Quote from: sureshot;1057229Here we go. I don't like the reasons given so I will classify them as incoherent routine.

You first response to "why?" was "pay me". Yeah you made no sense. I balk more at that than you love affair with dice fudging.

Quote from: sureshot;1057229Here we go. I don't like the reasons given so I will classify them as incoherent routine.

Your response to "why?" was "Pay me". Yeah you make no sense. I balk more at that than your love affair with dice fudging.

But if the rules are only guidelines, then so are the dice rolls.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1057016I run a No-Fudge game, always have, and like Kyle, play it to the max as if my NPCs were my PCs.  Every single time, with two exceptions, here's how it plays out...

That's not a matter of results, but expectations.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1057017Fudging dice is a symptom of another problem:  The rules are wrong for the game you are trying to run, or you are having an off day, or you just made a mistake, or you weren't prepared as you'd like to be, or you simply don't have the ability (yet) to anticipate outcomes as well as you like.

Yes! But nobody ever listens to me.

Hopefully you'll have better luck.

Quote from: Chris24601;1057055Fudging seems to happen most often when the DM doesn't understand the expectations of the system when tailoring their campaign and then uses dice fudging to keep the PCs alive in situations where the rules expect a good percentage of the PCs to be killed off in a Darwinian funnel where only the strongest survive.

Yep.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1057124Why not play a game without those?

Good question!

Quote from: Rhedyn;1057225I hope you admit that the need to fudge rolls is a mechanical flaw in the system.

Maybe it is because I just woke up and the coffee hasn't hit me yet, but I cannot follow the logic that leads to the conclusion that fudging dice rolls means that there is a mechanical flaw in the game system. Like in the example I posted, sometimes the "what" result of the dice roll is desired but the "when" it happens is not.

Quote from: jeff37923;1057240Maybe it is because I just woke up and the coffee hasn't hit me yet, but I cannot follow the logic that leads to the conclusion that fudging dice rolls means that there is a mechanical flaw in the game system. Like in the example I posted, sometimes the "what" result of the dice roll is desired but the "when" it happens is not.

Mechanics could reconcile that. You can maintain the "what" but not have it "when" it can't happen for your game to run well.

Sometimes that requires a ground up re-design of the whole system though, so people patch with fudging, but the flaw is still there.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1057225I hope you admit that the need to fudge rolls is a mechanical flaw in the system.

It could instead be a flaw in the GM's understanding of the system's expectations. For example, starting the PCs in your AD&D game at level 4+ and using one of the more advantageous ability score generation methods if you wanna play a "big damned heroes" type game instead of starting them at level 1 with 3d6 in order ability scores (which leads to a very different opening experience).

AD&D works fine with no need for fudging dice rolls for BDH-style play IF you're aware that it considers 1st level PCs to be fragile and likely expendable pawns you're expected to burn through several of before one manages to survive past those initial levels.

4E dealt with this gap in expectation by making BDH PCs the default. 5e solved it by making it much more explicit in the text that BDH-style games should start at level 3-4. 5e's method/advice still existed in OD&D, AD&D, B/X and 3e as well, it was just more assumed and implied (ex. The title for a level 4 fighter being "hero") than stated outright.

Quote from: Chris24601;1057250It could instead be a flaw in the GM's understanding of the system's expectations. For example, starting the PCs in your AD&D game at level 4+ and using one of the more advantageous ability score generation methods if you wanna play a "big damned heroes" type game instead of starting them at level 1 with 3d6 in order ability scores (which leads to a very different opening experience).

AD&D works fine with no need for fudging dice rolls for BDH-style play IF you're aware that it considers 1st level PCs to be fragile and likely expendable pawns you're expected to burn through several of before one manages to survive past those initial levels.

4E dealt with this gap in expectation by making BDH PCs the default. 5e solved it by making it much more explicit in the text that BDH-style games should start at level 3-4. 5e's method/advice still existed in OD&D, AD&D, B/X and 3e as well, it was just more assumed and implied (ex. The title for a level 4 fighter being "hero") than stated outright.

I would also consider using the mechanics wrong to fall under, "mechanical flaw".

But yes that is a good point.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1057231Your response to "why?" was "Pay me". Yeah you make no sense. I balk more at that than your love affair with dice fudging.

I may fudge the dice once and awhile. I by no.means have a love affair with them. Again get your head out of your ass and don't assume everyone runs the game you do. Are you trying to have a actual debate. Or just in this thread to tell those who don't do things your way are engaging in badwrongfun.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1057123In Classic Traveller from 1977, it's not. You roll 2d6, and if it's 13+ there's a misjump, 16+ means the destruction of the ship, while 13-15 means the ship jumps 1d6-6d6 hexes in a random direction, taking 1d6 weeks to get through Jump vs the normal 168+/-10hr.

But again: 13+ on 2d6. The modifiers are,
+1 using unrefined fuel while not equipped to do so
+5 jumping within 10-100 diameters of a world
+10 jumping within 10 diameters

You've got your versions wrong... That's 1981 (well, it's +15 for within 10 diameters

QuoteSo if you stick to worlds with class A and B starports then you can always buy refined fuel, and if you cruise out to the right distance, you can always be 100+ diameters away (and this only takes at most 18 hours with the in-book 1G drive, even from a large gas giant, and it's just an hour or two from the typical Mars or Titan-sized world), and thus it's actually impossible to misjump. Now, if you take unrefined fuel (skimming gas giants, or being stuck with class C or less starports), then you have a 1 in 36 chance of misjump, but a zero chance of destruction of the ship.

If you enter Jump 10-100 diameters away while using refined fuel, then you have a 1 in 12 chance of destruction of your ship (rolling 11-12 with +5 gives 16-17) and a 1 in 3 chance of a misjump. This means a 21/36 or 58% chance of everything being fine. If you enter Jump inside 10 diameters, for example of the surface of the planet, there's 26/36 or 72% chance of death, a 9/36 or 25% chance of misjump, and a 1 in 36 or 3% chance that all will be fine.

The 1981 CT rules removed the possibility of instant destruction of the ship, leaving just the jump in a random direction for a random distance, but increasing the <10 diameter jump failure modifier to +15; they also added some other modifiers if the ship lacks the engineers it needs, and if it is past its annual overhaul, but these are just the chance for the drives or power plant to fail entirely, rather than blow you up or launch you somewhere random.

Again, swap 1977 and 1981, so 1981 INTRODUCED the possibility of instant destruction.

QuoteAs for the random distance and direction misjump, bear in mind that the ship's crew can choose to carry extra fuel in lieu of cargo. So if they're going somewhere with poor starports, or where they might have to run away suddenly, they can plan for that, and buy and carry extra refined fuel.

Yea, I've pointed that out, though it's not necessarily clear from the 1977 rules that you can do so, though it's logical. Though note that in 1977 a J2 ship can't make two J1 on it's built in fuel...

1981 DID make it a lot safer to use unrefined fuel, misjump on 12+ with unrefined fuel vs 1977's 9+. Note also that 1977 military craft misjump on a 12+ when using unrefined fuel whereas in 1981 they are safe.

I've chosen to make things a bit safer while it still being preferable to use refined fuel. Here are the rules I'm using:

   I'm going to go with the 12+, +1 DM to the roll for each previous jump with unrefined fuel. Scout and military ships get a -1 DM to the roll (i.e. they can take one jump with no chance of misjump, a subsequent jump with unrefined fuel will result in a misjump on a 12). -1 DM to the roll for refined fuel.

For drive failure the same roll and DMs apply, with an additional +2 DM to the roll for missing annual maintenance. +1 DM for each engineer missing from the required crew. If failure occurs, check each component (power plant, jump, maneuver) for failure on 7+ (with a +2 DM for previous jury rigged  repair).

Flushing the tanks can be done at a Class A, B, or C starport (of course then only unrefined fuel is available at the Class C), or a Navy or Scout base at a cost of Cr 100 per ton of fuel capacity (free for Scouts at a Scout base). This is basically 83 cuft of helium gas (or 3.1 litre of liquid helium) per ton of fuel (pricing helium at 3x the price of oxygen).

This website lists liquid helium storage tanks: http://www.intlcryo.com/products/lhe_transport_storage_containers/index.html

This website provides a conversion calculator: http://www.airproducts.com/Products/Gases/gas-facts/conversion-formulas/weight-and-volume-equivalents/helium.aspx

Note that any ship with fuel capacity for greater than Jump-1 (whether it's just pure extra fuel storage or a Jump Drive capable of Jump-2 or better) will have its fuel tanks subdivided. Power plant fuel tankage must also be flushed but is also separate.

To determine where a misjump goes, throw 1D for distance, and 1D for direction. If there is a world at that distance in the general direction, the misjump will wind up there, if not, determine the next distance at which there is a world so long as the possible world is no more than 6 parsecs away. Throw 1D and if the throw is less than or equal that additional distance, then the ship emerges from jump space in the void at the original distance rolled. Jack-of-all-Trades skill may be added to that 1D roll.

BTW, my first roll for a misjump was before changing the rules (well, I did drop the roll 1D number of 1D for distance, and just made distance 1D). The players absolutely lucked out and actually mis-jumped to their intended destination...

Quote from: Rhedyn;1057243Mechanics could reconcile that. You can maintain the "what" but not have it "when" it can't happen for your game to run well.

Sometimes that requires a ground up re-design of the whole system though, so people patch with fudging, but the flaw is still there.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1057251I would also consider using the mechanics wrong to fall under, "mechanical flaw".

Let me get this straight, you are saying that an untimely outcome is a mechanical flaw in the game rules and also that a misinterpretation of those rules is also a mechanical flaw in the rules. Is that correct?

Quote from: jeff37923;1057256Let me get this straight, you are saying that an untimely outcome is a mechanical flaw in the game rules and also that a misinterpretation of those rules is also a mechanical flaw in the rules. Is that correct?

Untimely outcomes that you won't allow at your table are mechanical flaws.

Those outcomes cropping up to be fudged out because you used the mechanics wrong is also a mechanical flaw of the rules at your table.

Quote from: sureshot;1057252I may fudge the dice once and awhile. I by no.means have a love affair with them.

If someone rarely kills people, they are still a serial killer. [Please take that as some sort of hyperbolic statement that fudging dice is as bad as murder rather than this being just a metaphor /s]

Fudging is one of those things you either never do or is just a part of your GMing "style". The frequency is rather irrelevant once the players find out about it.

Dice introduce randomness to a game. In most games, that randomness is welcome and fun. And sometimes that randomness generates anomalous results. Which are usually welcome and fun.

Sometimes, 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.

For example, I recently ran the inaugural session of Shadow of the Demon Lord. It's a game where PC death is definitely on the table. And within the first hour or two of our first session, two of the four PCs in fact were taken down, disabled, and had to roll to avoid death. They made their survival rolls, but were no longer combat-effect. However, the party was in a siege situation, with no way to retreat or flee. It was do or die - that was the setup of the scenario. When the next wave of undead attacked, I rolled high for the numbers of zombies, and when one of the two still effective PCs was hit, I rolled a 6 on a d6, for 8 damage (1d6+2). I knew this would kill the PC, and likely result in a TPK. So I fudged the roll to a 3, for 5 damage. The PC was gravely wounded, but still standing. The PCs survived. They now knew SotDL was a deadly, gritty game. But the campaign wasn't completely aborted.

Everyone had a great time. If this offends the sensibilities of some nerds on the internet, tough shit.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1057258Untimely outcomes that you won't allow at your table are mechanical flaws.

Those outcomes cropping up to be fudged out because you used the mechanics wrong is also a mechanical flaw of the rules at your table.

That makes no sense to me because it reads like it examines gaming from a purely theoretical viewpoint instead of examining how the flow of a game works in actual play. Obviously, I disagree with your view on fudging dice rolls.

Quote from: jeff37923;1057263That makes no sense to me because it reads like it examines gaming from a purely theoretical viewpoint instead of examining how the flow of a game works in actual play. Obviously, I disagree with your view on fudging dice rolls.

You are right, it is examining gaming from a theoretical point of view.

Fudging creates other problems though. I've seen GMs get mad when a player is criting too much (GM suspects fudging). I've seen players get mad when their spells do not work or they get crited to death (Player suspects fudging or they are wondering why the dice are not being fudged for them when other people get fudged dice)

Fudging undermines the trust more traditional rpgs are built on that the dice and mechanics are resolving situations not Player and GM feelings. It's why we have rules and why there is a "G" in RPG. Fudging is a dangerous thing to ever do because you are sacrificing trust for some momentary fun. I'd much rather keep the trust and try the fun again in the next session/campaign/system.

If you are doing one of those modern storyteller systems where the point of the game is the story you construct not the act of playing the game, then yeah Fudge away. Lot's of those systems stop being games so it doesn't matter.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1057266Fudging creates other problems though. I've seen GMs get mad when a player is criting too much (GM suspects fudging). I've seen players get mad when their spells do not work or they get crited to death (Player suspects fudging or they are wondering why the dice are not being fudged for them when other people get fudged dice)

Fudging undermines the trust more traditional rpgs are built on that the dice and mechanics are resolving situations not Player and GM feelings. It's why we have rules and why there is a "G" in RPG. Fudging is a dangerous thing to ever do because you are sacrificing trust for some momentary fun. I'd much rather keep the trust and try the fun again in the next session/campaign/system.

Now you've touched upon a very important aspect of fudging dice rolls. When to do it. In the examples given, that suspicion of fudging being the reason the game is not going their way is not a problem with fudging per se, but a personal problem of trust between the players and GM. In both examples, they think that the other guy is out to get them because things aren't going how they want or expect. Sadly, in those cases, it wouldn't matter if dice rolls were fudged or not because there is no trust between the people involved.

In the example that I have given earlier on, the fudging was not to allow some momentary fun, but to allow there to be any fun at all.

As much as I loathe to suggest it, fudging of dice rolls in game is right at the core of the question, "Is GMing an art or a science?"