Quote from: StuartIf 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.  

Mate, it's hard enough for players to be consistent in their decisions for their characters, when they know everything about them - how's the GM supposed to do it, when the GM knows so little about many of the NPCs?

Let's consider just one aspect of the guard's decision - his relationship with his sergeant. Is his sergeant a guy aggressive in pursuit of intruders? Then his sergeant will say, "even with a one in hundred chance, you should have fired!" Is his sergeant under pressure from the company captain to keep costs down? Then his sergeant will say, "what are you doing wasting crossbow bolts for? Fire when you've a good chance of hitting!" But how do I know this about the guard? The player's character broke into the place and has now been seen running out - I didn't plan out the not-even-named guard's relationship with the not-even-named sergeant!

Then of course maybe the guard only has a 1% chance of hitting, but doesn't know it. Maybe he's got low self-esteem and says, "wow, I'm a crap shot, I'll never hit this guy." Maybe he's overconfident and says, "running man in the dark at one hundred yards? EASY!" Maybe he's normally confident but got smashed last night and is feeling a bit under the weather. Maybe he's normally a miserable sod but met a nice girl at lunch and is feeing on top of the world.

How the fuck would I know if he'd fire or not? I just go with whatever seems reasonable at the time. But "reasonable" in pursuit of what goal? The goal of being true to the guard's character? Better write up every single guard, then! The goal of what's dramatically fun? Shit, I won't roll at all then, "as you run away, crossbow bolts zap around you, thunking into the dirt and walls, narrowly missing you." The goal of getting the character back intot he castle so he can find the treasure this time? Again, no roll, just, "the bolt strikes a sleeve, inning you to the wall, as the guards come running up." The goal of being true to the rules? Sorry, the rules don't tell me at what percentage chance the guard should not bother firing.

Fudging and judging, it's like whether something is "sex" or not. There are some things like blowjobs that are definitely sex, and some things like kisses that are debatable, and some things like a steady look at someone across a room which are sometimes sex, but usually not, depends on the context. Likewise, there are things which are fudging, and things which are judging, and then a whole shitload of things which are debatable.

It just ain't as clear-cut as you're making out.

Quote from: droog1. 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'.

That sounds about right.  To me I came to realize that fudging dice was a total waste of time. If you are fudging the dice rolls WTF did you bother pick up the dice to start with?

Those 4 items that droog listed are also pretty close for the reason for breaking/bending/changing rules AFAIK.  I don't think that is a coincidence at all.  So my answer is sort of like JimBobOz's, only without the diatribe about "I can break the rules anytime I want".

EDIT: Come to think of it, I'd have to say that also underlines my reason for not breaking, or "fudging" or whatever you want to call it, for rules. If I'm going to just throw them out when it comes to the crunch and they mean something WTF did I bother to pick them up to start with?

Quote from: flyingmiceWhatever. 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.

Fudging isn't cheating.

Cheating is doing something against the rules for personal gain.

GM fudging can be for,

• GM gain, "haha, PWNED, bitch!"
• Player gain, "wow, one hundred crossbow bolts fly at you and they all miss! You are a hero!"
• Group gain, "um, yes, when that fireball went off frying most of the party, the healer was out of its area of effect, yes."
• Story/adventure again, "you've just defeated a giant dragon and are acclaimed by the whole province as heroes. I think we can dispense with rolling for wandering monsters."

Only one of those is fudging for the gain of the GM, and can be called "cheating."

Quote from: blakkieIf you are fudging the dice rolls WTF did you bother pick up the dice to start with?

Inspiration, not determination.

Quote from: JimBobOzInspiration, not determination.

There is a lifeskill called "making a decision". I used to be crappy at it. Then I worked on it to improve at it.

If you are using the dice for "inspiration" it probably means you aren't thinking about the conciquences of the outcomes before hand. That's the nice thing about games with the "stakes" process, they teach you to think about the conciquences before you roll or even pick up the dice.

Quote from: JimBobOzHow the fuck would I know if he'd fire or not? I just go with whatever seems reasonable at the time.  But "reasonable" in pursuit of what goal? The goal of being true to the guard's character? Better write up every single guard, then! The goal of what's dramatically fun? Shit, I won't roll at all then, "as you run away, crossbow bolts zap around you, thunking into the dirt and walls, narrowly missing you." The goal of getting the character back intot he castle so he can find the treasure this time? Again, no roll, just, "the bolt strikes a sleeve, inning you to the wall, as the guards come running up." The goal of being true to the rules? Sorry, the rules don't tell me at what percentage chance the guard should not bother firing.

How would you know?  You're the GM.  Master of the game and all that.  If it seems reasonable that a generic guard would attack in those circumstances -- go for it. You don't need a background for each grunt -- he's a guard.  He's guarding.  If you're not having the guard attack because you're trying to pull your punches -- that's fudging.

If you handwave 'crossbow bolts zap around you' I think that's much better than fudging/faking dice rolls.  The players understand what's going on.  There's no real challenge there -- it's scenery.  That can be cool and help make the game more interesting, but it's not the same as a challenge/risk, and the players understand that.

Again -- if everyone at the table is cool with fudging, then bust out the brownies.  If your players have told you that they don't want fudging as part of the game, I think you know what they're talking about.  I can't imagine you'd tell them "well, sorry mates, ain't as clear-cut as that" and if you would it'd probably put them off their cheetos.

Quote from: David RSo, 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?

Nope. I only fudge when using systems I am not yet familiar with. It's not even a matter of fairness to the players (that's completely irrelevant). It's a matter of efficiency.

If you're playing the right game, the right way, you don't have to fudge. Ever.

Quote from: JimBobOzFudging isn't cheating.

Cheating is doing something against the rules for personal gain.

Try going to Vegas and doing things against the rules to make the other players at the Poker table have more fun.  Despite not doing it for personal gain, I think they'll consider it cheating.

Quote from: Consonant DudeIf you're playing the right game, the right way, you don't have to fudge. Ever.

That's been my experience.

Quote from: StuartI can't imagine you'd tell them "well, sorry mates, ain't as clear-cut as that" and if you would it'd probably put them off their cheetos.

True. But we tend not to discuss theory-type stuff at the game table. They just sit down and want an interesting and fun game session. If it's not interesting and/or fun, they don't come back.

I find that most players are like most drivers. They don't really understand or care what's happening under the bonnet, so long as the fucking thing just takes them where they want to go, and the scenery's nice along the way.

Quote from: StuartTry going to Vegas and doing things against the rules to make the other players at the Poker table have more fun.  Despite not doing it for personal gain, I think they'll consider it cheating.

If there are ever tens of thousands of dollars of real money at stake in my roleplaying game session, then I promise not to fudge so that people have more fun.

I believe that "fudging" is cheating and I do not use it or condone its use.

Quote from: Consonant DudeIf you're playing the right game, the right way, you don't have to fudge. Ever.

Interesting. What exactly do you mean by this? Has your experience with certain systems led you to believe that there was something wrong with the system(s) that required you as the GM to fudge? Also what do you mean by the right way?

droog, same questions.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RInteresting. What exactly do you mean by this? Has your experience with certain systems led you to believe that there was something wrong with the system(s) that required you as the GM to fudge? Also what do you mean by the right way?

'Something wrong' with the system is a relative thing. It depends on what you want from that game. It's when you get mismatch of system and expectations that problems occur.

Take the issue of random, pointless death. It's a lot more likely to occur in Pendragon than it is in mid-level D&D (barring the contentious save-or-die situations), because the damage that can be done in a single blow can easily exceed any chr's full hit points. That being so, there will come a time when sheer bad luck kills a chr – no doubt about it. So playing PD 'properly' includes full cognizance of this factor.

If you want a four-colour supers game where chrs hardly ever die except when dramatically appropriate, GURPS is not a good choice. If you want a supers game that deconstructs the genre and allows for chrs dying, it's not bad (a guy I knew ran a game like this using Superworld).

I've seen people complain about the whiff factor in HeroQuest. It's true – beginning chrs in HQ are going to fail at their goals a lot. But playing HQ 'properly' necessitates a different way of looking at failure; as a dramatic complication, for example, rather than as a failure of the chr's ability.

And so on. Am I making sense?

Quote from: JimBobOzI find that most players are like most drivers. They don't really understand or care what's happening under the bonnet, so long as the fucking thing just takes them where they want to go, and the scenery's nice along the way.

Cheat-o-ism?

(I couldn't resist