Some threads have drifted into this topic. Now, just to be clear, I'm talking about all kinds of fudging - dice, adjusting the situations to suit the strengths of the pcs at a particular moment etc.

Now, with my old group, I used to "fudge" not always mind you, but during particular moments, for example when the player rolled badly or something random happened that would seriously fuck up the character. There was plenty of pc deaths in my campaigns with my old crew, but stuff like random deaths which could happen often, I glossed over with some fudging.

Now, my current crew, really disliked this practise, for much of the same reasons given in the numerous responses about this subject. Off course their objections to this practise has become somewhat muted of late and they are more tolerant esp when it comes to situational type fudging.

The main reason why I did it, and it normally happened deep into the campaign was that I did not want the sometimes random nature of certain elements of the game, halting an interesting campaign. Also I (and my old crew) didn't want the hassle of creating - and by this I mean more than just rolling up, but actually creating a fully developed character in game -a new character. My current crew off course does not feel the same way.

It really does not bother me. As I have said before, not fudging has given me a sense of freedom. I'm pretty dispassionate about the characters - not the players mind you, but rather their characters - and I can concentrate on other aspects of the game.

This does not mean, that if my players didn't mind me fudging (without their knowledge off course) I wouldn't do it. I would, but it really is not an important issue with me as a GM, anymore.

So, my question, is why do you (if you do) as a GM fudge? Do your players know that you fudge the dice? Has this created a safe enviroment for your players - by this I mean, that they know that they won't have random or bad luck rolls death ? Would you fudge if your players never found out?

Regards,
David R

IMHO, if your players are cool with it, then fudging is cool.  If you know your players aren't cool with it, and you do it anyway, that's really not cool.  If you don't know how they feel -- try and find out before you do it.

Edit:  "Would you fudge if your players never found out?"  -- All dice rolled out in the open, baby!

Because I'm the Game Master. I run the game, not some sloppily-written, badly-organised, saucily-illustrated, over-priced words written by a bunch of guys who don't know my group, and not the whims of the dice. I master the game, the game does not master me.

The rules and dice and setting are there for inspiration, not determination.

@JimBobOz:  If you had 4 players who all told you they didn't want you to fudge... would you do it anyway?

I don't. I roll dice in the open so long as they are about things the players know about.

-clash

I fudge occasionally when I think it makes for a more interesting game.  Usually nothing big.  I've discussed it with my group and they don't mind.  I asked them specifically if they could tell when I fudge things, and they stated that they had never been able to tell.  So, it works fine for us.

Quote from: Stuart@JimBobOz:  If you had 4 players who all told you they didn't want you to fudge... would you do it anyway?

Depends on what they call fudging. To me, "fudging" is not just, "hmm, 01, you're supposed to die, okay I'll reroll that." Fudging is simply an extension of normal GM judgment about interpretation of the rules, of whether and how often to call for dice rolls, and so on. "Fudging" is not just overruling dice rolls, it's deciding whether the dice are even rolled.

I've given the example before, but one thing not described by rules systems is when, outside combat, to call for dice rolls, and how often. We've all encountered a GM who was determined for us to succeed, so never asked for dice rolls, or one who was determined for us to fail, so kept asking for rolls. The classic case is stealth skill. If my character is being watched out for by cops, and to escape and hide needs to go past a dumpster, between two cars, across a road, between another two cars, past several shops, past a van which has police in it looking for him, then a set of traffic lights, then into a building, then up some stairs and into an apartment - how many stealth rolls should the GM call for? One to represent the whole trip? One past the dumpster, another between the cars, and so on?

The rules don't tell us, so the GM has to decide. That is, the GM is deciding when and how often to call for dice rolls. The more rolls, the greater the chance of a failure which leads to overall failure. So if a GM asks for no or only one roll, they could be said to be "fudging" in favour of the player; if they ask for many rolls, they could be said to be "fudging" against the player. If the character has 50% stealth skill, asking for five rolls which leads to a 97% chance of failing at least once, that's efffectively the same as just saying, "okay you rolled 32 out of 50, but it's a failure anyway, you had this modifier I won't tell you about"; fudging against the player.

So when deciding whether to ask for a dice roll, or how many dice rolls to ask for, the GM will naturally be swayed by sympathy for or antipathy towards the players, and/or the course of action of their characters ("that's a stupid plan and should fail" or "that sounds fun, I hope it succeeds for them"). I'd call that, "fudging."

And then of course there are modifiers to dice rolls. No rules set can possibly cover every modifier which might come up; the GM has to judge things. Whether that judgment is for -10% or -15% to the roll, well a different GM might judge differently, or the same GM half an hour later. Nobody's consistent down to the last 1%, it's impossible. So that judgment is gong to be swayed by mood, and again sympathy and antipathy. That's "fudging".

It goes on and on. Decisions like whether or not to roll for wandering monsters, which in AD&D was explicitly designed to keep the characters moving through the dungeon, rather than resting for weeks and healing and spelling up completely after each fight. "Okay, so I'm supposed to roll for wandering monsters to keep them moving... but they've just been counting the coins form the last one, it's only been three minutes, is that too soon?"

The GM is there to make judgment calls like this, and these judgment calls will be influenced by how the GM feels about the players, their characters, and the course of events of the session or whole campaign. So the GM will fudge. All do. There's only one letter's difference between "fudging" and "judging."

And then there's the fudging of giving them challenges which you feel they can handle, which is so widespread a thing it's been formalised in D&D 3.5's Challenge Rating system.

Sure, you can say, "well, all that's okay, so long as you don't fudge the dice rolls which would kill the characters." The problem is that the GM already fudged/judged the whole situation which brought about that potentially lethal dice roll in the first place.

"Fudging" is not just overruling dice rolls, it's deciding whether the dice are even rolled.

It's simply not a clear-cut issue. No GM follows the rules to the letter, because the rules don't cover things like whether and how often to roll. They have to judge it, and a judgment easily becomes fudgment.

The dice offer suggestions to direct my whim.  When the dice and I disagree, they can take a gorram hike.  

That said, I don't fudge very often because I *like* getting results no one expected.  Still, I'm with JimBobOz -- I drive the bus!  I DRIVE!

@JimBobOz: I think most players and GMs understand the difference between regular GMing and Fudging.

I swore off fudging dice about ten years ago, but I can remember the reasons I gave myself for doing it:

1. To go easy on a player who was having a bad run, or was having other problems in life. Later, to save favoured characters.

2. To stretch out an encounter in order to make it more 'satisfying' or 'challenging' or 'dramatic'.

3. To produce a desired outcome; ie when a clue just had to be found.

4. To adjust an outcome to fit my notion of 'realism'.


I think that covers it. I quit because it ultimately seemed futile, distorted the game in the long term, and put too much of a burden on myself. Also, I realised that it pissed me off when other GMs did it, and I like to be consistent.

To a certain extent, there was also the problem Settembrini characterises as 'moral corruption'. I would come away from a session feeling slightly sick and disgusted with myself.

There are ways around all these problems that do not involve altering die results. Using a different system, encouraging less personal investment in individual characters, eschewing preplanned scenarios and so on. For several years I ran two games in parallel: one in which any chr could bite the dust at any time (Pendragon), and one in which chr death was more or less impossible (Villains & Vigilantes).

Both of these, ultimately, felt more rewarding to me as a GM, and it didn't seem to turn anybody off my games. So now it's dice in the open, all the time.

OK, Kyle, I don't think of what you are describing as fudging, but I think every GM does this. Thus it's a moot point.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceOK, Kyle, I don't think of what you are describing as fudging, but I think every GM does this. Thus it's a moot point.

Yeah, but where do you draw the line?

If I over-rule a dice roll that would have killed a character - say, a critical hit by a guard firing a crossbow from a hundred yards away in the dark - that's fudging, we all agree on that.

But what if I have the guard not bother firing at all? Is that fudging? Maybe you'll say it's not, because the guard figures he has only a 1% chance of hitting, so doesn't bother. Okay, fine.

What's if it's not dark, only dusk, so he's got a 10% chance?

What if the character is walking instead of running, so he's got a 20% chance?

What if the character is right in front of him in broad daylight, with a 90% chance to hit, but he doesn't fire. Fudging?

At what percentage chance of success is my decision to have the guard not fire, fudging?

Like I said, I don't think it's as clear-cut as you're making out, this distinction between fudging and judging.

Quote from: JimBobOz"Fudging" is not just overruling dice rolls, it's deciding whether the dice are even rolled.

It's simply not a clear-cut issue. No GM follows the rules to the letter, because the rules don't cover things like whether and how often to roll. They have to judge it, and a judgment easily becomes fudgment.

Dworkin ( Legal scholar) would call these hard cases - where in his opinion legal theories/discussions should take place not in some abstract other world . Hey since everyone is relying on their academic backgrounds, why shouldn't I

I think you raise an interesting point...but, I also believe that when gamers discuss fudging, the converstaion is mostly about dice rolls, hence all the "I roll dice in the open" posts. So, when the GM makes the decision that dice need to be rolled, that's when the fudging takes place or at least, this is where most online discussions centers on. (Not that I mean this point should not be raised, just that I thought a clarification was needed for my original post)

droog, very good post. I like the way how you linked Sett's moral nonsense (althought in this case, it's anything but) to your experience.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JimBobOzYeah, but where do you draw the line?

I think you usually know yourself when you're fudging.

Quote from: JimBobOzAt what percentage chance of success is my decision to have the guard not fire, fudging?

If you're having the guard not fire, even though you know they should -- that's fudging.  If you think the guard wouldn't fire in that situation, it's not fudging.  

Being honest with yourself will help you be honest with the other players.

Quote from: JimBobOzLike I said, I don't think it's as clear-cut as you're making out, this distinction between fudging and judging.

Whatever. You obviously care about this far more than I do. Call it what you like. If all GMing is cheating by your definition, then all GMs cheat. I already said that.

-clash