Pundit captures above about the only basis on which I will fudge, which is where I need to do so to adjust for an error I made in statting up an npc.

If the NPC is supposed to be not too tough, but due to a rules error he is actually a combat badass, I would probably fudge that as it is simply correcting an error on my part.  That said, I would likely fudge it by adjusting his stats on the spot and then running it straight rather than anything more active.

Fudging IMO robs the players of real risk and the reward that comes from facing that.  Also, I agree with TonyLB, if a game needs fudging then I like that to be clearly in the rules and for the players to decide when to invoke it.  Buffy does this well, the drama points are there and it is up to the PCs to decide when to use them.  I'm fine with that.

But generally fudging to me means something has gone wrong, if it's something that's gone wrong in my application of the rules that's a flag I need to learn them better, if it's something that's gone wrong and the rules are being applied properly that's a sign I need a new ruleset.

At the end of the day though, I will not fudge to preserve a PC, that's the player's job.

Quote from: RPGPunditFrom the "open dice rolling" thread, a theme worth exploring in its own thread has come up.

Its 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.

Opinions? Do you agree or disagree?

RPGPundit

Other than correcting for an error on my part, I struggle slightly to see why I as GM should be allowed to ignore the rules but the players shouldn't have the same right.

The overall health of the game is best served by letting the dice fall where they may.  If genre needs demand that characters can't get pointlessly hosed then the rules should avoid that outcome.

Space 1889 for example, the genre demands that PCs don't just go down to a random pistol shot in a fight, so the rules are such that a PC is far more likely to pass out and get captured than die.  Pointless death is avoided, because the rules work as intended, not because the GM needs to cheat to make stuff work out right.

Quote from: BalbinusThe overall health of the game is best served by letting the dice fall where they may.  If genre needs demand that characters can't get pointlessly hosed then the rules should avoid that outcome.

I absolutely agree with this. Other good example of this may be 7th Sea.

QuoteIf the NPC is supposed to be not too tough, but due to a rules error he is actually a combat badass, I would probably fudge that as it is simply correcting an error on my part. That said, I would likely fudge it by adjusting his stats on the spot and then running it straight rather than anything more active.

I would not consider this as cheating.

Quote from: ImperatorI would not consider this as cheating.

To be honest, I don't really think of that as fudging.  PCs shouldn't die because I got the rules wrong, they should die because their players messed up or because they got unlucky.

If death isn't a possible outcome, letting the dice fall where they may tends to be a less serious issue so this mostly becomes a concern in combat I think.

Actually, that is a good caveat.

In my current game, I've hand-waved a lot of stuff because when the characters were created, I had to do some serious rules bodging to not have a team of incompetent people.

The combat system as written, is at least as complex as that of MERP.  Both sides roll their skills and look on a table, then there's the parrying or dodging and then you work out where people are hit on another table and make an opposition roll between the damage of the weapon and the other's constitution and look on a table before subtracting any armour.

Clearly if we play with this system, it'll take all night and the PCs (who tend to have shitty constitution scores) will be eaten alive.  So I'm taking a page out of Pendragon and having a flat opposed roll between swordspeople, and whoever wins gets the chance to inflict damage.

In short, I have no idea what's going to happen once the dice roll.

In general, I agree with the Pundit's assertation.  It's one of my gaming axioms that when fun and rules disagree, fun wins every time.  However, I'd also say that the more often you need to fudge, this indicates that the system is not working for you.  It is not giving you the results you want.

No fudging. Ever. The cheating/fudging distinction is, I believe, a false one. As GM, I have a duty to follow the rules and always be an impartial referee.The integrity of the game and the game world are more important than any PC.

If the dice say you die, than you should have done more to avoid the circumstances that led to that killing roll. Play smarter next time.

Quote from: BalbinusOther than correcting for an error on my part, I struggle slightly to see why I as GM should be allowed to ignore the rules but the players shouldn't have the same right.

For the simple reason that the GM messes with the dice and rules for the overall fun of the group, whereas the player messes with the dice and rules purely for their own fun.*

It may be objected that some players will mess with the dice and rules for the sake of everyone's fun. I'm certain some do. This is about the same proportion as the GMs who mess with the dice and rules to fuck over the party and make everyone miserable. That is, a very small proportion.

The GM can cheat/fudge because they have an overview of the game. They know the capabilities and likely actions of all the PCs, NPCs, the events, the secrets, everything. So the GM can guide things along to a satisfactory conclusion.

Quote from: BalbinusThe overall health of the game is best served by letting the dice fall where they may.  

I don't know what "overall health of the game" means. I aim at a successful session - that is, a fun, fulfilling, and memorable game session for everyone.

When I was about 19 or 20, I ran an adventure where the PCs were captured by a monastery. This monastery was led by a secret inner cabal of evil high priests. Naked but for loincloths in their cells, the PCs escaped, slew the high priests, recovered their gear, and won the gratitude of the monks, and fame and fortune, all without serious injury. Everyone was happy.

Then they went outside into the forest, I rolled a random encounter, and one PC lost her leg to a wolf. Now everyone looked sad and subdued, and I couldn't understand why.

A player who usually GMed took me aside and pointed out, "Mate, that was lame. Let them be heroes for a little bit. When they've just surmounted a great challenge, don't fuck them over with a pissy little challenge, that's humiliating and lame. Let them be heroes for a little bit."

Choosing not to roll on the random encounter chart is exactly equivalent to rolling, and then rejecting the result and choosing another. It's making a judgment about what is appropriate, what will help make it into a successful session.

Quote from: YamoNo fudging. Ever. The cheating/fudging distinction is, I believe, a false one. As GM, I have a duty to follow the rules and always be an impartial referee.The integrity of the game and the game world are more important than any PC.

The distinction between fudging and cheating is not a false one, for a couple of reasons.

The first is that we ought to distinguish between the motives for things. "Cheating" is when you mess with the dice and rules to "win." "Fudging" is when you mess with the dice and rules so that you can have a successful session.

The second is that this fudging is simply an extension of what the GM already does - makes judgments. For example, one thing never covered by game rules is how many rolls the player should make to use their stealth skill. Let's look at this city street.


The PC is the guy on the right of the picture. There are some police surveillance guys in the area, and the PC's a wanted man, his picture's been up in the newspaper, maybe page 12, but it's not a very good picture, and most people won't remember it anyway. The PC wants to get from where he is now, to an apartment on the fourth floor of the building on the back middle of the picture.

How many stealth rolls must the player make for his character to get there? One representative one for the whole journey? One past the dumpster, then past the row of shops, then one across the road, then one into the building, etc? Remember, the more you make the player roll the dice, the more chance there is they'll get a fumble. How many rolls? The book doesn't tell you.

Maybe none at all? It's a rainy day, he puts his collar up, no-one else looks up because it's raining, no stealth check needed, yeah? Or maybe you decide the cops are in the car he has to pass over the road there, and no rolls - just automatic failure.

What about modifiers to the dice rolls? Does the rain make it easier for the character not to be noticed? Does his picture in the paper make it harder? How much harder?

"Follow the rules." Sorry, the rules don't tell the GM about this particular situation. The GM must judge what seems reasonable, and what seems reasonable to GM Yamo will seem crazy to GM Balbinus. So, you're using your judgment. You're using your judgment to make things... what? Plausible? Reasonable?

So, if you can use your judgment to decide whether to roll the dice or not, how many times to roll the dice, what modifiers to apply to the rolls... but you can't use your judgment to decide to ignore the dice?

GM judgment is always needed. If the GM just blindly applied rules which covered everything, we wouldn't need GMs. But the rules don't cover everything, we need some to use their judgment. Usually, GM judgment is applied to decide when and whether to roll, how many times to roll, and with what modifiers. Then the player rolls, and GM judgment is supposed to end, yes?. "Fudging" is simply GM judgment applied after the dice are rolled.

Let's look at what Yamo said again,

Quote from: YamoThe integrity of the game and the game world are more important than any PC.

What is the "integrity of the game"? What is the "integrity of the game world"? Would you have let the wolf appear and take the character's leg just because that's what the random encounter table said? Would you also have your players feel sad and subdued, and feel that the game session started great, and ended lamely?

I don't think you would. I think that after their triumph, you wouldn't roll the random encounter at all, even though the rules said you should roll every game day. I think you'd just say, "after your triumph, you go outside and camp in the forest. See you guys next session."

Uh-oh, you fudged it! :eek:

____

* Note: I don't care if players cheat, anyway. It rarely affects the game much. It's not a competitive game.

There's a slight difference between "judging" and "fudging". There are degrees here, not just a binary decision, at least until we find a perfect definition for every word and bit of terminology we're using in this discussion.

The GM has to apply the rules to the adventure. This often isn't the most straight-forward process and requires some creative judgement. Unless you've got a system that's written the perfect way, you will probably ignore parts of the rules just to get a coherent system anyway. Sticking to the letters isn't possible with a game that I know of. Also, most groups have house rules.

But house ruling and fudging have one big difference: Rules apply beyond the current moment. A fudge just influences the current situation, the next might be ruled totally different. I don't know about the groupy you all got, but I found out that players (or most people in other situations) like to have some kind of accountability. What is right now shouldn't be wrong tomorrow. Rules provide some kind of safety net, as you can rely on something. If the whole session descends into some kind of creative anarchy, a lot of player won't enjoy that. I want to have some kind of reliable influence on the outcome of events, some tangible factors. That's where the probability mechanics of dice come into play -- or some kind of drama-doohickey resource management.

I'm not saying that GM's who fly by the seat of their pants rather often are sacrificing their players to Arioch. A lot of people who do this have some kind of narrative vision that they want to enforce directly and very individual. You create some kind of ad-hoc rules by enforcing some structure on the happenings according to some more or less vague principles ("everything should be awesome", "players shouldn't survive the adventure", "ever overlord should go down in a cool way or not at all").

Whether you do this by force of will or some written down rules often comes down to the personality type of the GM. I've yet to encounter a person who really pulls this off all the time -- probably because my favorite session style as a player doesn't harmonize with this narrative railroading. I can understand where those people are coming from, but IMHO it's better done with a more formal method. Rules as a "style contract".

But again, I'm a bit pusher. YMMV.

QuoteThe first is that we ought to distinguish between the motives for things. "Cheating" is when you mess with the dice and rules to "win." "Fudging" is when you mess with the dice and rules so that you can have a successful session.

Weasle words. Any player could use them to define a "successful session" as one where his PC doesn't die and then cheat like crazy.

I'm just saying: If Joe Blow falls off a 70-foot cliff and the rules say that he takes 7d6 damage, than it's my duty as GM to roll those dice and apply the results as per the section of the rules detailing the effects of damage. I would consider it cheating, not fudging, to refuse to do so for any reason.

QuoteHow many stealth rolls must the player make for his character to get there? One representative one for the whole journey? One past the dumpster, then past the row of shops, then one across the road, then one into the building, etc? Remember, the more you make the player roll the dice, the more chance there is they'll get a fumble. How many rolls?

All irrelevent. A simple matter of style. What matters is that when the dice ARE rolled, their results are interpreted according to the rules.

QuoteI don't think you would. I think that after their triumph, you wouldn't roll the random encounter at all, even though the rules said you should roll every game day. I think you'd just say, "after your triumph, you go outside and camp in the forest. See you guys next session."

Your example doesn't make any sense. Why would I roll for random encounters after the game session had ended? Now, if I'm not ending the session after they leave the monestary, I definitely would not omit the normal random encounters in the forest, nor would I alter their content or outcome. I definitely agree that it's a subtle art to select the best moment to end a session, but that doesn't enter into an argument on GM cheating in my mind.

Besides, roleplaying isn't fiction, which is why I love it. Unexpected things can and do happen at the whims of dice. Sometimes these things are unexpected boons and other times they're unexpected disappointments. As a player and GM, I want both in my games. I firmly believe that this is a unique strength of the RPG medium, and ought to be celebrated, not maligned.

If anything, a good anticlimax every now and then encourages a healthy attitude among players. There's nothing worse than being overprotective of a character, and sulking like a baby and letting it ruin your evening when one bites it. If the player who loses a PC can just shout "Fuck!" and pound his fist on the table and then promptly begin rolling-up his next guy so he can rejoin the game with no hard feelings, that's a player for me.

You win some, you lose some. It's only a game.

Quote from: YamoWeasle words. Any player could use them to define a "successful session" as one where his PC doesn't die and then cheat like crazy.

I'm just saying: If Joe Blow falls off a 70-foot cliff and the rules say that he takes 7d6 damage, than it's my duty as GM to roll those dice and apply the results as per the section of the rules detailing the effects of damage. I would consider it cheating, not fudging, to refuse to do so for any reason.

But why did Joe Blow fall off that cliff?  Did he jump?  If so, then let him fall if he really wants to kill his character.  Was he thrown by an enemy?  Then you as the GM set up that enemy, set his combat abilities, and thus determined its ability to do this.  Did he fall?  Did he get a check to avoid slipping?  What kind of modifiers were there?  How many checks did he have to roll?  Again, the GM decides these things.  The GM relies on his judgement all the time.

The primary duty of a GM is not to apply the rules.  It is to run the game in such a way that everyone has fun.  Sometimes those are the same thing, sometimes they are not.  If rolling and applying that 7d6 damage would make the game less fun, then it is your duty as a GM *NOT* to roll and apply it.

Further, if a player defines a successful session as "one where my PC doesn't die" then he should petition the group to play such a game or institute such a rule.  They exist, and that's a valid preference.  I don't start with the assumption that the players are selfish and childish.

Edit - that came off a bit more 'one true wayish' than I intended.  If the group all has 'the rules are strictly adhered to' as part of their fun, then do so.  But not because the rules are somehow sacred, but because that's your taste.

Quote from: MaddmanThe primary duty of a GM is not to apply the rules.  It is to run the game in such a way that everyone has fun.  Sometimes those are the same thing, sometimes they are not.  If rolling and applying that 7d6 damage would make the game less fun, then it is your duty as a GM *NOT* to roll and apply it.

I don't believe this and I never will. I've already discussed why above.

Oh, and...

:forge:

Ya hippie.

Quote from: YamoI don't believe this and I never will. I've already discussed why above.

Oh, and...

:forge:

Ya hippie.

Never been on the forge.

So, I'm curious.  If you don't consider the goal of a gaming session everyone having a good time, what *is* that goal?  Why do you play if not for fun?

Quote from: JimBobOz

The PC is the guy on the right of the picture. There are some police surveillance guys in the area, and the PC's a wanted man, his picture's been up in the newspaper, maybe page 12, but it's not a very good picture, and most people won't remember it anyway. The PC wants to get from where he is now, to an apartment on the fourth floor of the building on the back middle of the picture.

How many stealth rolls must the player make for his character to get there? One representative one for the whole journey? One past the dumpster, then past the row of shops, then one across the road, then one into the building, etc? Remember, the more you make the player roll the dice, the more chance there is they'll get a fumble. How many rolls? The book doesn't tell you.

Maybe none at all? It's a rainy day, he puts his collar up, no-one else looks up because it's raining, no stealth check needed, yeah? Or maybe you decide the cops are in the car he has to pass over the road there, and no rolls - just automatic failure.

What about modifiers to the dice rolls? Does the rain make it easier for the character not to be noticed? Does his picture in the paper make it harder? How much harder?

"Follow the rules." Sorry, the rules don't tell the GM about this particular situation. The GM must judge what seems reasonable, and what seems reasonable to GM Yamo will seem crazy to GM Balbinus. So, you're using your judgment. You're using your judgment to make things... what? Plausible? Reasonable?

Hm, this may not help with the current discussion but I found this example fascinating.  A friend of mine who GMs a lot once told me (and I know from bitter experience that it's the truth) said that he asks for more rolls, just like that, when he wants the PCs to fail at something.  The more rolls he asks for, the more he wants them to fail.

If you don't want to leave something to chance -- don't roll the dice.

If you don't want to leave something to the player's choice -- don't give them one.

Trying to fool the other people at the table into thinking you're leaving things to chance, or giving them a choice, when in fact you're not... is bad.

"Excuses are the refuge of the weak." :pundit: