Fudging in RPGs

[sharps54]

At some point the players will find out the GM is fudging and when they do how will they feel? Will it ruin the experience for them? Will they consider closer to their partner faking an orgasm or to the very unsatisfying ending of Emilio Estevez’s movie Wisdom?

 

[DeadBob]

Good lord

 

[sharps54]

Sorry, I know the ending of Wisdom scarred many of us. I should have put up a warning

 

[ffilz]

I would presume everyone’s fun, maybe that’s just me.

Personally I have come to enjoy the game more when there is no fudging and I know I have players who enjoy that.

The way I see it, there are the following categories of ignoring or changing the results of dice rolls. For each, there is surely some set of players that would be offended by changing the result, and some set of players that expect the result to be changed if it's deemed unfun.

1. Random rolls to help the GM fill out their setting or an adventure - I think these are the easiest to justify ignoring or changing because the GM need not even make the roll in the first place.
2. Procedural rolls like random encounter checks - These start to get iffy for ignoring or changing because it impacts the consistency of the setting. Still, few players would quit a campaign because of this.
3. Results are ignored or changed or partly re-done because the GM and players determined that a mistake was made - note that there are surely some players who would object to this and follow the principle of what is done is done.
4. Results are ignored or changed because the result was disfavored by one or more players - this starts to get objectionable to more players, but because there is player input, some players will be OK. The prevalence can also range from "only if the result will cause a critical player to quit" to "anything that is unfun for one or more players may be overriden."
5. Lastly, results are ignored or changed by the GM without consultation with the players because the GM thinks the game will be more fun without consultation with the players (with consultation, this is basically a special case of the previous option). Lots of players will object to this.
6. Not sure where in the list this goes, but if the GM offers re-rolls during chargen, or outright ignoring a roll, this is yet another type of fudging.

Since there are players who object to these various scenarios, it behooves the GM to be upfront, at least about the ones other than the first two.

 

[Lofgeornost]

Again, on a fundamental level, it seems to me that people are treating this fudging as though they were playing a game of Monopoly and found out somebody was sneaking money from the bank.

The problem with the analogy is that, in traditional RPGs, the GM controls the environment. He or she can say--along the Monopoly analogy--all your money burns up, or your hotels all slide into the ocean. And Park Place is now a radioactive crater.

Now, personally, my preference is that the GM not fudge combat rolls or anything similar, where the players have calculated their risks and staked something on the outcome. But if he or she makes a roll for, say, weather, and changes the outcome for something that seems better, I'm fine with it.

 

[ffilz]

Again, on a fundamental level, it seems to me that people are treating this fudging as though they were playing a game of Monopoly and found out somebody was sneaking money from the bank.

The problem with the analogy is that, in traditional RPGs, the GM controls the environment. He or she can say--along the Monopoly analogy--all your money burns up, or your hotels all slide into the ocean. And Park Place is now a radioactive crater.

Now, personally, my preference is that the GM not fudge combat rolls or anything similar, where the players have calculated their risks and staked something on the outcome. But if he or she makes a roll for, say, weather, and changes the outcome for something that seems better, I'm fine with it.

How many folks who are in favor of the GM fudging are actually really only in favor of changing a weather roll, but would prefer combat and skill rolls to be let stand? Or would only accept changing a combat result under very narrow circumstances?

 

[Lofgeornost]

How many folks who are in favor of the GM fudging are actually really only in favor of changing a weather roll, but would prefer combat and skill rolls to be let stand? Or would only accept changing a combat result under very narrow circumstances?

It seems to me from this thread the majority of fudgists would favor that quite limited form of ignoring dice rolls, but I don't really know.

 

[SavAce]

I see your point, but there's one part of the argument I don't really get. When anti-fudgers are asked 'what about rolls that seem like they are seriously going to make the game worse' their answer tends to be 'don't roll unless you will abide by the outcome.' So the GM rolls less often. This makes the whole experience less of a 'game' and more authorial fiat by the GM.

One thing about pro-fudgers' arguments I'm not sure about: Are RPGs the only games where you think that rolls could seriously make the game worse, and they are unique in that? Or, do you think rolls in other games also sometimes make the game seriously worse, and so you are fudging in those games too?

 

[sharps54]

One thing about pro-fudgers' arguments I'm not sure about: Are RPGs the only games where you think that rolls could seriously make the game worse, and they are unique in that? Or, do you think rolls in other games also sometimes make the game seriously worse, and so you are fudging in those games too?

I read their comments as RPGs are the Las Vegas of games so it is ok to cheat on their significant others while playing RPGs.

 

[rumble]

Monopoly analogy--all your money burns up, or your hotels all slide into the ocean. And Park Place is now a radioactive crater.

I would play this game!

It's just occurred to me that we're debating outcome manipulation involving dice rolls by the GM as "fudging" while if players were to engage in the similar behavior, it's unequivocally considered "cheating."

The pejorative implications are stark. This may have been discussed already.

For the record, I have taken such actions in both roles without the knowledge, consent, or ultimate concern of other participants. Nobody cared to challenge because nothing seemed absurd.

As a player, if you get multiple crits in a row? People will sit up. Not being able to roll past single digits all night, and getting a modest 14? No one blinks, but you're not frustrated and useless.

 

[sharps54]

I would play this game!

It's just occurred to me that we're debating outcome manipulation involving dice rolls by the GM as "fudging" while if players were to engage in the similar behavior, it's unequivocally considered "cheating."

The pejorative implications are stark. This may have been discussed already.

For the record, I have taken such actions in both roles without the knowledge, consent, or ultimate concern of other participants. Nobody cared to challenge because nothing seemed absurd.

Here’s a question rumble, would you be opposed to telling players you might occasionally fudge rolls when you recruit them into your games? If so why?

 

[Lofgeornost]

One thing about pro-fudgers' arguments I'm not sure about: Are RPGs the only games where you think that rolls could seriously make the game worse, and they are unique in that? Or, do you think rolls in other games also sometimes make the game seriously worse, and so you are fudging in those games too?

For myself, only RPGs, and only when I am the GM. The only exception to that I can think of are some board games that feature random events that can end play prematurely, like LotR Risk. I have played that game when it abruptly ended on round 2. All the participants agreed we would ignore the result and just keep on playing. The alternative would have been to go through a lengthy setup procedure and waste half an hour getting back to where we were.

As I've intimated upthread, I find (traditional) RPGs very different than most other games because one participant has the power to affect what is going on so completely, in a way that the others do not. Compared to that, whether the GM fudges dice-rolls or not will have a minimal effect on player agency.

 

[rumble]

Here’s a question rumble, would you be opposed to telling players you might occasionally fudge rolls when you recruit them into your games? If so why?

I don't volunteer that level of granularity because that's not my priority in play.

It should be apparent that when I present my table as "character-driven story forward" gaming, folks should infer what to expect.

If pushed for a yes-no, there's no reason to lie. But I don't usually fudge dice rolls in my games because other priorities/parameters make fudging irrelevant.

 

[sharps54]

For myself, only RPGs, and only when I am the GM. The only exception to that I can think of are some board games that feature random events that can end play prematurely, like LotR Risk. I have played that game when it abruptly ended on round 2. All the participants agreed we would ignore the result and just keep on playing. The alternative would have been to go through a lengthy setup procedure and waste half an hour getting back to where we were.

As I've intimated upthread, I find (traditional) RPGs very different than most other games because one participant has the power to affect what is going on so completely, in a way that the others do not. Compared to that, whether the GM fudges dice-rolls or not will have a minimal effect on player agency.

So you would be ok as a GM rolling combat rolls, damage rolls let’s say, in the open and changing the result of you felt necessary? If not what is different than rolling behind the screen and not using the result?

 

[The Mad Hatter]

 

[sharps54]

I don't volunteer that level of granularity because that's not my priority in play.

It should be apparent that when I present my table as "character-driven story forward" gaming, folks should infer what to expect.

If pushed for a yes-no, there's no reason to lie. But I don't usually fudge dice rolls in my games because other priorities/parameters make fudging irrelevant.

Interesting. I appreciate the answer. I didn’t follow any of the forge stuff when that happened, is “character-driven story forward” pretty normally accepted as a game where fudging may happen? I am asking honestly so I know what to expect if I see a game labeled that way.

 

[Lofgeornost]

So you would be ok as a GM rolling combat rolls, damage rolls let’s say, in the open and changing the result of you felt necessary? If not what is different than rolling behind the screen and not using the result?

Well, no. As I said upthread, I don't favor fudging combat rolls, because the players have decided to stake things on the fall of the dice. I expect them to tell me what they rolled truthfully and abide by the result. So I do the same. I can recall a few cases over the years when my players and I decided to change a die result in combat, because the outcome really sucked. But that was done in consultation, and it has been very rare.

On the other hand, if I am rolling as GM to get ideas about what happens next, set features of the environment, npc's attitudes, etc. and the results seem off or bad to me, I'm much more likely to unilaterally change them without informing anyone I'm doing so. It's no more disempowering to the players than if I didn't roll at all and simply created whatever I desired, which seems to be the suggestion if you want to avoid fudging.

 

[sharps54]

Well, no. As I said upthread, I don't favor fudging combat rolls, because the players have decided to stake things on the fall of the dice. I expect them to tell me what they rolled truthfully and abide by the result. So I do the same. I can recall a few cases over the years when my players and I decided to change a die result in combat, because the outcome really sucked. But that was done in consultation, and it has been very rare.

On the other hand, if I am rolling as GM to get ideas about what happens next, set features of the environment, npc's attitudes, etc. and the results seem off or bad to me, I'm much more likely to unilaterally change them without informing anyone I'm doing so. It's no more disempowering to the players than if I didn't roll at all and simply created whatever I desired, which seems to be the suggestion if you want to avoid fudging.

Most of what is in the second paragraph I don’t consider fudging. Maybe the NPC attitude if you are rolling after a PC interacted with them but that is where customizing tables on the fly comes in. If the NPC is only going to be favorable or neutral why roll on a table with a hostile result?

 

[ffilz]

I don't volunteer that level of granularity because that's not my priority in play.

It should be apparent that when I present my table as "character-driven story forward" gaming, folks should infer what to expect.

If pushed for a yes-no, there's no reason to lie. But I don't usually fudge dice rolls in my games because other priorities/parameters make fudging irrelevant.

What all does "character-driven story forward" gaming mean? I'm not familiar with that term. On the other hand, it does suggest a type of game I'm probably less interested in these days.

That said, if I was to play a "story game" like something that might have come out of the Forge, I still would not expect fudging.

 

[Lofgeornost]

Most of what is in the second paragraph I don’t consider fudging. Maybe the NPC attitude if you are rolling after a PC interacted with them but that is where customizing tables on the fly comes in. If the NPC is only going to be favorable or neutral why roll on a table with a hostile result?

I suspect we are pretty similar in approach and just describe it in different language. I'm not exactly sure what 'customizing tables on the fly' entails, but if it means ignoring or removing results that don't make sense or get in the way of the game, then that's the sort of thing I mean by fudging.

As an example, I have in mind a situation where the p.c.s are tracking someone through a wilderness, I as GM roll for weather, and the table's result is 'freak downpour' which would obliterate the tracks. If I rolled that, I might well chose another, less damaging weather outcome.

 

[ffilz]

Well, no. As I said upthread, I don't favor fudging combat rolls, because the players have decided to stake things on the fall of the dice. I expect them to tell me what they rolled truthfully and abide by the result. So I do the same. I can recall a few cases over the years when my players and I decided to change a die result in combat, because the outcome really sucked. But that was done in consultation, and it has been very rare.

OK, that seems OK. It sounds like that was in consultation with the players so if a player actually objected to fudging, there would be more conversation. Not saying in some circumstance it might not lead to a player quitting, but there's an opportunity for all to be satisfied.

On the other hand, if I am rolling as GM to get ideas about what happens next, set features of the environment, npc's attitudes, etc. and the results seem off or bad to me, I'm much more likely to unilaterally change them without informing anyone I'm doing so. It's no more disempowering to the players than if I didn't roll at all and simply created whatever I desired, which seems to be the suggestion if you want to avoid fudging.

While some would label that fudging, I personally don't. See my list of ways rolls might be ignored or changed above, these are category 1 or 2 things, though it does strike me that a reaction roll might edge out of category 2 if a player's skills and attributes are negated as a result. Still, if the GM determines after making a reaction check, that no, the NPC would not accept that proposal despite what the dice said, that does fall into category 2 in my book.

 

[ffilz]

I suspect we are pretty similar in approach and just describe it in different language. I'm not exactly sure what 'customizing tables on the fly' entails, but if it means ignoring or removing results that don't make sense or get in the way of the game, then that's the sort of thing I mean by fudging.

As an example, I have in mind a situation where the p.c.s are tracking someone through a wilderness, I as GM roll for weather, and the table's result is 'freak downpour' which would obliterate the tracks. If I rolled that, I might well chose another, less damaging weather outcome.

Yes, this is why we need to define fudging, or at least tease out different kinds of fudging.

 

[rumble]

Interesting. I appreciate the answer. I didn’t follow any of the forge stuff when that happened, is “character-driven story forward” pretty normally accepted as a game where fudging may happen? I am asking honestly so I know what to expect if I see a game labeled that way.

I dunno about Forge stuff.

I run games that are all about player characters.
Because if I disregard my players, why should they show up?

"Story first" or "story forward" would be synonymous. I don't want to sit around and talk about how great our characters are (well, maybe in Baron Munchausen). I want to tell entertaining stories. If a character feels a Tasha Yar Skin of Evil death is entertaining, I'm not gonna argue with them. They can roll up a new character. But it's definitely not my idea of fun, so I'd want a way out, or at least an option to choose from, so seen if I had to choose death for my PC, I as a player would have a reason.

You can see that neither of these descriptors directly affect dice rolls.

At my table (or online) I tend to read the dice as they fall. I don't reflexively fudge rolls.

I do tamper with outcomes.
Darth rolls a crit on Kenobi, who vanishes into the Force rather than dies outright.
To me, that's player choice and indulging imagination that can further a good story.

 

[sharps54]

I suspect we are pretty similar in approach and just describe it in different language. I'm not exactly sure what 'customizing tables on the fly' entails, but if it means ignoring or removing results that don't make sense or get in the way of the game, then that's the sort of thing I mean by fudging.

As an example, I have in mind a situation where the p.c.s are tracking someone through a wilderness, I as GM roll for weather, and the table's result is 'freak downpour' which would obliterate the tracks. If I rolled that, I might well chose another, less damaging weather outcome.

See I wouldn’t even consider removing that possibility if I am rolling for weather, the party will just have to be creative and find another way to find the person they are tracking. That said if the party is tracking someone through the wilderness and the point is to track them I wouldn’t even roll for weather.

All that said when it comes to fudging what really matters to me are the life and death rolls, combat related or maybe something like walking a tight rope between tall buildings. Those are the cases where if you do decide to roll dice I feel they should stand. If you don’t want the character to have a chance of falling but want a roll have them roll to see how long it takes for them to get over but don’t have them roll to see if they fall and ignore the result.

 

[ffilz]

I dunno about Forge stuff.

I run games that are all about player characters.
Because if I disregard my players, why should they show up?

"Story first" or "story forward" would be synonymous. I don't want to sit around and talk about how great our characters are (well, maybe in Baron Munchausen). I want to tell entertaining stories. If a character feels a Tasha Yar Skin of Evil death is entertaining, I'm not gonna argue with them. They can roll up a new character. But it's definitely not my idea of fun, so I'd want a way out, or at least an option to choose from, so seen if I had to choose death for my PC, I as a player would have a reason.

You can see that neither of these descriptors directly affect dice rolls.

At my table (or online) I tend to read the dice as they fall. I don't reflexively fudge rolls.

I do tamper with outcomes.
Darth rolls a crit on Kenobi, who vanishes into the Force rather than dies outright.
To me, that's player choice and indulging imagination that can further a good story.

OK, well at least your characterization of your campaign style would get me asking questions, and I would either decide to play because I'm in the mood for what you're offering, or more likely, I'd take a pass. Thanks for being open with your campaign style. I know others would enjoy that style just fine.

 

[ffilz]

I just realized I had to add fudging during chargen to my list...

I do allow some character fudging with my permission.

One thought, I added the "hunt" option to the online Classic Traveller Character Generator https://ffilz.github.io/Gaming/travellercharacter.html primarily to allow generating a PC that started with a ship without having the player hit refresh until they found a "perfect" PC with a ship. This was done after noticing that it was odd how experienced a couple Scouts who started with ships were that folks had rolled up using the generator. Now, you get the first character rolled up that has a ship. It might be a single term scout... You can "hunt" for other things which is handy. Need an NPC that has a particular skill, but otherwise you want a random character and want a full fledged character? "Hunt" for that skill.

For RQ and Cold Iron, I use rolling methods that help get nice characters, but sometimes a character still is a bit of a dud, so I'll offer some re-rolls, or even sometimes just bump an attribute up, which is easiest in Cold Iron where you roll 10 stat rolls and pick 8 of them. Easy to change one in the middle of the range to a 15 or something to boost a character while still being pretty random.

 

[DeadBob]

Sorry, I know the ending of Wisdom scarred many of us. I should have put up a warning

Yeah, fudging dice in an RPG game a nothing like the sexual issues you’re comparing it to.

 

[ffilz]

See I wouldn’t even consider removing that possibility if I am rolling for weather, the party will just have to be creative and find another way to find the person they are tracking. That said if the party is tracking someone through the wilderness and the point is to track them I wouldn’t even roll for weather.

Oh, I skimmed over the weather roll while the PCs are tracking. Changing that would definitely be something I'd be less likely to do than changing a weather roll for a random day in a journey.

All that said when it comes to fudging what really matters to me are the life and death rolls, combat related or maybe something like walking a tight rope between tall buildings. Those are the cases where if you do decide to roll dice I feel they should stand. If you don’t want the character to have a chance of falling but want a roll have them roll to see how long it takes for them to get over but don’t have them roll to see if they fall and ignore the result.

Yea, if you don't want a chance of someone falling, don't roll for falling. Or be clear what you are rolling so that you can abide by the result.

 

[Willmark]

True gaming story:

Group of four of us playing mostly CN PCs, none of us clerics, 1st edition around 1996.

I’m playing a F/M/T and to this day he remains my favorite character

We’re playing in House of the Frozen Lands from Dragon.

We encounter the caterwaul and the party thief is bleeding out and no one thinks to bind her wounds until around 2 hours of actual game time later.

“She’s dead Jim.”

Decades later we still recall this. We let her die via neglect and none of our characters were broken up, just more “meh” and very fitting.

Why do I bring this up? I use that as a guiding principle in DMing. Sure heroic deaths are memorable but mundane ones can be too.

Had I been DMing I wouldn’t have changed it either.

Later on we were in a knock down drag out fight with the NPCs at the very end. A few character deaths and me and one of the NPCs are the last ones standing. It’s literally roll to roll or it’s a TPK.

These stand out to the point where I’ve mirrored some of my own DMing off that and done the same. Including an incident where a heavily wounded frost giant was speared by a party member. Said giant fell on said PC squashing him. I let the die fall where they may and bam, squished PC and very dead.

While I get others points, where I’m coming from? It’s either myself or one other guy who DMs and we all know what to expect. I don’t play outside of this group.

 

[sharps54]

Yeah, fudging dice in an RPG game a nothing like the sexual issues you’re comparing it to.

Partner faking orgasm to give you the experience you desire.
GM fudging die roll to give you the experience you desire.

I’ll drop it, as we have established no one’s mind will be changed here.

(Yes there are many reasons for faking an orgasm but one is the same as the reason some GMs have given in this thread for fudging.

 

[saskganesh]

Sounds like a shittier version of Lighthouse. But I enjoyed the personalities of the strippers.

Gaming-wise, I never fudge. Except when I do. The times it has happened, it was heat of the moment and never premeditated.

Very rare.

 

[AsenRG]

I don't volunteer that level of granularity because that's not my priority in play.

It should be apparent that when I present my table as "character-driven story forward" gaming, folks should infer what to expect.

If pushed for a yes-no, there's no reason to lie. But I don't usually fudge dice rolls in my games because other priorities/parameters make fudging irrelevant.

That sounds like a description of Burning Wheel...
One of those games that tell the GM to never fudge rolls.

 

[Lofgeornost]

See I wouldn’t even consider removing that possibility if I am rolling for weather, the party will just have to be creative and find another way to find the person they are tracking. That said if the party is tracking someone through the wilderness and the point is to track them I wouldn’t even roll for weather.

Oh, I skimmed over the weather roll while the PCs are tracking. Changing that would definitely be something I'd be less likely to do than changing a weather roll for a random day in a journey.

Yea, if you don't want a chance of someone falling, don't roll for falling. Or be clear what you are rolling so that you can abide by the result.

This is the point I just don't quite get. If the reason to not fudge is to respect player agency, or keep the game 'pure' in some way, then just not rolling for weather and assigning it by fiat is just as much the GM getting what he or she desires or thinks the scenario needs as rolling on the weather table and ignoring certain results. I'm confused as to why one is acceptable and the other is not.

 

[Grymbok]

That is one of the key divides in how different people approach role playing games - one of the many divides.

For some, a roleplaying game is, beyond how it engages the imagination, is still a game that can be won or lost. The success or failure of the player characters equates to the success or failure for the player. A good game rewards you with a sense of achievement.

For others, the rules and dice rolls are less about determining who wins or loses but just a means of determining what happens next. A good game is one where interesting things happened, regardless of whether you succeeded or not.

I don't think fudging dice is necessary for the latter, but it is clearly self-defeating for the former.

That’s fair.

For me, as a player, I’m looking to pretend to be Spider-Man. If the dice produce a result that doesn’t match what feels realistic for what could happen for Spider-Man, I’d want the GM to fudge it back.

Maybe I’ve just played more badly written RPGs than others.

 

[Acmegamer]

Not geese and posting funny memes!? Excuse me, I’m in the wrong place!

Ack! What? me too!



Edit: Also I think S sharps54 won the thread with the catfishing post. Well done sir for an excellent summation.

 

[TristramEvans]

If the reason to not fudge is to respect player agency, or keep the game 'pure' in some way, then just not rolling for weather and assigning it by fiat is just as much the GM getting what he or she desires or thinks the scenario needs as rolling on the weather table and ignoring certain results. I'm confused as to why one is acceptable and the other is not.

Well, no idea what "pure" means in this context, but the weather has nothing to do with player agency whatsoever (Y'know, unless they are playing Storm from the X-Men or something).

 

[sharps54]

It isn’t about keeping the game ‘pure’, it is about respecting your players. I’ve said many times in this thread that I am fine with fudging if the players are ok with it as part of the game.

 

[ffilz]

This is the point I just don't quite get. If the reason to not fudge is to respect player agency, or keep the game 'pure' in some way, then just not rolling for weather and assigning it by fiat is just as much the GM getting what he or she desires or thinks the scenario needs as rolling on the weather table and ignoring certain results. I'm confused as to why one is acceptable and the other is not.

Because there are lots of things the GM doesn't roll for. Heck, no random weather table system is a sufficient model of weather as to be able to be used without some GM discretion. There are times when a weather system should logically follow the PCs, yet I don't know of any system that handles that. Now if the GM chooses to make a sunny day in the middle of monsoon season, he may have something to answer for. The goal is that things like weather should follow some sort of logic as to make a reasonable setting, but the GM need not be a slave to weather tables. Heck, many systems and settings don't even have weather tables, so the GM might just ad hoc be doing something. Maybe he decides, hmm, this is something that should have a chance of being interrupted by weather, so he concocts some probabilities. In that case, though, he should abide by the roll he makes. Though maybe he's just testing if he REALLY wants to deal with an encounter in the rain. But without the weather tables, either the weather is perpetually fair, or the GM is arbitrarily deciding weather.

 

[Brander]

It isn’t about keeping the game ‘pure’, it is about respecting your players. I’ve said many times in this thread that I am fine with fudging if the players are ok with it as part of the game.

I don't think you are going to find that there is a general consensus here as to whether fudging is in any way disrespecting a player. "Respecting the dice" and "Illusionism" have very strong and vocal adherents, but at no point have they been shown to have any more coherence beyond being a preference of a very vocal and prolific group of people. The merry-go-round, Ferris wheel, or race track will nonetheless continue to be enjoyed as people explore the range of perspectives around this fundamental disagreement and the range of what even constitutes fudging for each of us.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Just out of curiosity… what other games/sports/activities would the participants actively ignore/change violate the rules?

I’m sure there are examples, but I’m struggling to think of any beyond bending rules to take it easy on kids or beginners.

But aside from that, what other examples might there be?