Fudging in RPGs

[Brander]

...
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'm confident and experienced enough (and have ended up a mostly perpetual GM enough) to know I generally run a good game. I've repeatedly stated that people are free to vote with their feet (which would include not playing because they realize it's not for them) and/or preferably offer to run things their way. They are also free to discuss things after or before the game and if my usual game comments need clarification they are welcome to ask. If taking fudging off the table works best for you, but just because it doesn't work for you or you haven't been able to utilize it to your satisfaction doesn't mean it needs to be off the table for others or that they need to warn others 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.

I'm not just engaging in the usual pub meandering here. As another example, I only require written waivers when fight Larping because actual injury through normal play is possible (I prefer full contact, full strength fight Larping like Dagorhir). I don't require waivers (written or verbal) when I run my tabletop or online RPGs because there is no potential for harm and I'm not forcing people to play my games. They are there of their own free will and are willing to trust that I will provide a decent experience. Just as they trust I won't poison their food or drive them into trees or charge them for the room even though I got it for free. The very idea that I have to ask if I can or warn before I might maybe at some point fudge the dice is as absurd to me as requiring verbal consent from them before I offer free food, rides, or a place to play. I have some weird food allergies, when I go to someone's place and they offer food, it's on me to check, not them to list out every ingredient beforehand. And if they refuse or don't remember exactly I can just not eat it, go get my own, or go home.

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...

Nice try, but no, I'm clearly being shown that they are willing to trust me to make the game fun (or interesting) without stepping into my space and telling me how I can or can't do it. The idea that I would even need to spell out fudging dice is the odd idea here. You don't trust GMs with that power, so it's on you to play games the specify open rolling (which is the one time the GM should note if they are house-ruling that), talk the GM and see if they will accommodate your request, or run your own games (which it seems you do very successfully). Ditto if you were so arachnophibic that you wouldn't or couldn't play in a game with spiders. Your distaste for GM fudging is a you problem, not an everyone else running games problem.

Also, pretty sure I've never specified whether or not I have personally fudged, though I reserve the right (and it's highly probably I did in my early days learning). My daughter was pretty sure I hadn't. I guess that's irrelevant to you since reserving the power to do it means I might and then it would bother you so much that I might that you couldn't play. And that's fine, you do you, but don't expect others to cater to your peculiar preferences requiring they tell you without you asking. As has been noted open rolling and player-only rolling have become more popular as more people want to limit (or share) GM power. Have fun, and if I run one of those games I'm likely to note if I've house-ruled it or not (I doubt I would run one, but never say never).

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?

The moral of the story is my players trust me (and fear my son's ability to manipulate probability apparently) without ever hinting or bringing up any desire to control how I make the game happen. As have the hundreds of players I've had at my games in the past without ever thinking to bring up the question of fudging. If they have an unusual preference or something that they want they are and have been free to recommend and as you can see I try to be accommodating, but they need to ask.

..
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).

Yeah it's very likely no amount of wading through the electrons is going to convince me that every GM needs to cater to the peculiar and personal desires of people who have GM trust issues. I don't play those games, I don't use those rules, and I don't cater to the idea they get any say in how I do things.
Maybe those people and I can play wargames, board games or card games together where there isn't a GM to distrust. I had a good friend who hated 1st person roleplaying (I still don't understand that), we played wargames together instead (and we played a lot).

 

[Exploderwizard]

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!".

Indeed! Ignoring die rolls out in the open is the only way to make sure the player feels the full force of the metaphorical open handed slap across the face.

 

[AsenRG]

I'm confident and experienced enough (and have ended up a mostly perpetual GM enough) to know I generally run a good game. I've repeatedly stated that people are free to vote with their feet (which would include not playing because they realize it's not for them) and/or preferably offer to run things their way.

...and since I suggested that if I was playing, I'd offer to go for the preferable option, but I'd take the other one if need be, what's the problem?
I mean, it would have been an opportunity for you to stop being the Perpetual GM - a feeling I know only too well, BTW.

That's exactly why I suggest you should state it to players. I can't make this same decision unless I know that you are considering fudging a "normal" part of GMing, at least.

They are also free to discuss things after or before the game and if my usual game comments need clarification they are welcome to ask. If taking fudging off the table works best for you, but just because it doesn't work for you or you haven't been able to utilize it to your satisfaction doesn't mean it needs to be off the table for others or that they need to warn others about it.

Yeah, that's exactly where we disagree:

You're seeing fudging as a normal part of GMing, and reject my opinion that it's very much not, and should at least be mentioned.
I'm seeing your opinion as an attempt to normalize an aberrant practice, and thus place the onus of mentioning it on the one doing it.


Obviously no, we're not going to see eye to eye on this. Of course, that's no loss in practical terms, since we're not likely to ever play together, anyway...

I'm not just engaging in the usual pub meandering here. As another example, I only require written waivers when fight Larping because actual injury through normal play is possible (I prefer full contact, full strength fight Larping like Dagorhir). I don't require waivers (written or verbal) when I run my tabletop or online RPGs because there is no potential for harm and I'm not forcing people to play my games.

Of course. I never said I'd be harmed, did I?
As it stands, I'd consider it to be merely wasting my time, if I joined that game, due to a case of bait and switch.

Then again, I would ask you about it, so it wouldn't happen. But the younger me wouldn't have considered asking, and would have reacted a lot more negatively...so warning people is probably still best, in my book.

(That said? Do as thou wilt, frankly. If it works, more power to you, if it bites you in the ass, not my fault. Either way, I'm not prescribing to you how to run games - merely stating that I've seen this thing backfiring).

You don't trust GMs with that power, so it's on you to play games the specify open rolling (which is the one time the GM should note if they are house-ruling that), talk the GM and see if they will accommodate your request, or run your own games (which it seems you do very successfully).

Nice try, but no. It's not that I don't trust the GM with power, it's just that I don't see a reason to use a system at all, if someone has the power to overwrite the results of it.

Also, pretty sure I've never specified whether or not I have personally fudged, though I reserve the right (and it's highly probably I did in my early days learning). My daughter was pretty sure I hadn't. I guess that's irrelevant to you since reserving the power to do it means I might and then it would bother you so much that I might that you couldn't play.

No, you didn't say you are fudging, you used the conditional tense throughout. But the odds of you wasting so much time on defending a practice you're not indulging in seem to me minuscule enough that I'm comfortable overlooking them.

And that's fine, you do you, but don't expect others to cater to your peculiar preferences requiring they tell you without you asking. As has been noted open rolling and player-only rolling have become more popular as more people want to limit (or share) GM power. Have fun, and if I run one of those games I'm likely to note if I've house-ruled it or not (I doubt I would run one, but never say never).

Yeah, implying again I'm out to "limit the GM's power". Again, nice try, but no.

Yeah it's very likely no amount of wading through the electrons is going to convince me that every GM needs to cater to the peculiar and personal desires of people who have GM trust issues. I don't play those games, I don't use those rules, and I don't cater to the idea they get any say in how I do things.

Yeah, "peculiar and personal" again. It comes back to the fundamental disagreement I outlined above.

And neither of us is likely to agree with the other, so there's really no point.

 

[PolarBlues]

Yeah, that's exactly where we disagree:

You're seeing fudging as a normal part of GMing, and reject my opinion that it's very much not, and should at least be mentioned.
I'm seeing your opinion as an attempt to normalize an aberrant practice, and thus place the onus of mentioning it on the one doing it.

What is normal in roleplaying? Personally, I am not into fudging dice rolls, but I acknowledge that this are plenty of examples from 90's rulebooks that advocate the practice, including one of my favourites, WEG Star Wars 1st edition.

Calling it an "aberrant practice", is a bit much. I'd call it " a technique I don't use or like".

I wonder how much this relates to the composition of the group. I generally run games in groups where most players are also experienced GMs, even more than I am in some instances. They know how the saugsage is made, so there is no great mystery of what happens behind the notional GM screen. In that context, open dice rolls are enforce the drama. For groups the players are only ever players, it might work the other way round, I don't know.

 

[sharps54]

What is normal in roleplaying? Personally, I am not into fudging dice rolls, but I acknowledge that this are plenty of examples from 90's rulebooks that advocate the practice, including one of my favourites, WEG Star Wars 1st edition.

Calling it an "aberrant practice", is a bit much. I'd call it " a technique I don't use or like".

I wonder how much this relates to the composition of the group. I generally run games in groups where most players are also experienced GMs, even more than I am in some instances. They know how the saugsage is made, so there is no great mystery of what happens behind the notional GM screen. In that context, open dice rolls are enforce the drama. For groups the players are only ever players, it might work the other way round, I don't know.

Just because rule books advocate something doesn’t make it a good practice. Let’s look at B/X, the text OSE copied to become the current darling of the OSR.

What do we think about this, having a Gold Dragon appear in game to lecture the players and threaten to kill the characters if they don’t straighten up?

 

[PolarBlues]

Just because rule books advocate something doesn’t make it a good practice. Let’s look at B/X, the text OSE copied to become the current darling of the OSR.

Maybe, but then who decides what is "good practice" in the context of roleplaying games? There is no global authority we can appeal to. A lot of different people take different approaches, some with more success than others, but in the end it's an unregulated, messy and totally subjective area.

The point is WEG Star Wars is not some weird outlier. The advice to GM to fudge dice when necessary at one stage was widespread and mainstream in the hobby. A lot of people still subscribe to it. That makes it am established technique in the hobby. It may not suit my style of GMing, I am pretty sure it doesn't suit yours but it clearly suits some people otherwise it would have never got any traction.

 

[sharps54]

Maybe, but then who decides what is "good practice" in the context of roleplaying games? There is no global authority we can appeal to. A lot of different people take different approaches, some with more success than others, but in the end it's an unregulated, messy and totally subjective area.

The point is WEG Star Wars is not some weird outlier. The advice to GM to fudge dice when necessary at one stage was widespread and mainstream in the hobby. A lot of people still subscribe to it. That makes it am established technique in the hobby. It may not suit my style of GMing, I am pretty sure it doesn't suit yours but it clearly suits some people otherwise it would have never got any traction.

Sure, my issue is when the players don’t know the GM is fudging. If there is an understanding at the table that this happening it is all good.

 

[Willmark]

Strict devotion to the dice rolls is just as bad as always fudging IMO.

The devil is in the details.

Ultimately the goal is to have a fun time (I would assume) with your players. The trick is the right balance when required at those times where a bad roll would derail everything.

Or perhaps a derail is wanted at that point.

 

[ffilz]

Strict devotion to the dice rolls is just as bad as always fudging IMO.

The devil is in the details.

Ultimately the goal is to have a fun time (I would assume) with your players. The trick is the right balance when required at those times where a bad roll would derail everything.

Or perhaps a derail is wanted at that point.

What do you mean by strict devotion to the dice rolls?

For many of us, ignoring dice rolls for results of actions, especially in combat, but also outside combat destroys the fun. It cheapens the successes. It may reward bad planning, strategy, or tactics. Ignoring or changing encounter rolls to make the situation make more sense, or even just because we want to get to the damn town tonight without yet another encounter is very different. Ignoring or changing rolls for procedural generation of content is even more different because the GM could have made the decisions without the dice in the first place.

There's also a difference between retconning something or changing an outcome after the fact based on feedback from the players. It may still be fudging, but it's clearly not fudging in secret. And usually there's a negotiation of what needs to change to keep one or more players happy.

 

[ffilz]

Another thought I had about fudging and avoidingTPKs...

If your players aren't invested enough in a campaign to continue on after a TPK, is it worth saving the campaign by fudging the TPK away?

That doesn't mean an option like playing the PCs ghosts or someone resurrecting the PCs and asking a price isn't a good way to continue, but that's not a fudge. It of course also only works with a rule set and setting that allow one of those options. Having the PCs not actually be dead and be captured, and maybe even rescued may also work depending on the system and setting.

On the other hand, maybe the best way to carry on and have fun IS to fudge and save the PCs from the TPK. If so, that at least should be a discussion with the players. Are they really going to have more fun by averting the TPK or by starting new PCs? Maybe they will suggest one of the options in the previous paragraph.

 

[sharps54]

I just think the players should be part of the decision if you are considering fudging to save the party from a TPK.

 

[xanther]

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 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....

Or to put it another way, fudging is just railroading with extra steps.

More strongly, why even roll if you are going to change the result as you see fit because you or the players won't like it. In short, when the roll doesn't fit the story you (or perhaps the players) want to tell or happen no matter what their choices were it is ignored. Cut out the extra steps (the roll) as there is no objectivity here, simply the illusion of it, if one can subjectively change the roll.

Drop the pretense and just declare the results you as a GM have say over, or better yet go with a system with narrative control mechanics. I mean that seriously and have no problem with such games. In fact, I believe if you really feel you need to fudge this is the fair way to go to create a satisfying story that everyone has some say in but no one person has absolute say over. Granted, there are early games that say to fudge because they did not have such game mechanics yet, but now we do, so no reason not to use them.

Fudging, to me, is simply trying to fool yourself into thinking you are playing a game with an element of chance and your decisions and strategy matter (that is the things you do to improve your odds). They don't if by fiat they can be changed at any time even if for reasons you agree with.

Caveat: now it may be the game does not deliver statistically on the promise on the box, or you made a mistake as a GM and are trying to correct it. The former to me means look to a different system, house rule the mechanics, or incorporate some very, very limited number of Luck, Fate, Force, etc. points that basically give a meta (do-over) that fits with the genre. On the latter fair enough, mistakes happen and often a later fudge is better than trying to go back.

After perusing the thread, think it is good to be upfront if you fudge or do not. I generally have a very negative view of fudging (can you tell) from two sets of experiences (a) as a way for a DM/GM to enforce their story and nerf player ideas, and (b) as a sop to players who can't accept failure or even setbacks.

On (a) if the GM story is so good and need to tell it, I'd say write a book. I love books, and have no problem with knowing that what happens is completely determined by the author, and a good author will have you forgetting that and thinking the story really could not have turned out different.

On (b) not sure why you are playing a game then with any sort of random element. I'd say better to engage in collaborative story telling so you can ensure there is no failure or no true set backs (except the ones you want for stripes and cred on how hard "won" the success was). Again, like the GM, if you have a great story to tell and don't want randomizers to hand you failure, play a game without such and/or write your own book.

 

[ffilz]

I just think the players should be part of the decision if you are considering fudging to save the party from a TPK.

Absolutely agree. My younger self hadn't come to that conclusion yet, but these days, absolutely. There's lots of options and having the conversation means the players don't lose agency and the game doesn't lose meaning.

 

[TheoryofGame]

 

[sharps54]

This sums it up. If you are going to force a story down your players throats why the pretense of rolling dice?

 

[rumble]

This sums it up. If you are going to force a story down your players throats why the pretense of rolling dice?

You have to decide, for your own table, whether you're prioritizing story over "reality". Degrees of success in some systems will provide a range of agreeable outcomes without tossing out mechanisms entirely.

Psychology being what it is, people will, on occasion, say they want things a certain way and be completely dissatisfied with the outcome of that choice.

 

[Brander]

...
No, you didn't say you are fudging, you used the conditional tense throughout. But the odds of you wasting so much time on defending a practice you're not indulging in seem to me minuscule enough that I'm comfortable overlooking them.
...

Why I do this might not be obvious from all my previous commentary. The rest is agree to disagree and to each their own and I'm not addressing any other points we've gone over ad nauseum.

My stance of reserving the right to do things I may or may not have done or may or may not will do comes from having some good friends and acquaintances who run their games in ways I usually don't. A couple of them do it in ways I would never do. Nonetheless, I don't tell them how to do it, suggest they need my permission for doing it differently, or tell them they are doing it wrong because the result is tremendous fun. They run great games in ways I don't entirely understand or even agree with and I nonetheless have a great time playing in their games without that understanding or approval. Not even close to everyone manages this, but a couple of them do. I'm not going to say no to an amazing game because the GM does it differently than I do. I may say no after trying out a new GM a couple sessions, but they get a chance to show me.

The best GM I know has never killed a PC I'm aware of, runs class/level, runs just above zero to hero, runs modules often, probably fudges dice (never killing a PC strongly suggests this I agree), isn't usually railroading, but has a preferred path and probably other things I'm forgetting that are things I am unlikely to do. The level of enthusiasm, energy, description, characterization, freedom to play your character, among so many other things I'm surely forgetting that they bring to the table is a work of art the vast majority of the time. It's truly magnificent. I only wish I had more opportunity to play in the games they run.

All things people here swear can't lead to a good or great game for them. And that's fine, you are happy, you are enjoying your games. Whatever reasons you would have for not giving this GM a try are yours and you are welcome to them. But I'm not going to suggest or tell this GM that the way they are doing it is wrong because I want to continue experiencing the magic they make behind their GM screen and they don't owe me anything or need my permission beyond me showing up to do it. I'm just going to take every (rare) opportunity I can to play their games and I'm going to defend their right to do it any damn way they please.

 

[rumble]

In contrast to that experience, I've been in RPG sessions that were effectively excuses for tactical board gaming, with hard progress blocks ("you're not good enough to go there yet") periodic resets or overt reality rewrites to keep the game going "on track".

All the gamers were great. The gaming itself was not my cup of tea.

 

[ffilz]

I'm curious, has anyone changed their mind about anything related to fudging as a result of this conversation? Has anyone learned something useful about kinds of fudging? It seems like we're going in circles...

 

[rumble]

Welcome to the Internet.

 

[Brander]

This sums it up. If you are going to force a story down your players throats why the pretense of rolling dice?

Maybe because:

 

[Nakana]

I'm curious, has anyone changed their mind about anything related to fudging as a result of this conversation? Has anyone learned something useful about kinds of fudging? It seems like we're going in circles...

Certainly going in circles. I doubt anyone has changed their opinion. lol. If anything they’ve most likely clung harder to their convictions.

 

[PolarBlues]

Certainly going in circles. I doubt anyone has changed their opinion. lol. If anything they’ve most likely clung harder to their convictions.

That is the way of the Internet.

 

[AsenRG]

 

[TristramEvans]

I'm curious, has anyone changed their mind about anything related to fudging as a result of this conversation? Has anyone learned something useful about kinds of fudging? It seems like we're going in circles...

I'm more open to fudging in a Paranoia game specifically?

 

[Acmegamer]

Maybe because:

View attachment 80962

 

[TristramEvans]

but I acknowledge that this are plenty of examples from 90's rulebooks that advocate the practice, including one of my favourites, WEG Star Wars 1st edition.

well, 1987 was the weirdest year in the 90's

 

[Baulderstone]

Like a lot of genuinely groundbreaking games, Star Wars D6 has a lot of fantastic ideas and some duds. I put the recommendation to fudge in the same category as the suggestion to have players read scripts at the beginning of the adventure, or for the GM to cut to scenes of what the villains are up to.

 

[TristramEvans]

Like a lot of genuinely groundbreaking games, Star Wars D6 has a lot of fantastic ideas and some duds. I put the recommendation to fudge in the same category as the suggestion to have players read scripts at the beginning of the adventure, or for the GM to cut to scenes of what the villains are up to.

My experience (which is granted simply that, no claim to universal knowledge), is that the people I gamed with (including myself) treated the GM advice in games much the same as the ubiquitous "what is a roleplaying game?" preface - something there for newbies rather than us, because we "already knew what we were doing".

 

[T. Foster]

Like a lot of genuinely groundbreaking games, Star Wars D6 has a lot of fantastic ideas and some duds. I put the recommendation to fudge in the same category as the suggestion to have players read scripts at the beginning of the adventure, or for the GM to cut to scenes of what the villains are up to.

I remember being very excited for the SW rpg (like pretty much everyone may age I was a huge SW fan as a kid). For whatever reason my best buddy got the books before I did and I remember he brought them to a sleepover and I read through them while everyone else was asleep. I loved the graphics with all the full-color movie art and such (miles ahead of what any other rpg had at the time) but when I got to that GM advice it was a HUGE turnoff for me, instantly evaporating any interest I had in buying or running the game or even really playing it (we did play a few sessions with my friend GMing but it didn’t really stick - probably in part because I knew that the dice were likely being fudged and we were being allowed to win for the sake of producing a heroic SW-like story).

 

[Willmark]

What do you mean by strict devotion to the dice rolls?

For many of us, ignoring dice rolls for results of actions, especially in combat, but also outside combat destroys the fun. It cheapens the successes. It may reward bad planning, strategy, or tactics. Ignoring or changing encounter rolls to make the situation make more sense, or even just because we want to get to the damn town tonight without yet another encounter is very different. Ignoring or changing rolls for procedural generation of content is even more different because the GM could have made the decisions without the dice in the first place.

There's also a difference between retconning something or changing an outcome after the fact based on feedback from the players. It may still be fudging, but it's clearly not fudging in secret. And usually there's a negotiation of what needs to change to keep one or more players happy.

It means sticking with the die roll no matter what comes up. Generally speaking that is how I run my games and combat. I don't fudge die rolls all that often and err towards the side of not doing so. Others will vary on how they run their game. So much so that decades later my players still will utter the immortal line of player from decades ago "Jesus C... (Willmark), I hope you know what you are doing?!/!"

As far as TPKs? If the players are dumb enough to blunder on when they are way over their heads? That's their problem. New character sheets are at the ready and dice to roll up new ones.

I don't kill characters; players do that through their actions.

 

[Willmark]

I'm confident and experienced enough (and have ended up a mostly perpetual GM enough) to know I generally run a good game. I've repeatedly stated that people are free to vote with their feet (which would include not playing because they realize it's not for them) and/or preferably offer to run things their way. They are also free to discuss things after or before the game and if my usual game comments need clarification they are welcome to ask. If taking fudging off the table works best for you, but just because it doesn't work for you or you haven't been able to utilize it to your satisfaction doesn't mean it needs to be off the table for others or that they need to warn others about it.



I'm not just engaging in the usual pub meandering here. As another example, I only require written waivers when fight Larping because actual injury through normal play is possible (I prefer full contact, full strength fight Larping like Dagorhir). I don't require waivers (written or verbal) when I run my tabletop or online RPGs because there is no potential for harm and I'm not forcing people to play my games. They are there of their own free will and are willing to trust that I will provide a decent experience. Just as they trust I won't poison their food or drive them into trees or charge them for the room even though I got it for free. The very idea that I have to ask if I can or warn before I might maybe at some point fudge the dice is as absurd to me as requiring verbal consent from them before I offer free food, rides, or a place to play. I have some weird food allergies, when I go to someone's place and they offer food, it's on me to check, not them to list out every ingredient beforehand. And if they refuse or don't remember exactly I can just not eat it, go get my own, or go home.



Nice try, but no, I'm clearly being shown that they are willing to trust me to make the game fun (or interesting) without stepping into my space and telling me how I can or can't do it. The idea that I would even need to spell out fudging dice is the odd idea here. You don't trust GMs with that power, so it's on you to play games the specify open rolling (which is the one time the GM should note if they are house-ruling that), talk the GM and see if they will accommodate your request, or run your own games (which it seems you do very successfully). Ditto if you were so arachnophibic that you wouldn't or couldn't play in a game with spiders. Your distaste for GM fudging is a you problem, not an everyone else running games problem.

Also, pretty sure I've never specified whether or not I have personally fudged, though I reserve the right (and it's highly probably I did in my early days learning). My daughter was pretty sure I hadn't. I guess that's irrelevant to you since reserving the power to do it means I might and then it would bother you so much that I might that you couldn't play. And that's fine, you do you, but don't expect others to cater to your peculiar preferences requiring they tell you without you asking. As has been noted open rolling and player-only rolling have become more popular as more people want to limit (or share) GM power. Have fun, and if I run one of those games I'm likely to note if I've house-ruled it or not (I doubt I would run one, but never say never).



The moral of the story is my players trust me (and fear my son's ability to manipulate probability apparently) without ever hinting or bringing up any desire to control how I make the game happen. As have the hundreds of players I've had at my games in the past without ever thinking to bring up the question of fudging. If they have an unusual preference or something that they want they are and have been free to recommend and as you can see I try to be accommodating, but they need to ask.



Yeah it's very likely no amount of wading through the electrons is going to convince me that every GM needs to cater to the peculiar and personal desires of people who have GM trust issues. I don't play those games, I don't use those rules, and I don't cater to the idea they get any say in how I do things.
Maybe those people and I can play wargames, board games or card games together where there isn't a GM to distrust. I had a good friend who hated 1st person roleplaying (I still don't understand that), we played wargames together instead (and we played a lot).

Excellent post.

Like you I've DM'ed for decades. With my current group the core of us have been playing together since 1995 after having played with various groups from 1982-1991. I must be doing something right as they keep showing up to play after all this time.

Maybe its the fact my wife likes to bake and always has deserts?

 

[Acmegamer]

It means sticking with the die roll no matter what comes up. Generally speaking that is how I run my games and combat. I don't fudge die rolls all that often and err towards the side of not doing so. Others will vary on how they run their game. So much so that decades later my players still will utter the immortal line of player from decades ago "Jesus C... (Willmark), I hope you know what you are doing?!/!"

As far as TPKs? If the players are dumb enough to blunder on when they are way over their heads? That's their problem. New character sheets are at the ready and dice to roll up new ones.

I don't kill characters; players do that through their actions.

 

[Willmark]

View attachment 80977

Why do you think I'm not gaming with all of the players from decades ago? (walks away whistling...)

 

[Voros]

Just because rule books advocate something doesn’t make it a good practice. Let’s look at B/X, the text OSE copied to become the current darling of the OSR.
View attachment 80953
What do we think about this, having a Gold Dragon appear in game to lecture the players and threaten to kill the characters if they don’t straighten up?

Not great but a bit better than Gygax's hilarious recommendation to send Astral Mummies or actual Bolts from the Blue against the PC of a player who is giving your grief!

 

[Sable Wyvern]

Just because rule books advocate something doesn’t make it a good practice. Let’s look at B/X, the text OSE copied to become the current darling of the OSR.
View attachment 80953
What do we think about this, having a Gold Dragon appear in game to lecture the players and threaten to kill the characters if they don’t straighten up?

Inasmuch as this is an in-game solution to an in-game grudge, I'm reasonably OK with it.

However, if the in-game grudge is bad enough that it needs to be "solved" then there's a good chance it's not really an in-game problem any more.

[Edit for basic grammar]

 

[Acmegamer]

Not great but a bit better than Gygax's hilarious recommendation to send Astral Mummies or actual Bolts from the Blue against the PC of a player who is giving your grief!

Yeah, we don't need that. You want Immortals? Cause that's how you get Immortals.

 

[Baulderstone]

On having a Gold Dragon show up to lecture players, it's worth remembering that there was a lot more wall-breaking silliness in D&D back then. I'm not saying it's good advice, but I can see that happening in a D&D game in 1981.

 

[Sable Wyvern]

I once had a lighting strike occur through the ceiling of an inn into the middle of a table the party was gathered around. I then rolled electricity crits on everyone, in the open. That got everyone's attention.

In this case, the party were well aware that they were proxies participating in some kind of war among the gods (specifically, a bunch of gods attempting to prevent the rise of a mighty demon lord). There had been a series of escalating signs showing the gods were displeased with the PCs recent indecisiveness and, as a result, the group felt the best course of action was to hole up and spend another hour arguing about what they should do and making no progress whatsoever towards a decision.

Did the gods really need proxies if they were able to throw lightning around like that? Probably not, but we were having fun.

In any case, that seems about on par with a gold dragon rocking up to give a lecture.

 

[ffilz]

It means sticking with the die roll no matter what comes up. Generally speaking that is how I run my games and combat. I don't fudge die rolls all that often and err towards the side of not doing so. Others will vary on how they run their game. So much so that decades later my players still will utter the immortal line of player from decades ago "Jesus C... (Willmark), I hope you know what you are doing?!/!"

As far as TPKs? If the players are dumb enough to blunder on when they are way over their heads? That's their problem. New character sheets are at the ready and dice to roll up new ones.

I don't kill characters; players do that through their actions.

But I was responding to this:

Strict devotion to the dice rolls is just as bad as always fudging IMO.

It sounds like you do stick to the dice rolls?

Or did you mean sometimes you don't stick to the dice rolls?