Quote from: James J SkachJust for an analogy (and I'm not sure how much it holds), it seems to me that fudging would be like an umpire in a baseball game deciding that he's going to call this pitch a ball instead of a strike because he wants the game to be more meaningful.  He's sure that the other team will win, but he wants to give the underdog a chance.

There's not a baseball player or fan alive who would tolerate such a thing. Why do we?

Because roleplaying games are not, usually, competitive.

It's more like when kids play baseball at lunchtime - if the kid you're pitching to is a crappy hitter, you pitch them an easy one. If they're an excellent hitter, you give 'em a fast spin-ball. Because you're playing for fun, not for competition.

Of course, I said this already. Try reading my posts, you lazy American

Quote from: JimBobOzWhen children play games, they favour games where everyone has a chance to win. If the individual skill levels of the kids playing mean that some kid would always lose, they bowl easy against them, etc, so that it returns to even odds.

This explains a lot. Where I grew up the big kids always tried to bat towards the little kids because it was an easy base. You either learned to play better or you sat and watched a lot.

I guess life's hard in the ghettooooo...

QuoteBecause roleplaying games are not, usually, competitive.

All games are competitive.

Not all games have the players in competition against each other.  Some games have the players collaboratively in competition against the game system itself.

Fudging dice rolls means you believe the story you want to tell is more important than the gameplay.  It's *exactly* the same argument that's brought up against "The Swine" and Story Games vs. RPGs... the only difference is a matter of degree.

Hmmm... That theory of mine that Pundit is the Noble of Swine is starting to make more sense...

Quote from: StuartFudging dice rolls means you believe the story you want to tell is more important than the gameplay.  It's *exactly* the same argument that's brought up against "The Swine" and Story Games vs. RPGs... the only difference is a matter of degree.

I never said anything about "story" in this thread.

I said that I'd fudge rolls and rules so that we wouldn't get stupid and annoying results, and so that the game session would be interesting and fun.

"Interesting and fun" and "not stupid and annoying" may, or may not, involve something we might call a "story." But I wasn't talking about fudging things so that the flow of the events in the game session would join into a coherent narrative or anything like that. That's something different entirely.

Quote from: JimBobOz"Interesting and fun" and "not stupid and annoying" may, or may not, involve something we might call a "story." But I wasn't talking about fudging things so that the flow of the events in the game session would join into a coherent narrative or anything like that. That's something different entirely.

Again, it's only different by degree.  The "Interesting and fun" result is the story idea you want to have take place.  The "not stupid and annoying" result is the one you don't want to stop the story you've imagined from taking place.

This doesn't have to be an elaborate story with plot points and NPCs.  Even something like: "the Paladin survives the battle with the Dragon", or "the Elf finds the secret door to the treasure chamber" is a story you want to see happen, and would put above following the rules of the game.

What I *do* think you should do as a GM if you want something to happen in your game, is just say it happens.  Don't give players the illusion of choice, or the illusion of having to depend on the luck of the dice, if the result has in fact been pre-determined.

Just tell them:  This is what happens.

If you want the part to find a secret door -- just tell them that they find it.

If you don't want the dragon to kill the Paladin, make sure there's some kind of safety net in the game system.

I'm pretty sure I'll be using this one in my game:

If a hero loses a round of combat and is reduced to 0 stamina, the player may choose either:
a) the hero is defeated.  They are seriously wounded and mechanic for ability score loss
b) the hero is triumphant!  However they are mortally wounded and mechanic for mortal wounds

With that type of system, there's no reason to fudge a dice roll in combat to keep a player's character alive, but combat is STILL something very dangerous, and character death is STILL a possibility.

Call me crazy, but I would think that fudging the die rolls to get the story you want would be "creating story", and not fudging the die rolls to keep the game fun without any specific story-related goal in mind.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartAgain, it's only different by degree.  The "Interesting and fun" result is the story idea you want to have take place.  The "not stupid and annoying" result is the one you don't want to stop the story you've imagined from taking place.

You can have "not stupid and annoying" and "interesting and fun" without there being a "story" involved. Yes it's "only a difference of degrees," but differences of degrees are important. If you don't believe me, next time you boil a pot of water, stick your hand in it before it starts bubbling and then after.

Quote from: RPGPunditCall me crazy, but I would think that fudging the die rolls to get the story you want would be "creating story", and not fudging the die rolls to keep the game fun without any specific story-related goal in mind.

It's not railroading to tell an epic narrative.  It's a single moment of storytelling.  "The Paladin Lives!"  "You find the secret door!"  "The Kobold has a second helping!"

Quote from: JimBobOzYou can have "not stupid and annoying" and "interesting and fun" without there being a "story" involved. Yes it's "only a difference of degrees," but differences of degrees are important. If you don't believe me, next time you boil a pot of water, stick your hand in it before it starts bubbling and then after.

Fudging to keep your 10 year old nephew's first D&D character from being killed might be a lot more agreeable than fudging to defeat all the players and tell your epic tragedy railroading masterpiece. But they're both cheating / fudging / railroading / storytelling.

I tried Jim Bob, I really really tried.  But Christ, I'm already reading two novels and various rule books. I just couldn't stay focused on your extensive thesis.

Perhaps you need to rethink your writing style

Quote from: James J SkachI tried Jim Bob, I really really tried.  But Christ, I'm already reading two novels and various rule books. I just couldn't stay focused on your extensive thesis.

Perhaps you need to rethink your writing style

Most people find my writing clear, simple, and easy to read, if a bit long. It's not like I use a heap of long words, or give new meanings to old words, or have some particularly wacky point of view you have to wrap your brain around timecube-style.

Bugger off and read the flavour fic in your rule books! :cool:

"Brevity is the soul of wit."

Unfortunately is doesn't feel that helpful when you want to write fiction.

Now that's more like it.  Short and to the point. Thanks for taking my advice.

Quite interesting thread, much goodness here. I'll answer the OP first.

Quote from: RPGPunditIts my position that the GM has the prerogative to choose to not kill or otherwise fuck up a PC when straightforward dice rolls would indicate it, if he feels that it would be detrimental to the overall health of the game and the group; he likewise has the option of letting any single bad roll stand if he thinks it will not be harmful to the game, or that the possibilities it generates outweigh the harm it might cause, or if he just plain felt that the Player had it coming.

I don't see anything bad in it, though is not the way I play. I never fudge rolls and make them in the open. I use GM screens for the assorted charts, but don't bother to hid rolls or notes from my players.

I agree with this point, raised by someone else (J. Skach, maybe?): RPGs are the only games where cheating is not outright punished. RPGs are the only games where the referee is allowed to ignore or change the rules: in any other game, the referee is there to enforce that rules. Again, I don't think is bad: just curious.

For a lot of years (15+) I've been in the same position that the Pundit is. But I realized that, if I had to change rules from time to time to achieve some goal, then (a) the rules were bad or (b) it made no sense to use rules or rolls at all.

If I roll dice, the roll stands. If something must happen, then it happens. The best example could be my current CoC game (Shadows of Yog-Sothoth + Shadow over Innsmouth): if there's a vital clue to be found in a room, then the PCs will find it if they search it. I'm not bothering to roll dice and then having to fudge the outcome because no one made it (quite hard, as several PCs have very high Spot Hidden, but...)