Fudging in RPGs

[TristramEvans]

What I'm saying is that using specific criteria to fudge dice rolls is no different from house ruling a game. It's just a matter of scale, consistency, and (optionally) openness with other players.

The part where some people consider that optional and others don't seems to be the only argument going on that I can see.

 

[PolarBlues]

The reason why, as a GM, I roll in the open (or go for player-facing systems) is cowardice. I am soft GM, hopelessly soft. As such I need the system to play the part of the strict parent while I get to be the cool dad. That way, when things don't go that player's way, it's not my fault, blame the mean, mean dice!

 

[AsenRG]

If GMs that feel fudging is fine are resistant to admitting to their players that they occasionally fudge I submit they know I am right.

Honestly, I was tempted to just post "/thread".

I think the role of GM could be either or both of these things. I don’t think story facilitator justifies lying to your players regarding whether you are using the dice to adjudicate or not. Some players won’t care, some will, but either way it is rude for a GM to assume they know best for the players. Give them a choice whether they want to play in a game where the GM fudges. That is all I ask, let the players decide if they want you to fudge or not.

Yeah, this - though I'd say it's not "the players decide if they want you to fudge". You do as you believe is best - but let the players know, so they could decide whether they want to play with you.

I think one reason this particular argument gets frustrating is that lots of different arguments get conflated. To try and tease the main ones out.

Only bad GMs fudge and MANLY MEN do not under any circumstances and if your player say they like fudging it's because they are WEAK. Fudging is a moral evil regardless of what an individual group does or doesn't like. This argument is often favoured by people with YouTube videos and blogs and other commerical enterprises that benefit from clicks. But I don't think anyone on here is arguing this so it doesn't really need addressing.

But that's pretty much the argument. I don't think anybody is saying "don't fudge" as an absolute. They're saying "don't fudge without player consent".

Of course!
(The above is just because I wanted to post this picture since yesterday).

It seems to me what we might be talking about, in a wider sense, is illusionism. And illusionism only works if the players don't know they are being illusioned I guess?

Even that I'm not sure is the case. If it's agreed fudging *might* take place the players can just choose to suspend belief and enjoy the ride. It's not my preference (I'll just go full freeform for that kind of game) but I can see why it might appeal to some groups.

Nah, TristramEvans is right. If it's agreed-upon by the players, it's participationism, not illusionism. And some people just insist on the illusionism, assuming that they're going to successfully fool their players...
In practice, their players probably know, or would know in short order.

I feel there is a kind of contract when a die roll is called for. If I am sneaking through a dragon's cave, I get that the GM can arbitrarily have the dragon wake up or be asleep. However, if the GM calls for a stealth roll to see if the dragon wakes up, I expect him to abide by that roll.

Yup. Likewise, if a PC is delivering 11 Wounds to Vader in a SW SW* game, don't just announce he surprisingly survives... even if you usually don't roll in the open, do so this time.
And so on and so forth.

*Savage Worlds Star Wars, for acronym-haters!
Also, 11 Wounds means "you're toast unless you roll 28 on Stamina, which is at best an exploding 1d12 and 1d6 roll, take highest"!

I think people that with GM experience are especially good at sensing when someone is fudging. Once I get a sense that a GM is fudging rolls, it really robs die rolls in general of the tension they add to a game.

Indeed.

 

[sharps54]

Yup. Likewise, if a PC is delivering 11 Wounds to Vader in a SW SW* game, don't just announce he surprisingly survives... even if you usually don't roll in the open, do so this time.
And so on and so forth.

*Savage Worlds Star Wars, for acronym-haters!
Also, 11 Wounds means "you're toast unless you roll 28 on Stamina, which is at best an exploding 1d12 and 1d6 roll, take highest"!

If you don’t want the PCs to kill Vader don’t put him in front of them. Full stop. In a rpg if the players want to assassinate the king or roll well enough to kill Vader you let the roll stand. Will they face the consequences? Yeah buddy! But that is part of the fun.

Anyhow killing Vader should barely be a roadblock, there is always another apprentice Sith out there…

 

[AsenRG]

If you don’t want the PCs to kill Vader don’t put him in front of them. Full stop. In a rpg if the players want to assassinate the king or roll well enough to kill Vader you let the roll stand. Will they face the consequences? Yeah buddy! But that is part of the fun.

I agree.
I also have a suspicion that not every GM out there would.

Anyhow killing Vader should barely be a roadblock, there is always another apprentice Sith out there…

Eh, not in my Star Wars (which I'd never run for actual Star Wars fans).

If you kill Vader, you just scored a major victory. OTOH, the Empire now desperately needs to get even to show it's not toothless. And that means that unlike the treatment Luke was getting, they're no longer prioritizing trying to capture you alive and turn you towards the Dark Side...they're just trying to get to you.

And every Bounty Hunter out there knows that part...

 

[ffilz]

In a way, this entire discussion is comedy gold.

Yea, in some ways it's funny. It's funny seeing people defend fudging, and especially thinking it's good to keep it secret. It's funny seeing people who can't seem to understand why some people find fudging offensive even if it is stated up front.

We're not in a sport, and barely in a game with a stable, codified ruleset--unless we choose to be.

Fine, I choose to have a stable rule set, it may not all be codified, but enough is codified that I can make rulings based on the some fundamentals expressed by the rule set.

There is no RPG that says "this way or the highway". Well, maybe something like Adventure League.

Sure, that doesn't mean that rules are just loosey goosey things, at least for some folks.

Rather, most RPGs have a rule zero that says," make of me what you will, because I love you more than my own internal consistency--or maybe there was a typo I missed."

Do most games these days have Rule Zero? But even so, I'm not sure even Rule Zero is an invitation to fudge dice rolls. In large part, I think it was a clumsy way of stating rulings not rules that went astray.

So to call out any player for re-jiggering rules or mechanics on the fly for whatever reason seems... meh.

Any player? I'm sure as fuck not going to let one of my players re-jigger the rules and I'd really prefer they not fudge their rolls. Though in the past several years, I've decided I'm not going to police that - if a player feels the need to fudge their rolls as a player in my game, they probably aren't going to stick with it long enough for your fudging to damage the campaign, and if they do damage to the campaign, which means it's obvious to other players, and they call them out, we may as a group boot them.

As for me as GM, I'm not going to re-jigger the rules without explanation, and then it's either to address a situation the rules don't provide a result that makes sense in the physics of the setting or has a major unfun component, but not to save a PC or an NPC (I'm thinking of rules, say that make XP too slow, or make a particular skill not useful, though that's more of an appeal to the physics of the setting).

Am I saying we shouldn't have any rules at all? Nah.
What I'm saying is that using specific criteria to fudge dice rolls is no different from house ruling a game. It's just a matter of scale, consistency, and (optionally) openness with other players.

No the fudging we are complaining about is not the same kind of thing as house ruling a game. Well, OK, some house rules are the same kind of thing. I don't make those kind of house rules.

 

[ffilz]

Again, I honestly don’t care if people fudge rolls, what I am curious about is why they are so determined not to tell their players they fudge dice rolls.

Yea, why the defensiveness?

My view on fudging, as in changing outcomes of die rolls to resolve action rather than changing content generation and some procedural outcome changes (like deciding to not roll for encounters this trip, or skip a boring encounter) is that I won't do it. But you're free to do it in your game. I hope you're up front about that. I likely would decline to play in your game. I would be likely to get annoyed and quit if I realize you're doing it and trying to hide it. I also think that if you are fudging, you are cheating your players, and if you are trying to hide it, you're not respecting your players. Now if players find the game fun and interesting despite the fudging, that's fine, I'm not going to rain on their parade.

 

[rumble]

LMFAO is no longer sufficient.

Edit: Sorry. That was a bit rude, and I don't mean to be. I feel like we've come full circle (even faster, because of a recent post that suggested we weren't getting anywhere), with a line-by-line critique of my post, followed by asking why someone else was being defensive.

I get we're all passionate about the hobby for various reasons, but when two seemingly opposing posts net the same result, which is, "Do what you want, I hope your table enjoys the experience," we're trying really hard to disagree, but we're not.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I will say I don't fudge in the sense of "I rolled the die and now I don't like what the die said", but I often roll a die, or ask for a die roll without actually setting a DC or anything then just going with a gut response based on how high or low the roll was rather than it being a codified "because you hit DC 15, this happens".

 

[Self Saboteur]

AH, FUDGE IT!

 

[Nakana]

I can respect a difference of opinions, and I'd love to have an intelligent debate on the topic. The problem is that a claim for the moral high ground has been made, which effectively shuts down all dialogue. Because of that, any counter arguments or alternative views are reduced to an argument for immorality. "uh-huh, fair point, but it's still immoral, therefore wrong."

See how that works? What's the point of any discussion?

Most games I've seen explicitly state in the rules that fudging is acceptable (and sometimes even encouraged). Even Cortex Prime, which states that all die rolls are in the open, effectively has fudging built-in as the GM has the discretion to pick which dice to use. (I'm sure there are games that do explicitly state that fudging is not acceptable. I just can't cite them.)

It has been excessively stated that "fudging is ok as long as you have players consent". I have no qualms with this, and would even categorize it under "best practices". However, when the rules of the game explicitly state fudging is acceptable (without player consent), it is a personal opinion, not a fact.

Is it factually immoral to play a game by its stated rules? In a game where the rules state that fudging is acceptable, is it not implied that players have consented to possible fudging by the very act of playing?

I posit that the only case where fudging is immoral, is in a game where the rules explicitly state die rolls are to be in the open and fudging is not acceptable, and the GM is breaking that rule without player consent. Yes, that would be factually immoral.

Everything else is a gray area.

---

On a side-note, I reached out to my players to get their thoughts on fudging. Four regular players and two that come and go, and no-one gave a fuck. One player stated "I've been gaming since the 80s, that's what GMs do. I just assumed it was a given." Another player stated "I don't care if you do or not, but I'd rather not know when or if it happens." That same player then came back a day later and said "Actually, I don't care. What you do with your dice behind the screen is up to you, as long you don't change MY dice." (which I don't). Everyone else had a general consensus of "we play to have fun, and we always have a blast, so whatever you're doing, keep it up!".

I suppose I'm blessed to have a group of people who play to have fun, and don't take their gaming seriously.

But yes, I know. I'm a cheating liar who disrespects his players. I get it.

 

[Brander]

The part where some people consider that optional and others don't seems to be the only argument going on that I can see.

I suspect it's because there is a spectrum of seriousness being applied here in addition to the usual gamut of gaming styles and cultures despite it all falling under the general of idea of RPGs.

We may be playing entirely different games that are irreconcilably different even though the games look very similar and seem to fall under the general heading of "RPGs." Any seeming similarities are entirely cosmetic and do not reflect any kind of compatible viewpoints of any kind.

 

[Brander]

...
But yes, I know. I'm a cheating liar who disrespects his players. I get it.

Do you use a stick or whip to add to the disrespect? Or do you not warn them about those options either?

 

[Nakana]

Do you use a stick or whip to add to the disrespect? Or do you not warn them about those options either?

I make them go outside and pick their own switch.

 

[Fenris-77]

 

[Brander]

View attachment 81089

I would love some of the Peanut Butter fudge mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

[Nakana]

 

[Fenris-77]

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

 

[Hairless Bear]

Most games I've seen explicitly state in the rules that fudging is acceptable (and sometimes even encouraged)

Apologies if my question has already been answered. Can you name a few of them (other than Cortex Prime that I'm not familiar with)? I honestly can't think of any game that states that in the rules. But I do tend to read rules too fast and skip some pages, so that might be completely on me.

 

[ffilz]

Hmm, I'm trying to think of a game on my shelf that I at all consider something I might run that suggests fudging.

I just skimmed through some of the D&D books (The three Basics Holmes, Cook, and Mentzer, Expert, OSE) and see nothing about fudging. Nothing in RQ1 and RQ2 either. I'm pretty sure nothing in OD&D or AD&D 1e. I know Burning Wheel counsels against fudging.

What I did see - a note in Basic and OSE about getting carried away with random rolls, from the context, talking about the Content and Procedural rolls I have pointed out as not fudging by my book. They also emphasize fair and neutral GM.

I know there is mention about what to do if a player rolls a character that just is below average all around and the AD&D 1e DMG offers some pretty generous character rolling schemes (and based on those, I took the idea of 4d6 take the best 3 to other games).

I know that Rule 0 started to become a thing, but I have actually really not seriously considered many games that give a Rule 0 that might imply fudging.

But clearly there are games out there that suggest fudging. I think there are two camps.

But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why the resistance to informing potential players that fudging is on the table. Maybe folks here aren't resistant, I can't quite tell, but certainly people have offered examples of resistance.

I am also offering an opinion that it is disrespectful to your players to fudge in secret. Some of you clearly have a different opinion. Fine, I won't play in your game, and you probably don't want to play in my game. Note that I have NO problem of it being open that the GM fudges. And maybe in a culture where the players expect fudging, there isn't a need to be up front about it. I claim to run old school, I don't mention no fudge, maybe I should start doing so, but I feel like it's implicit in claiming old school and running games published (or conceived and presented in the case of Cold Iron that has never been published) before 1985.

Maybe I've also underestimated the number of games that actually suggest fudging.

I'm curious, can anyone offer a game that claims or is suggested to be part of the OSR (maybe limited to D&D games) or osr (expansive to include other early games or games in the style of the early games) movement that suggests fudging?

 

[Moracai]

Now I remember one instance when I was running a high-death game and a PC died because of poison. The player subtly asked me to fudge things, to which I said no, your character is dead, roll another one. Not sure if this is for or against fudging, but just a thing that happened in my game.

 

[Self Saboteur]

To fudge or not to fudge, that is the question.

I don’t care what anyone does in their game. It’s their game. Run it as you see fit. and I’ll play it according to your rules. I grew up with DM’s who put your character in a pink tutu if you complained. DM has final say. I ascribe to that.

I’m not asking consent from my players for anything. We’re not dating. It’s my game. I designed the campaign. I’m the DM. I’ll run it how I see fit. I’m very player oriented and just want people to have fun while playing their suburban power fantasy. If fudging dice makes for a better outcome than I’ll do it. Rule of cool. I want players to enjoy the game and feel powerful. And I do kill characters if the dice determine it. Just not wantonly. We’re here to have fun.

Now skirmish or war gaming? Don’t you fucking dare fudge dice or mince inches!

EDIT: I think subscribe was the word I needed to use, not ascribe. Any literary scholars here?

 

[Nakana]

Elephant and Macaw Banner:

The mediator interprets the rules. The rules of The Elephant & Macaw Banner Roleplaying Game are open and flexible. If there is doubt about how to apply the rules, or the rules are silent on an issue, the mediator decides how to proceed. If the medi- ator does not agree with a particular rule, they can change it to better suit their group. Players may question the rules, but it is the mediator who has the final say.
If you are the mediator, don't let the rules be the focus of your sessions - the focus should always be on the characters and the group's fun. We pro- vide more detailed help on this in the next section, Running Adventures.

This doesn't explicitly say "fudging good or fudging bad", but clearly gives license for GMs to overrule rules. I'd at least say it's fudging neutral. I would suspect that more games fall into this category.

All of the d20 D&D derivatives are pro-fudging. D&D 3.0, 3.5, D20 Modern, 4.0, and 5.0.
D20 Modern states:

A GM really can't cheat. You're the umpire, and what you say goes. As such, it's certainly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or keep thing running smoothly. It's no fun losing a beloved hero because he fell down a flight of stairs. A good rule of thumb is that a hero shouldn't die in a minor way by some fluke of the dice unless he or she was doing something really stupid at the time.

4th and 5th:

Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you might want to change the second critical hit to a normal hit, or even a miss. Don't do it too often, though, and don't let on that you're doing it, or the other players feel as though they don't face any real risk—or worse, that you're playing favorites.

Savage Worlds says: You don't need to fudge, instead just give out more bennies. (I'm paraphrasing, but I don't have a digital copy to paste the text and I'm not typing it up. But, I think this is just a different way to fudge. Arbitrarily hand out bennies, so players can overrule dice more often) <-- opinion, yes.

I can research other games later, thinking about GURPS, BRP, and a few more popular ones. I do suspect that most will probably not state good/bad and just leave it open-ended with "GM has final say".

 

[ffilz]

To fudge or not to fudge, that is the question.

I don’t care what anyone does in their game. It’s their game. Run it as you see fit. and I’ll play it according to your rules. I grew up with DM’s who put your character in a pink tutu if you complained. DM has final say. I ascribe to that.

I’m not asking consent from my players for anything. We’re not dating. It’s my game. I designed the campaign. I’m the DM. I’ll run it how I see fit. I’m very player oriented and just want people to have fun while playing their suburban power fantasy. If fudging dice makes for a better outcome than I’ll do it. Rule of cool. I want players to enjoy the game and feel powerful. And I do kill characters if the dice determine it. Just not wantonly. We’re here to have fun.

What do you feel about informing your players up front about your play style?

Asking for consent is an optional thing. In my style of avoiding fudging, I would have a conversation if something went the way of maybe needing to consider fudging.

 

[Fenris-77]

Good fudge, bad fudge, I'm the one with the dice.

 

[Self Saboteur]

What do you feel about informing your players up front about your play style?

Asking for consent is an optional thing. In my style of avoiding fudging, I would have a conversation if something went the way of maybe needing to consider fudging.

I have no problem telling players I may ignore dice rolls. Mine not theirs.

 

[Fenris-77]

I roll dice behind the screen pretty much constantly. Mostly just to fuck with the players. Sometimes I mutter and pretend to consult a random chart or say something like Oh my! Even if I were fudging, no one would even notice.

 

[ffilz]

Elephant and Macaw Banner:

This doesn't explicitly say "fudging good or fudging bad", but clearly gives license for GMs to overrule rules. I'd at least say it's fudging neutral. I would suspect that more games fall into this category.

All of the d20 D&D derivatives are pro-fudging. D&D 3.0, 3.5, D20 Modern, 4.0, and 5.0.
D20 Modern states:

4th and 5th:

Savage Worlds says: You don't need to fudge, instead just give out more bennies. (I'm paraphrasing, but I don't have a digital copy to paste the text and I'm not typing it up. But, I think this is just a different way to fudge. Arbitrarily hand out bennies, so players can overrule dice more often) <-- opinion, yes.

I can research other games later, thinking about GURPS, BRP, and a few more popular ones. I do suspect that most will probably not state good/bad and just leave it open-ended with "GM has final say".

OK, based on those samples, I can accept your claim of "most games you've read. since that represents more than 20 years of game development. I guess I am a bit surprised 5e still says that but not really, it is a modern game with just a nod to old school.

I guess it's really no surprise that no fudging is part of at least a significant part of the OSR/osr movement in reaction to these modern games.

But I also note that the "Forge" scene that was happening concurrently with 3.x and 4e is also mostly anti-fudge.

 

[DeadBob]

But I also note that the "Forge" scene that was happening concurrently with 3.x and 4e is also mostly anti-fudge.

Very much so, and it is notable that many of those games than came out of Forge culture have some kind of limits on how bad any one roll can be and/or involve negotiations over outcomes before dice hit the table. Very often have fairly high player input from non-GM players too on all sorts of things.

That's a bit of a different animal. Anti-fudging by making fudging basically irrelevant.

 

[Fenris-77]

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

 

[Nakana]

But I also note that the "Forge" scene that was happening concurrently with 3.x and 4e is also mostly anti-fudge.

I'm also mostly anti-fudge. But, I do hold out that there are circumstances where it is an acceptable thing for a GM to do, and I reject indictments of immorality for doing so in a non-competitive game where the highest stakes are "are we enjoying ourselves?".

 

[rumble]

To fudge or not to fudge, that is the question.

I don’t care what anyone does in their game. It’s their game. Run it as you see fit. and I’ll play it according to your rules. I grew up with DM’s who put your character in a pink tutu if you complained. DM has final say. I ascribe to that.

I’m not asking consent from my players for anything. We’re not dating. It’s my game. I designed the campaign. I’m the DM. I’ll run it how I see fit. I’m very player oriented and just want people to have fun while playing their suburban power fantasy. If fudging dice makes for a better outcome than I’ll do it. Rule of cool. I want players to enjoy the game and feel powerful. And I do kill characters if the dice determine it. Just not wantonly. We’re here to have fun.

Now skirmish or war gaming? Don’t you fucking dare fudge dice or mince inches!

EDIT: I think subscribe was the word I needed to use, not ascribe. Any literary scholars here?

Goddamnit, please tell me if you need a player because I would absolutely join up and play until I didn't want to anymore.

 

[Self Saboteur]

Thinking about it I have never had players ever question if I will fudge dice rolls. It has never come up other than the incredulous cries of you cheated after a players death. Now I wonder if telling them so and explaining I would only fudge my dice rolls and not theirs and never in my favor would that lead them to thinking they can get away with anything and cause them to take risks they wouldn't normally take in the game?

 

[ffilz]

Thinking about it I have never had players ever question if I will fudge dice rolls. It has never come up other than the incredulous cries of you cheated after a players death. Now I wonder if telling them so and explaining I would only fudge my dice rolls and not theirs and never in my favor would that lead them to thinking they can get away with anything and cause them to take risks they wouldn't normally take in the game?

That actually is a risk of fudging. If the players determine, or think they have determined, that the GM fudges in their favor, they may play to that assumption. That has been given as a reason not to fudge.

 

[Nakana]

Thinking about it I have never had players ever question if I will fudge dice rolls. It has never come up other than the incredulous cries of you cheated after a players death. Now I wonder if telling them so and explaining I would only fudge my dice rolls and not theirs and never in my favor would that lead them to thinking they can get away with anything and cause them to take risks they wouldn't normally take in the game?

You could do what I did and ask them "so the topic of fudging came up, and I'd like to know what you all think about it, I will neither confirm nor deny if I do it though" and gauge their responses.

 

[ffilz]

Very much so, and it is notable that many of those games than came out of Forge culture have some kind of limits on how bad any one roll can be and/or involve negotiations over outcomes before dice hit the table. Very often have fairly high player input from non-GM players too on all sorts of things.

That's a bit of a different animal. Anti-fudging by making fudging basically irrelevant.

Not all of the "Forge" games made fudging irrelevant, but sure, player involvement with stuff that in traditional games is only a GM decision changes the calculus. But examining the drive behind fudging and designing games that work with certain mindsets rather than against them is a good thing.

 

[ffilz]

I'm also mostly anti-fudge. But, I do hold out that there are circumstances where it is an acceptable thing for a GM to do, and I reject indictments of immorality for doing so in a non-competitive game where the highest stakes are "are we enjoying ourselves?".

So just curious, what would give you reason to fudge?

Note that I didn't say I would absolutely never fudge, but it would be because allowing a result to stand would cost me players. I don't think I have any current players who would quit because of a character death or TPK (though granted after a TPK we might decide to play a different game).

 

[Self Saboteur]

That actually is a risk of fudging. If the players determine, or think they have determined, that the GM fudges in their favor, they may play to that assumption. That has been given as a reason not to fudge.

Hmm

Cured with a players death. Roy Fokker style. No dice roll even needed to fudge. It just happens. Never test the DM!

 

[DeadBob]

So just curious, what would give you reason to fudge?

Note that I didn't say I would absolutely never fudge, but it would be because allowing a result to stand would cost me players. I don't think I have any current players who would quit because of a character death or TPK (though granted after a TPK we might decide to play a different game).

Limited amount of play time and/or character death would be my reasons.

And the two may well be related.

 

[Fenris-77]

As I stated upstream, I'd only fudge if I were the cause of the fuckening in the first place. Sometimes you call for a roll when you shouldn't, or don't make the consequences as clear as you should, or yadda yadda yadda. That shit is on me and fudging a roll is a fine way to fix it when that's possible.