Quote from: soltakss;958787I can never remember what Rule Zero is, please remind us.

While we're waiting for AsenRG, let me remind everyone about my post where I outline the three pillars of Rule Zerodom:  https://vengersatanis.blogspot.com/2017/04/rule-zero-final-arbiter.html

VS

Quote from: Dumarest;958794Am I the only one who finds it ironical that the OP wrote a book on How to GM yet can't manage what to do if the dice don't go the way he planned?

Seems like GM 101, Day One of the syllabus would cover that.

Sure, if I absolutely had to, I could shoehorn some bullshit into the session and make it convincing, palatable.  But why bother, when I can come up with something 7 times better that diverges from whatever the dice say?  The dice are not God - that's my job!

VS

Quote from: Spinachcat;958848That's set dressing. I don't see that as fudging. It doesn't affect player choices.




Are you sure your players would have been disappointed?

Mine would have been thankful.

I see the "easy boss battle" as karma for the "WTF goblin massacre" that happens when the DM rolls high and the players' dice are worthless.




So the min/maxer cheated and you cheated vs the min/maxer?

I effectively capped AC at 20 in my OD&D game because of exactly this nonsense by using +1/-1 stat mods and making +2 items are rare in my game (more likely to find +1 items with a cool power).

To many, altering random rolls on "set dressing" type tables is also fudging.  Personally, I find it just as ridiculous to call that cheating as any other time I ignore the dice.

Well, the session would have ended 20 minutes early.  And sometimes when we only get to play once a month, I want to get as much game time as possible.  I suppose, I could have come up with some secondary final encounter after the first to pad game time, but had nothing prepared.  I also fudge the "WTF goblin massacre" occasionally, so it all balances.

This was some 3rd edition game 15 years ago, back when I was probably too lenient and had all but forgotten my old school roots.  These days, I'm more up-front about what's cool and what's strictly verboten.

VS

Quote from: Lunamancer;958474So if I'm understanding correctly, "closer to what the GM envisions" is bad. Bad because you play to find out what happens. Finding out what happens is different (even the antithesis) of finding out what the GM wants to happen. All perfectly reasonable.

Yes:).

QuoteSo dumb question time. Is "what the GM envisions" really the same or equivalent to "what the GM wants to happen"?

Did you give us examples when they are not the same?
Because Venger sure didn't.

Quote"Here is my story. Hope you enjoy the ride." and "Here is how my world works. Do with it what you will." are both examples of "what the GM envisions." I can see how the former clearly robs you of why you play. The latter, not so much.

If you know how your world works, you can codify it in a system. Whether the system requires dice rolls or not.
Say, the rule for fighting Cain in V:tM is an exception to the combat system, but it's part of how the world of Dorkness works: you die. No rolls. That's a fine rule, actually! (I might think your world sucks, but that's a fine rule - clear and unambiguous).
If you don't say that's the rule, then roll the dice in the open, and whatever they say, happens. Whether the opponent is Lancelot or the Emperor.

And if you can't state this, you don't know how your world works.

QuoteSo I'm not convinced that your ideal is a good match for what you want out of the game.

I am. I've tried fudging for years, and then practiced not fudging for years, too.
The results are unambiguous.

QuoteA couple of other incidentals...

-Insofar as I wish to create a world and let players do what they like with it, I want this to actually be a world. Not a mathematical model. We don't even have all the rules and equations governing our own world. If I wish my fantasy world to be as nuanced as our own, it really doesn't seem like "must have teh rulez spelt out, no fudging" is the least bit reasonable a standard.

The average person's understanding of how the world works is actually inferiour to most mathematical models. And I explicitly include most good systems in that.
And that includes the average Referee (and even above average Referees).

Quote from: VengerSatanis;958689Sure...

1.  I randomly rolled on the d100 color table - that's in How to Game Master like a Fucking Boss, incidentally - for a newly acquired magic sword, and got what I considered a far less than ideal hue.  So, I glanced at some nearby results and chose one that seemed to suit the situation, world, player, character, etc.

That's not an example, because it's not part of the system. (Of course, I question why you even roll on these tables. I just pick whatever I like, so a list of suggestions is just as good).

Quote2.  There was an epic battle towards the end of a session, a battle that the PCs had been building up to for quite awhile.  Not only were the PCs' tactics good, but they also rolled well, and I was rolling poorly.  If I had let the dice fall where they may, the combat would have been over in about 3 rounds.  Even though the PCs would have been glad for a quick victory, they also would have felt cheated and the anti-climactic feeling would have put a damper on an otherwise awesome session.  Beefing up the antagonist's hit points didn't affect the battle's outcome - it merely extended combat and gave the impression that this fight and opponent were both significant.

No. That's what you wanted, not the players. Be that kind to not make excuses!
Here, you admitted that much...and thus, I call bullshit. The players had made their plan, and the dice went their way. Why didn't they get to score an overwhelming victory against a tough opponent?
Because of the Storyteller;).

Quote from: VengerSatanis;958907It's not just the players - I am also annoyed and disappointing with an anti-climactic, too easy victory.  Obviously, not every battle will be lengthy (I'm old school, so 20 minutes is plenty long for me) and challenging, but at least one battle per session.  I feel that's nearly mandatory.

Quote3.  This was a long time ago, but I was DMing a session of D&D and there were one or two new players who I was longtime friends with but hadn't gamed with in awhile.  Though, when I had gamed with one of them in particular, he came just about as close to cheating as you could without actually crossing the line.  Although, in his mind, he always felt perfectly justified.  Anyway, I didn't memorize his character sheet, but looked it over and noticed the high AC.  Well, we were halfway through the session and a really powerful black knight type dude was attacking the party.  He rolled a natural "18," and I said, "Ok, he hit you for X amount of damage."  The player balked and asked what his Attack Bonus was.  I told him how high it was (it was pretty high) and the player responded with, "That wouldn't hit my guy."  And I came back with, "Well, he's one of best melee fighters in the realm and he rolled a natural 18, so I don't care what your character sheet says, he hits you."  The player didn't like that and I don't think we played again after that session - which worked out great for me because he was a huge munchkin pain in the ass.

Thus, the system didn't fit the world you envisioned. Why did you use this system?
I mean, WTF, you can't calculate a Black Knight's Attack Bonus+10/+15/+20 (the numbers for an average roll, a decent roll and a roll that would hit anyway), and see how close this is to the AC?

QuoteI thought of another reason to "fudge," too.  4)  When a player has had disappointing luck the entire game and the monster is almost dead.  The night's champion (PC) just scored enough damage to kill the thing, but of course the players don't know that.  At least once, I've given the creature a few extra HP so that the unlucky PC could bring him down a minute later.

It's not the Referee's job to preserve the playerz' feelingz.

QuoteNow, you can point out deficiencies in my examples, things I could have done differently, things you might have done better, but those were the calls I made at the time and I stand behind them... and I'd make them again.  If you're this unconvinced, I have no illusions about convincing you.  Just as I'm certain you won't convince me that I'm wrong or misguided.  But you asked for examples, so now you've got them.

Yes, and I'm persuaded I don't want you to run games for me.
I've played with Storytellers that followed similar principles, too. That's why I don't want it to happen again.

QuoteAs for the cool chunks of good advice, the book is suffused with the way I see things as a GM.  That includes my two recent blog posts.  I don't think I could divorce them, even if I wanted to.

And now I know I made the right choice about purchasing your GMing book:D!

Quote from: VengerSatanis;958690Please, enlighten us!

VS

I can only give you the well and lead you to the water, grashopper:D!

Quote from: soltakss;958787I can never remember what Rule Zero is, please remind us.

Simple: Do not be a dick to others unless you're fine with them being dicks to you - or thou shall stop playing as you remain without a group...again.

"Thou shall not fudge" is just a sub-set of that:p.

Quote from: Dumarest;958794Am I the only one who finds it ironical that the OP wrote a book on How to GM yet can't manage what to do if the dice don't go the way he planned?

Seems like GM 101, Day One of the syllabus would cover that.

No, you're not the only one;).

Quote from: Voros;958823Rule Zero I believe is to have fun or if you're having fun you're doing it right, I believe.

That's Rule One, actually.

Quote from: Spinachcat;958848That's set dressing. I don't see that as fudging. It doesn't affect player choices.




Are you sure your players would have been disappointed?

Mine would have been thankful.

I see the "easy boss battle" as karma for the "WTF goblin massacre" that happens when the DM rolls high and the players' dice are worthless.


So the min/maxer cheated and you cheated vs the min/maxer?

I effectively capped AC at 20 in my OD&D game because of exactly this nonsense by using +1/-1 stat mods and making +2 items are rare in my game (more likely to find +1 items with a cool power).

All of the above.
And none of the items in my Low Fantasy game gives you a constant +1, not even the "sentient magical swords".

QuoteYes, and I'm persuaded I don't want you to run games for me.

And I don't think I want you to play in my games, AsenRG.  Thankfully, we have lots of player and GM choices out there in the world.

VS

Quote from: VengerSatanis;959592And I don't think I want you to play in my games, AsenRG.  Thankfully, we have lots of player and GM choices out there in the world.

That, at least, is something we can agree on;)!

Quote from: VengerSatanis;958910Sure, if I absolutely had to, I could shoehorn some bullshit into the session and make it convincing, palatable.  But why bother, when I can come up with something 7 times better that diverges from whatever the dice say?  The dice are not God - that's my job!

VS

Then why are you using dice at all? Your statements are illogical and self-contradictory.

Quote from: Dumarest;959732Then why are you using dice at all? Your statements are illogical and self-contradictory.

I've already mentioned it, but will go into it again - I like dice.  They're fun and easy.  Generally, they make my job easier.  I just treat them as God after they've been rolled, that's all.  

Yeah, I'm occasionally illogical and self-contradictory like all humans.  Not a computer.  That's the point.

VS

Quote from: AsenRG;959027Did you give us examples when they are not the same?
Because Venger sure didn't.

I gave an example, yes. When the GM is faithful to how the world works first and foremost.

Note that this is a general principal type of want rather than a want for a specific outcome. When two or more people have wants for a specific outcome and those wants don't happen to be precisely identical, someone's going to wind up disappointed. However, two or more people can "want" or "prefer" or "prioritize" different general principles and there CAN be outcomes that satisfy all.

Of course, having the same general principle want is no guarantee of compatibility--all parties involved may want "whatever is best for the story" but disagree on what specific outcome actually is best for the story. The general principle I have chosen is a special case, though, as the GM (typically) has exclusive authority over how his world works, which resolves disagreement of the "but who says this outcome does best fit how this world works" sort.

Now your argument seems to proceed as if all wants are of the specific outcome variety (even when you specifically reference wanting "what's best for the story", you zero in on differing opinions on the specific outcome). This is really odd because your own want of "finding out what happens" seems to be a general principle sort of want, not tethered to any specific outcome, and certainly not inherently incompatible with "how my world works."

QuoteIf you know how your world works, you can codify it in a system. Whether the system requires dice rolls or not.

My world borrows a lot of inspiration from the real world. In fact, except where specified otherwise, it's generally assumed to operate a lot like the real world. In the real world, we have things like pencils. No single person in the world has sufficient knowledge to make them--not when you consider not just the manufacturing process of making the pencil, but the harvesting of raw materials and the development of all the tools required in both acquiring raw materials and manufacturing the finished good. And yet they exist. It would be unrealistic to demand of someone, "Okay, codify it, start to finish." No one has the knowledge. And the real world is full of examples like this.

QuoteIf you don't say that's the rule, then roll the dice in the open, and whatever they say, happens.

I have to nitpick here because this drives straight to the heart of the matter.

First, why do I have to say it? Is this some kind of magical incantation or something? If a PC is searching for a secret door, I generally don't tell him the die roll is irrelevant because there is no secret door to be found. That's something for the player to figure out.

Second, why do I have to roll it in the open? If I roll that find secret door die in the open and the player sees it come up '1' and still doesn't find a secret door, then he knows he can stop looking. Should the player or the character have that knowledge? Not the way my world works.

Third, why do I have to abide by it? The die roll was never for determining IF there is a secret door. Only if the PC finds one. Since there isn't one, though, the real function of the die roll is not the random number it generates nor any binding result. It's rolled because the absence of a roll would reveal undue information.

What I have presented, of course, is an example that doesn't carry a lot of controversy. It is an example nonetheless of a GM rolling a die and then ignoring the result. It demonstrates that if there be such a sin as "fudging" the sin is not simply in the act of rolling a die and not following it. You say it's okay for me to just make it the rule that when fighting Cain, we bypass the regular combat system since you can't defeat Cain, why do I have to tip my hand? Why do the players have to definitely know it's Cain? And if they do, why do they have to definitely know Cain is invincible? What's wrong with them discovering this on their own as I just roll the dice as usual and pretend they matter?

For that matter, is there a time limit and when I can say Cain is invincible? Do I have to add that to the lore at the start of the campaign? Because that would seem prohibitive. The way my world works is.. it's a big world. It's unreasonable to ask of me that I have every last detail hashed out before hand. Or can I just hold off until the start of the session where Cain makes an appearance? Because that would be unrealistic. I can't predict everything the players do. Maybe the logical fruition of their choices and actions means they meet Cain long before I ever expected it or gave any thought as to just how tough Cain is. But nonetheless, here we are, and a PC is attacking him.

It seems like it's not the fudging that is the problem in and of itself. It's really a matter of what you initially pointed out--that it can be used to force the specific outcomes the GM wants without regard for anyone else at the table. Of course there are ways to be a bastard GM that don't involve fudging. On the other hand, fidelity to the workings of the world as a general principle don't necessarily force specific outcomes, and it is a general principle over which the GM is understood to have unilateral authority.

QuoteThe average person's understanding of how the world works is actually inferiour to most mathematical models. And I explicitly include most good systems in that.
And that includes the average Referee (and even above average Referees).

I simply don't accept this statement as true. In fact, it's been formally proven false (it involves a clever application of Cantor's Diagonal Argument). Sure. Mathematical models provide a good baseline. They are useful under "normal" conditions. Until they aren't. Then you hear "Don't blame the math. It was a black swan. It was a once in a quadrillion years kind of thing. No one could have seen it coming. It was the best possible projection we had based on our information at the time."

Most of the time the answers people seek from these models are conceptually impossible. Like whether or not to see a new movie that has come out. In order to know for sure if it's worth the price of admission, you have to compare how much you'll enjoy it. In order to know for sure how much you'll enjoy it, you first have to see it. Faced with this impossibility, we develop heuristics. Which is a very scientific-sounding way of saying we rely on intuition. Even a highly formalized mathematical heuristic model had to identify variables and value weighting according to intuition.

Yeah. My game world works like that.

Quote from: Lunamancer;960137First, why do I have to say it? Is this some kind of magical incantation or something? If a PC is searching for a secret door, I generally don't tell him the die roll is irrelevant because there is no secret door to be found. That's something for the player to figure out.

In order to say what the die roll will mean, you must first decide what it will mean.  While I can't speak for Asen, making that determination is what is important to me, regardless of whether I inform the players of what I've determined or not.  In your secret door example, this means knowing "the secret door will be found on a roll of 1 on 1d6" or "there is no secret door, so nothing will be found regardless of the roll" or even "this door is very poorly hidden, so it will be found on 1-4", and knowing this before the die is cast.

Quote from: Lunamancer;960137Second, why do I have to roll it in the open? If I roll that find secret door die in the open and the player sees it come up '1' and still doesn't find a secret door, then he knows he can stop looking. Should the player or the character have that knowledge? Not the way my world works.

I agree that rolling secretly for things the PCs wouldn't (immediately) know about is a good technique.  However, I do make a point of rolling openly for anything the PCs would know the outcome of, in order to demonstrate that I will not alter the results of die rolls, even for "important" events.  This gives them confidence that, even when I roll in secret, I'm still doing it honestly.

Quote from: Lunamancer;960137Third, why do I have to abide by it? The die roll was never for determining IF there is a secret door. Only if the PC finds one. Since there isn't one, though, the real function of the die roll is not the random number it generates nor any binding result. It's rolled because the absence of a roll would reveal undue information.

If my determination prior to the roll was that "there is no secret door, so no door will be found regardless of the number rolled", then I am abiding by the result when I declare that no door was found.

Quote from: Lunamancer;960137What I have presented, of course, is an example that doesn't carry a lot of controversy. It is an example nonetheless of a GM rolling a die and then ignoring the result. It demonstrates that if there be such a sin as "fudging" the sin is not simply in the act of rolling a die and not following it.

Allow me to refer back to one of my earlier responses to you in this thread:

Quote from: nDervish;958506I think here you're getting into the definition of "fudging", which, as we've seen upthread, some people define pretty broadly.

As I define the term, "fudging" specifically means rolling a die and then treating it as if the die had rolled a different number than actually resulted.  I believe this to be the most common usage, but I could be mistaken.

As you said, the sin is not simply in the act of ignoring a die roll.  It is in changing the meaning of the roll after rolling:

- "The secret door will be found regardless of the roll. *rolls a 4* You found it!" is not fudging - the roll was interpreted exactly as had been determined prior to rolling.

- "The secret door will be found on a roll of 1.  *rolls a 4*  Erm, ok, it will be found on a 1-4.  You found it!" or "The secret door will be found on a roll of 1.  *rolls a 4*  Erm, ok, I'm just going to pretend it was a 1.  You found it!" is fudging - the way the roll would be interpreted was changed after the roll's result was known.

In both cases, the end result is the same (a 4 was rolled and the door was found), but the GM is being honest in the first case ("I'm going to reveal the door no matter what") and not so much in the second case ("I'm going to leave this up to chance.  No, wait, I'm going to give it to them even if chance disagrees.").  Whether these thought processes are revealed to the players or not is beside the point; I consider it important to be honest with yourself, too, not only to be honest with others.

Quote from: Lunamancer;960137For that matter, is there a time limit and when I can say Cain is invincible?

For me, the deadline for making any decision as a GM is when you turn that decision over to someone or something outside of yourself.  In the specific case of fudging, that means the line is drawn when the die leaves your hand.

Quote from: Lunamancer;960137I have to nitpick here

And therein is a summary of this whole Forum.