that there is a bunch of stuff where people are unhappy rolling (under certain circumstances) because it can make a character who is an expert (theoretically) look like a goof if they fail or fail critically.

So, what is a happy medium?

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

So, just in practical terms when designing, what does skipping rolling imply?

For example, it's clear that both GMs and players like rolling ( gambling is fun, clacketyclackclack is fun).

It's also clear that there is a bunch of stuff where people are unhappy rolling (under certain circumstances) because it can make a character who is an expert (theoretically) look like a goof if they fail or fail critically.

So, what is a happy medium?

If it's going to either a) be irrelevant (the PCs will knock down the door eventually and there's nobody in earshot to hear them) or b) lead to a full stop (if the PCs fail to spot a specific clue they won't be able to proceed) I skip it. Although I try to avoid situations where b) can arise in the first place because they feel railroady.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think that most of the reasons people give for "only roll in the open" are silly. It completely sinks the usefulness of things like stealth and search rolls for one, and for two it is based, even if one doesn't want to admit it, on the premise that the GM can't fudge that way. I don't need my hand held and, not to put to fine a point on it, if you're really worried about me fudging behind my screen and otherwise cheating, you can probably fuck off and find a different game as we obviously don't have the base level trust necessary to game together.

 

[sharps54]

I think that most of the reasons people give for "only roll in the open" are silly. It completely sinks the usefulness of things like stealth and search rolls for one, and for two it is based, even if one doesn't want to admit it, on the premise that the GM can't fudge that way. I don't need my hand held and, not to put to fine a point on it, if you're really worried about me fudging behind my screen and otherwise cheating, you can probably fuck off and find a different game as we obviously don't have the base level trust necessary to game together.

The idea of rolling in the open isn’t just because people are paranoid it is because it is exciting to see die rolls and everyone leans forward on the edge of their seat to see how a high stakes die roll turns out.

 

[Fenris-77]

The idea of rolling in the open isn’t just because people are paranoid it is because it is exciting to see die rolls and everyone leans forward on the edge of their seat to see how a high stakes die roll turns out.

Oh I agree, completely. But some rolls only really serve their intended purpose if rolled in secret. Like search and stealth rolls. Anything where knowing you failed gives information of its own.

 

[PolarBlues]

The idea of rolling in the open isn’t just because people are paranoid it is because it is exciting to see die rolls and everyone leans forward on the edge of their seat to see how a high stakes die roll turns out.

Yup. Which is one of the reasons I am not keen on the "Yes, and.."/"No...but" sort of systems.

 

[Skarg]

I usually tell them I wasn’t going to have them roll but since they did…

GM: "Ok, so you all try to climb over that wall?"
George: "Yup."
Paul: "Mhmm . . ." [rolls dice]
Dave: "There is no try!"
GM: "George and Dave easily make it over. Paul, you were nervous about making it over or not, so let's check that roll to see if your nerves messed up your attempt . . ."

[later]

GM: "Ok, so you're all trying to jump across that chasm?"
George: "Um . . . yeah . . ." [rolls dice]
Paul: "I guess there's no better choice." [rolls dice]
Dave: There is no try!"
GM: "This one turns out to actually be a tough jump which really needs a roll. Dave, you need to roll at -1 because you underestimated the difficulty."

 

[Skarg]

So, just in practical terms when designing, what does skipping rolling imply?

For example, it's clear that both GMs and players like rolling ( gambling is fun, clacketyclackclack is fun).

It's also clear that there is a bunch of stuff where people are unhappy rolling (under certain circumstances) because it can make a character who is an expert (theoretically) look like a goof if they fail or fail critically.

So, what is a happy medium?

As pretty much always, I think the thing to do is to roll when it makes sense that there is a chance of an uncertain significant result.

And, it's also vital to have the roll be appropriate to the situation, taking into account the fullness of the situation, including the abilities of the characters involved.

In that way, you get a game where there are chances of outcomes as you would expect in that actual situation.

(And for my tastes, NOT what I would expect in a superhero, James Bond, horror, or any patently unrealistic film (or other) genre, nor in a comedy, nor in a story written by the GM thinking he was clever or trying to make things "be fun", nor in improv theater, nor in a story with "themes", nor in five-year-olds' make-believe, nor in a story where you know the protagonists aren't going to die nor lose limbs, nor in D&D games with high hit points, nor according to any storygame mechanics . . .)

And that is ALSO why I play GURPS, and avoid most other systems - that's what it's mainly designed to do well (unless you use cinematic optional rules).

 

[T. Foster]

Oh I agree, completely. But some rolls only really serve their intended purpose if rolled in secret. Like search and stealth rolls. Anything where knowing you failed gives information of its own.

The players often have imperfect or incomplete information. Searching and stealth are obvious cases. So are interpersonal interactions - an NPC may be faking a friendly reaction or poor morale in order to lure the PCs into an ambush. Rolls can also relate to offstage activity the players have no awareness of - timing of patrols, whether a sleeping monster wakes up, etc. I don’t let the players make/see those rolls (or at least don’t tell them what the roll means). I’ve seen people argue that even those types of rolls should be made in the open and it’s up to the players to pretend they don’t know the results but that’s bullshit to me.

 

[TristramEvans]

As GM it’s my job to provide fun via epic storytelling. It’s not necessarily my job to be perfectly transparent or entirely ethical.

And that probably more than anything is why you're going to encounter differing opinions. You are stating clearly that your preferred playstyle is that of "GM as Auteur", which yeah, is a very popular playstyle, and likely a lot of what roleplayers are first exposed to or indoctrinated into these days with the rise of narrative-focused RPG systems.

With "GM as Auteur" fudging dice makes more sense, because the "epic storytelling" is the primary focus of the GM role for you.

For those of us where that isn't how we define GMing, or who actively reject the GM as Auteur premise, fudging doesn't make any sense.

So there's no right o wrong here, just different ways of having fun and engaging with the hobby. But it's going to lead to vastly different perspectives on random questions such as this thread's theme. It might be clearer to get that established first, actually, before evaluating any offered answers or opinions.

 

[Willmark]

Generally when GMing I let the die fall where they may; I don't kill characters, players kill characters.

That said those that really role-play well and think outside the box? It shouldn't always come down to a single die roll. Sometimes? Sure but every time making them roll life or death can be well, dicey...

 

[sharps54]

Generally when GMing I let the die fall where they may; I don't kill characters, players kill characters.

That said those that really role-play well and think outside the box? It shouldn't always come down to a single die roll. Sometimes? Sure but every time making them roll life or death can be well, dicey...

They did add that saving throw into Boot Hill 3E but we still play 2E

 

[TJS]

I expect if you to were compare D&D to all other games you would find that fudging takes place in D&D at least 50% more. (Perhaps not so much if we went back 20 years, but with the games that are currently played).

Because, as always, fudging happens most when people are using a mismatched system for the game they want to play.

There was a discussion of a video by Matt Colville a while back because he basically recommended some kind of fudging to make D&D combat more exciting and dramatic. It would be interesting to ask him whether, if GMs felt the need to do that in the new game he is currently designing, he would consider his design to have in some way failed.

 

[Exploderwizard]

Paranoia shouldn't be included in the conversation. I will casually and publicly fudge a die rill when I'm running Paranoia.

Why? Paranoia is the perfect game to let nature take its course. Everyone gets clones for just such a reason. It is part of the fun of the game for me, as both a player and GM.

 

[TristramEvans]

I can see both sides when it comes to Paranoia, because as a GM you are trying to , well, instill Paranoia. Part of that comes from the Computer basically rigging the world so that it's unfair, so players are always on their toes, and creating an air of constant, suspicion and oppression. While I personally wouldn't turn to "fudging" to accomplish this, I can at least see it being used effectively in a way that wouldn't be appropriate for other gaming experiences.

In that way, I can at least see "Fudging" as a tool at the GM's disposal as opposed to borderline cheating. I mean it is still cheating, but the Computer would cheat. Likewise I expect players to attempt to cheat when they can, but to have to deal with the consequences when caught.

 

[Baulderstone]

"Shouldn't I get a roll to keep my laser pistol working?*

"Oh, sorry"

*Rolls dice, blatantly doesn't look at them*

"Sorry, that was my mistake. It explodes."

GM: "I need a 17 or higher to hit you."
*rolls a 2.

GM: "The mutant hits you with is unapproved weapon. The beam causes your skeleton to grow 20% larger, and the once surrounding flesh is all the room and the rest of the party. You are dead."

Another Player: "But you needed a 17..."

GM: "Citizen, what is your security clearance?"

"Red."

"What color is this die?"

"Uhhh, blue?"

"Exactly, please report for termination."

Just because you are rolling the dice in the open doesn't mean the players are cleared to look at them.

 

[Sable Wyvern]

Cruel and arbitrary judgments are part and parcel of running Paranoia, and that includes blatantly disregarding the results of the dice in order to remind the players who is in charge. Done obviously, it's not really fudging though, it's just a slightly indirect way of saying, "Fuck you!".

Secretly adjusting the dice is kind of pointless, although it might be OK in combination with some sarcastic overacting.

"Hmm, given your caution, I think you would only trigger the Brain-fry-O-matic if I roll a natural 20."

clatter, clatter ... "Oh what's that? I've rolled a 20! That seems unfair, I'll roll again." clatter clatter ... "Oh dear, 20 again!"

"It seems your cowardice has not paid, off, clone, and your brain has just been fried! What terrible, terrible luck, I can't believe things turned out this way."

Even then, though, I think it would still have more impact if rolled on the open. Clatter, clatter, die is obviously a 4. "Oh no, I rolled a 20!".

 

[T. Foster]

The encouragement of the GM to ignore die rolls and rules and cheat in order to fuck over the players was one of my least favorite things about Paranoia 2E because it wasn’t necessary - the odds were already so stacked against the PCs that they had effectively no chance of succeeding - and it undermined the sense of, well, paranoia. As depicted in the 1E rules it was possible (albeit extremely unlikely) through a cautious and clever combination of spurious logic, bootlicking, moxie, and chutzpah to game the system and if not survive at least be the last one standing. But once 2E instructed the GM to ignore the rules and dice and just arbitrarily screw the players that element was lost and it just became dumb slapstick and way less intriguing (at least to me). Paranoia 1E was smart; Paranoia 2E was dumb.

 

[Sable Wyvern]

For me, the essence of Paranoia is the unwinnable Catch-22, as best encapsulated by the Mandatory Bonus Duty Test 88-9b.

On the other hand, my introduction to Paranoia was via 5e, which is widely disparaged, so my opinion might not be worth much more than you paid for it.

 

[Kage2020]

I have zero problems with fudging.

With that said, I will totally tell my players if I'm going to do that or run things RAW, but my preference is to allow for the possibility of fudging.

Why?

Because it's a collaborative game and I'm one of the players, even though I have the title "GM".

One of the few perks about that position is being about to make decisions on the fly that contribute to the collaborative "story". While I cannot do anything for dice that are rolled in the open, I can do things for dice that are rolled "behind the screen". (Remembering that I roll dice sometimes just to make the players paranoid.)

Meh. I'm mangling the explanation of this. With that said, I sometimes think that many TTRPGs forget that the GM is a person, too.

 

[Agemegos]

I sometimes think that many TTRPGs forget that the GM is a person, too.

This is why, as you may have noticed, I usually use the term "character-players" rather than "players" when not including the GM.

 

[Black Vulmea]

I'm waiting for someone to call me the heretic and/or get a 40K heresy stamp. I'm kind of disappointed. I expected better of this place.

If that's the experience you're looking for, Pundejo's Playhouse is thattaway ---------------------------------------->

Though I'm not sure why "art of GMing" is on that list. I'm pretty sure it's an art and one we all tend to get better at over time as we practice. We might belong to different schools of though on it, but I'm still pretty sure calling it an art is not at all odd.

For me, roleplaying games are a creative outlet to some degree or another. Still, I'm not pretentious enough to call the little Scottie dog and the old shoe teaming up to explore the hotel on Oriental Avenue "art."

 

[AsenRG]

The main mechanic involves the player spending from their pools to bring the target number down. That's the only way your stats influence the roll.

So technically the player could just roll a D20 but it would be a flat D20 with nothing added to it. The player really needs to know the difficulty so they can decide whether to spend from their stat pool and how much.

In some cases too, if the player doesn't spend anything it might be literally impossible for them to succeed.

A first time player might just start rolling but they would quickly learn that's a bad idea.

In fact we had the opposite problem playing it, the game became painful because the GM couldn't get used to it and he kept saying "make a roll" and then we had to stop him each and every time and say "what's the difficulty?".

Yeah, man, you misunderstood me, sorry - I know what the basic mechanic is. What I don't know is how this would prevent some players (I can think of names...) from rolling.
Sure it might screw them, but then they'd be asking to add modifiers post factum, or to add points and then re-roll. Especially if it was unwinnable without adding. But if it was winnable, that re-roll is just giving them some basic chance to succeed without expending resources - which, from what I know of the Monte Cook's games, is the core playloop.

OTOH, you can't really shut them down, because some of these have been doing the same thing in any game they play: roll first, think later.

Maybe you're not familiar with such players, but they are out there...

The only point I can think of that I might score here would be to have a fun game with someone who maybe wasn't sure they would have a fun game based on some philosophical quibble on a game forum.

I'll try to score that point at all times. And I'd be happy to have anyone here try out one of my games, we can argue how many gaming angels fit on the point of a D4 all day and I'm still happy to run a game for them if the opportunity were to arise. Despite my best efforts, people seem to like me.

Yeah, and yet you keep behaving as if people who say they dislike fudging haven't tried playing with a GM like you...

Let me put it this way: I have, and I have been that GM for other people.
When I consider fudging to be a mistake for the Referee, it's not because I don't know how it works, it's because I know how it works and what it leads to.

I think you can tell I reject the idea that it's even possible for there to be any abuse in this case.

Of course I can tell what your idea is - I just disagree with your idea. Your rejection doesn't change my opinion one iota, as I'm sure you can tell in turn?

Sure, I don't recall it coming up specifically, like ever, and not just in this game.

Then: Not Cool, sorry.

Regarding this game, for what it's worth, I'm sure there are plenty of things that are strongly implied or included but never mentioned. I didn't mention that I have provided meals and drinks for most of the game sessions for everyone and not just my kid(s). I didn't mention that I was able to negotiate to get the venue for free despite there normally being a charge (The library normally charges for the use of meeting rooms after hours). I didn't mention that I often pick up players before and drop off players after (one lives an hour away from my home and I have picked them up and dropped them off). I can assure you that keeping the option to fudge die rolls in my toolkit likely wasn't even in the top 100 things anyone in this game (or really any of the other hundreds of games I've run) have ever cared about (in person or online) if they did at all. The first time it would be, would be if I ran a game for someone here who had an opinion about it.

Bottom line: you're really accommodating. Alas, the thread ain't about gaming accommodations, it's about a specific GMing practice...which a lot of us believe to be mistaken.

I mean, I'm sure you're a swell guy IRL. That doesn't change the specific things we are discussing, though.

Also, since you are not discussing it with players (as stated above, and as evidenced by the fact that even your daughter doesn't seem to know you're doing it), you don't know whether your players care about the fudging, or they're merely living with it. You're just assuming they're fine with it...

This is proof of nothing, but I think it's fun to share, and sure she's my kid, but since it's apparently never specifically come up:
Tonight when I asked my teenage daughter (who also plays in a DnD game run by a schoolmates mom) if she thought it was OK if a GM fudged dice rolls she said "sure it's OK..." She then said "... but I'm more scared when you have my brother* roll the dice for you, because you can't fudge those and he rolls way better than you do." I asked her if she thought I had fudged any rolls. She said "I doubt it, you like killing characters too much, you just roll crappy."

*Her brother has special needs and isn't quite up to playing yet so some nights he rolls my dice for me, but he rolls them in front of him not me. He likes to sit opposite me at the table, not next to me, so not near my GM screen.

Great story, but I suspect the moral might not be what you'd want it to be...!

Now please consider: whenever* I roll dice, it's like having your son rolling for you. Because I roll in the open, and in front of the players.
Which one has the players more worried, how do you think?


*Well, stealth rolls and other "secret info" excluded. But my players know I won't fudge those, either. Some of them have argued the case with me on different online sites.

I have on many occasions told players who pick up the dice in haste to hold fire while I am still figuring out the target number (and potentially also the wider implications what failure and success failure look like in this instance).

I've had players who have picked up and rolled the dice before I've even had a chance to tell them that no roll is necessary.

I've one player who always looks slightly disappointed when I tell him that no he didn't fumble because I wasn't going to ask him to roll to climb a ladder.

Yeah, I see you both know that type of players...
The ones that seem perplexed after you announce that the failure doesn't count if the Referee wasn't going to ask for a roll either way, are the funniest.

I usually tell them I wasn’t going to have them roll but since they did…

Ah, the wails of disappointment!

(I've tried that method as well. It didn't work out, either).

I think that most of the reasons people give for "only roll in the open" are silly. It completely sinks the usefulness of things like stealth and search rolls for one, and for two it is based, even if one doesn't want to admit it, on the premise that the GM can't fudge that way. I don't need my hand held and, not to put to fine a point on it, if you're really worried about me fudging behind my screen and otherwise cheating, you can probably fuck off and find a different game as we obviously don't have the base level trust necessary to game together.

Actually, stealth and search rolls are something I often make behind the screen, on account of the player.

If you'd notice, most of us aren't debating ways to block the GM from fudging, merely the fact that we - as Referees in our own right - consider it a bad idea for any GM.

...but again, even if you are fudging - as long as your players know you are fudging and you don't think it's a bad idea? Knock yourself out, there's more important stuff for a session. (My philosophical disagreement with Brander's ways is merely that he's not warning his players. We're going to keep wasting electrons over it, though, I suspect).

I suspect Paranoia might be an exception, but I still haven't played it.

 

[opaopajr]

It is challenging to remember to recalibrate your tools (or even a make-shift tool) to the situation at hand. However it is a good habit to learn as a GM as soon as possible, in my experience. In example, AD&D gave GM advice (Creative Campaigning, IIRC) on switching out the d20 to some other recalibrated adjustment, example given being something like roll under stat on 1d4+12 -- this cuts off significant low stats from attempting. The point being that as GMs we can become hidebound to the suggested systems without creatively customizing our consultations of the tools.

This is related to fudging because it is tempting to straddle both worlds and select results after the dice is thrown (and let players presume post hoc ergo prompter hoc that the two are related) without deeply considering between to accept an ad hoc judgment or a random value consultation. It needlessly blurs the separation of consultations; a GM needs no permission to select an ad hoc decision due to fictional context, meanwhile this blurring erodes expectations of difference in judgments. Basically when are we suspended by the excitement of chance? When are we to rely on the judgment of the GM? The doubt of GM whimsey casting shadow upon the dice does not for a foundation of strong trust make, on either the GM or the dice.

When you realize you can tailor random consultations into contextual discreet ranges, it removes this need to undermine the authority of both dice and GM, and more importantly strengthens the GM muscle on mindfully selecting the appropriate method or tool for the job.

In a perhaps bizarre analogy it is like tracing a pleasing composition and anatomy pose without learning how to compose and draw anatomy. Tracing is not wrong, per se, especially if all you want is to color within the lines, maybe not even that and follow a paint by numbers. But it is forgoing lessons that will strengthen your repertoire to create dynamic personalized pieces. And given "dynamic personalized pieces" is tabletop rpgs' prime strength in a landscape of competing entertainments, it's understandable why it is a choice that elicits disappointment from some who want others to reach for more.