Quote from: jeff37923;1057273Sadly, in those cases, it wouldn't matter if dice rolls were fudged or not because there is no trust between the people involved.

Where I disagree is stating that Fudging creates that mistrust. Fudging undermines and damages trust. In the cases I mentioned, dice Fudging is the problem and the only reason the trust was called into question.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1057276Where I disagree is stating that Fudging creates that mistrust. Fudging undermines and damages trust. In the cases I mentioned, dice Fudging is the problem and the only reason the trust was called into question.

There I also disagree. For the level of damaged trust in your examples, there would have to be more than just dice fudging going on. That is making dice fudging a social faux pas equivalent to greeting someone in public with a wedgie. The actions of the people involved in your examples support the aphorism, "Don't game with assholes." Occasional and judicious use of dice fudging does not an asshole make IMHO, there was more to this for those reactions to make sense.

Quote from: jeff37923;1057278There I also disagree. For the level of damaged trust in your examples, there would have to be more than just dice fudging going on. That is making dice fudging a social faux pas equivalent to greeting someone in public with a wedgie. The actions of the people involved in your examples support the aphorism, "Don't game with assholes." Occasional and judicious use of dice fudging does not an asshole make IMHO, there was more to this for those reactions to make sense.

Nope fudging is just that bad.

Fudging will make you less trusting of other people's dice rolls. If everyone understands that it is unacceptable then you can rule out the possibility.

If dice fudging are a bad thing, then why do we GM screens?  They don't hide much beyond dice and maybe a map, but even then, maps can be hidden in other ways that are more easy.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1057286Nope fudging is just that bad.

Fudging will make you less trusting of other people's dice rolls. If everyone understands that it is unacceptable then you can rule out the possibility.

I'm definitely more to this end - the Purity of the Dice Rolls Is Sacred. Do Not Tamper With The Sacred Dice!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1057301If dice fudging are a bad thing, then why do we GM screens?

So that GMs can cheat... ...Personally I don't think they should be sold. At least, the GM should roll in front of the screen.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1057301If dice fudging are a bad thing, then why do we GM screens?  They don't hide much beyond dice and maybe a map, but even then, maps can be hidden in other ways that are more easy.

There are a few reasons

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1057301If dice fudging are a bad thing, then why do we GM screens?  They don't hide much beyond dice and maybe a map, but even then, maps can be hidden in other ways that are more easy.

I only use a GM screen if it has tables I need.

Otherwise I tend to roll in the open and I tell the players if my rolls are suppose to be secret or not so they know when they should be looking.

Quote from: Azraele;1057304There are a few reasons

And as far as dice rolls, dice rolls for seeking hidden information being rolled out of sight may work better for some styles of game. For the same reason that blog talks about reducing the need for players to disengage by averting their eyes, asking players to work hard not to factor in the visible die roll to their reaction to information acquired using a roll will likely make for better play.

Whether the fudging is a result of a flaw in the system or flaw in the understanding/capabilities of the GM, that still isn't definitive on the answer of whether or not to do it, ever.  It's entirely possible to have a situation where something is a known flaw in process or user, but the cost of repairing the flaw is too high to justify the work, given the amount of times it happens.  If you've been running the same game for a year just fine, and then some oddball, very low probability thing happens that in retrospect you'd have rather not, then you have to decide what to do about it.  As mentioned earlier, I'd rather explicitly discuss with the players then do a reality shift instead of trying to fudge my way out of it, because I think it's less trouble overall.  But something that happens once a year isn't going to make that much difference no matter how you handle it.  That includes letting the thing spiral out of control and send the campaign out in puff of flame, by the way.  

Which is why I said fudging is a symptom of another problem.  Every time it happens, it would be a good idea to consider briefly a better way to handle the underlying problem.  If the same way keeps happening, then definitely so consider, and probably ought to do something about it.  But the rare one-off is subject to the same cost/benefit analysis as anything else.  Your nose drips a little--a symptom.  Sometimes you ignore it.  Sometimes you get out of the cold or take some medicine or otherwise take care of yourself.  Sometimes you go to the doctor and learn you have Mono.  The symptom by itself doesn't tell you a whole lot about the best way to handle it.

I'm zero fudge in part because there are no situations that arise in my normal gaming where I don't already have something that for me is a better answer.  I tend to run a handful of systems that I know very well for the same people over an extended period of time, in styles of play where fudge is extremely counter-productive.  If I ran a one-off in a system that I didn't know very well for a bunch of kids as their first game, I probably wouldn't fudge, but I can't categorically say that it would not happen.

Fudge is always a bad idea in the sense that it always has a potential negative effect.  It is sometimes the least bad idea on the list of things that you are willing to put forth the effort to do, all things considered.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1057301If dice fudging are a bad thing, then why do we GM screens?  They don't hide much beyond dice and maybe a map, but even then, maps can be hidden in other ways that are more easy.

As DM I have various information, that aren't die rolls, for my eyes only.  And that also includes some die rolls.  I make secret door checks behind the screen, and others.

Why would anyone see a DM screen and come to conclusion that obviously a screen means the DM is supposed to put their thumb on the scales?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1057301If dice fudging are a bad thing, then why do we GM screens?  They don't hide much beyond dice and maybe a map, but even then, maps can be hidden in other ways that are more easy.

I don't - hideous things!

I would say that either a) dying during character creation or b) dying instantly with a space travel die roll are perfect examples of flawed design.

Instant death is not fun or interesting. Jeff, you're handling of the situation was brilliant. I think what some are trying to say is that you could tweak the rules so you don't have to "judge" instant death to be something else. In many ways, what you did WAS fudging the results.

If you want that risk in the game, then you should keep the rules as is, advertise the risk so the players get it, have them make the rolls, and deal with what falls out. You could also have one set of rules for "heroes" and one set for "average joes" so the risk is implied in the setting but not the same impact to the main characters.

Quote from: Haffrung;1057262Sometimes, however, dice generate anomalous results that are not welcome and fun, but rather have catastrophic effects on the game. Which is why I sometimes, occasionally, fudge the dice.

That's why I used to fudge the dice. But the crazy results go both ways; if you have critical failures, you also have critical successes. Have you seen DM of the Rings? In that the party meets Saruman for the first time, tosses an arrow at him in his tower, and he dies horribly. I realised that if I as DM fudged away their great failures, I'd have to fudge away their great successes, too. Otherwise it'd have catastrophic effects on the game! They can't just kill Saruman the first time they meet him!

I did that for a while. I kept the story within one standard deviation of what seemed reasonable. Things got slow and boring. So I stopped fudging. I let both ends of the bell curve happen. Hey, maybe they do kill Saruman when they first meet him. On the other hand, maybe Gollum kicks Frodo in the nads, takes his ring, and pushes him into the fires of Mt Doom. Hey, it's not like Gollum seemed like a nice guy.

The railroad is built with fudge. if you're going to fudge, you may as well go all computer game and have cutscenes to make things go where you want to. If freedom means anything, it means the freedom to fuck up. There is no true player freedom without the possibility of a TPK - or the possibility of a TNPCK. Poor Saruman.

Quote from: trechriron;1057338I would say that either a) dying during character creation or b) dying instantly with a space travel die roll are perfect examples of flawed design.

Instant death is not fun or interesting. Jeff, you're handling of the situation was brilliant. I think what some are trying to say is that you could tweak the rules so you don't have to "judge" instant death to be something else. In many ways, what you did WAS fudging the results.

If you want that risk in the game, then you should keep the rules as is, advertise the risk so the players get it, have them make the rolls, and deal with what falls out. You could also have one set of rules for "heroes" and one set for "average joes" so the risk is implied in the setting but not the same impact to the main characters.

Oh no, I absolutely agree that I fudged the results because the roll was a statistical fluke. The misjump chance with a Ship Destroyed result was like a 1 in 800 at the PCs skill level with what they were doing, possible but very very unlikely and what I would consider acceptable odds during play. The dice hated the PCs right then and it happened. I just disagree that it represents a rules mechanics flaw that requires the rewriting of the rules when a die roll fudge can satisfactorily compensate for that game ending result at the wrong time.