Quote from: blakkieThere 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.

It is a plus for those games, clearly so I think, but for me not enough so as to be worth the impact it has for me personally in terms of immersion and on the pace and flow of the game.

Put another way, I think you're right, but for me stopping to discuss stakes is dull as anything and throws me out the game, I'd rather just roll and shout.

But hey, not everyone finds it jarring that way and if you don't it is a very useful tool.

JB, life is fuzzy.  The fact that there is a blurry line between judging and fudging doesn't mean they're not different things, just that they're different things that blur together at the margins.

Some stuff is clearly judging, some stuff is clearly fudging, some stuff it's kind of hard to say and reasonable people may reasonably differ.

Now, that accepted, we can still meaningfully discuss whether fudging is useful or a good idea, we don't each time have to get bogged down on marginal examples where it blurs into judging.

So, I roll the dice as per the rules, I get a freak result which wastes a PC on a fairly unimportant encounter.  We're now into a question of fudging, not judging, because I am now deciding whether to follow the rules derived result or not.

Some folk say fudge, some say not, but it kind of kills the debate if each time we just talk about the times when it's hard to say if it's fudging or not.  Most of the time we know whether it's a fudge or not, the fact that sometimes we may be fudging by judging in the first place doesn't really change that.

Quote from: BalbinusJB, life is fuzzy.  The fact that there is a blurry line between judging and fudging doesn't mean they're not different things, just that they're different things that blur together at the margins.

Sure. But then, there are different things, and there are different things. My right arm and my left arm are different things, but they can exist independently, and in fact one is useful entirely without the other, though they'll work best together. My right foot and right leg are different things, and though my right leg can exist without my right foot, my right foot can't exist alone, and my right leg will be a lot less useful without the foot - the foot's an extension of my leg, a natural growth of it. Yet they're still different things.

So, fudging and judging are different things. But are they different things which can exist independently, that we can have one without the other, or is one an extension of the other? If they're things which exist independently, then people can say, "no, I never fudge," or "no, I never judge." If one's just an extension of the other, then if you do one you'll end up doing the other, too.

Quote from: Balbinus[,,,]Now, that accepted, we can still meaningfully discuss whether fudging is useful or a good idea, we don't each time have to get bogged down on marginal examples where it blurs into judging.[...]Some folk say fudge, some say not, but it kind of kills the debate if each time we just talk about the times when it's hard to say if it's fudging or not.[...]

The question of the OP of this thread was, "Why fudge?" So my answer is, "well, I think fudging is a natural extension of judging, and that's why I do it." People challenged that, so that's why those marginal examples came up.

Quote from: BalbinusJudging is when in play something arises, and the rules agreed on for play leave discretion as to how that thing is handled in the hands of one or more participants.

Fudging is when the rules agreed on have been applied and result in an outcome that the GM is unhappy with, and so the GM in contravention of those rules changes that outcome.
...
the rules agreed on may include an element of rules modification within them, an accepted means by which one or more participants may modify outcomes. Drama dice in Buffy for example.
...
the rules may be silent on many points, in which case judgements will need to be applied.
...
some games explicitly blur the lines by saying as a rule that the GM may change any result, at that point arguably there is no fudging. Most games don't do that though.

This is exactly right, and very well articulated.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo, fudging and judging are different things. But are they different things which can exist independently, that we can have one without the other, or is one an extension of the other? If they're things which exist independently, then people can say, "no, I never fudge," or "no, I never judge." If one's just an extension of the other, then if you do one you'll end up doing the other, too.

They exist independently.

If you Fudge at a sports competition, you won't suddenly end up Judging it.

If you're Judging a sports competition, you won't automatically end up Fudging the scores.

I think you're relying a lot on "Fudge" and "Judge" rhyming to try and equate them... :rolleyes:

As I said, a roleplaying game session ain't a sports competition. (There, I put it in bold since you keep ignoring it.) Unless you're a complete munchkin, roleplaying is not a competitive hobby. Sure, it's got competitive moments and aspects to it, but at its heart it's a social creative hobby, not a competitive one.

You've previously compared roleplaying to playing games in Vegas, Stuart. Is that what your game sessions are like? Competitions for tens of thousands of real dollars, with an independent referee required to avoid arguments and bloodshed? If so, I want in, I'd totally clean you fuckers out of all your cash!

Quote from: JimBobOzBecause 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.

These are wise words.
I'm going to have these words tattooed onto my chest.When my players bitch or whine when I do something they dont like I can rip my shirt open and say "Talk to the chest".
On the subject of fudging.I sometimes fudge to save a player who has made a bad roll when they have added to the game by good role playing or being heroic.I fudge when a good villain needs to be kept in circulation and the players 'love to hate' them.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf so, I want in, I'd totally clean you fuckers out of all your cash!

I doubt you'd follow the rules.

For me, it's pretty simple. If fudging a roll will make the game more enjoyable for everyone, I'll do so.  That's my ultimate goal as a GM...for the players to have a good time and look forward to the next game.  They realize that I occasionally do this, but have also said they can't tell when I do it (a secondary goal).

That said, I generally only fudge in the less important areas.  If someone is dueling their archenemy, I won't fudge it.  If something is happening as a direct consequence of their decisions, I won't fudge it.

I actually fudge less than I used to, because I roll less than I used to.  I've decided that generally, if a roll is unimportant enough to fudge, it's probably unimportant enough to make in the first place, and I replace it with description.  I also tend to use one of the rules of the CORPS RPG.  If I judge the difficulty of a task to fall within the range of competency for their skill level, I usually don't ask them to roll.  It cuts out a lot of mundane rolling and keeps the game moving.

Quote from: blakkieI had never really thought of "fudging" itself in a morality sense.

Yeah, personaly I think it is more of a gaming "values" issue. But, I'm sure an argument could be made that it is a moral issue - just that I'm not the one to make it.

Regards,
David R

Yeah, I see no morality issues in fudging. I think that's way over the top.

I don't even see it as an issue of fairness because fairness in roleplaying is a complete illusion (except perhaps for Agon and a few games).

For me, it's more about focus, efficiency and more intensity. The more I use the right system the right way, the more I can let that system do its job (no fudging), the more I can take care of the rest and the more each conflict (like rolls) becomes important and relevant.

Quote from: Consonant DudeYeah, I see no morality issues in fudging. I think that's way over the top.

I don't even see it as an issue of fairness because fairness in roleplaying is a complete illusion (except perhaps for Agon and a few games).

For me, it's more about focus, efficiency and more intensity. The more I use the right system the right way, the more I can let that system do its job (no fudging), the more I can take care of the rest and the more each conflict (like rolls) becomes important and relevant.

I can see how morals could become an issue, if the GM secretly fudged despite knowing the group had a preference not to, as the GM would effectively be breaking the social contract.

Otherwise though, it's a gm technique that some find useful and some find counterproductive, it's a utility issue rather than a moral one.

I like the way Dogs in the Vineyard handles the "decision" issue we're talking about here.

First it has the Say Yes etc. stuff.  If you're not interested in the conflict, move on.  I like that.

For the "When I fall, is the surface hard or soft?" question, I like the way the Raise/See/Take the Blow conflict resolution mechanic deals with that.

Like Doc Rotwang, I drive.  I'm also not interested in learning life-skills through roleplaying.  That's shit you put up with at a company retreat, not with your buddies and a bowl.

EDIT: Also RedFox I guess.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!But...what if your games aren't exercises in critical life-skills and analytical thinking but rather, umn, diversions?

It's a nice side benefit.   (although I think there is a misunderstanding, I'm not crediting "stakes" for my choice to be more decisive).  The core of why I like "stakes" is I like my diversions quick and snappy, yet I like the common understanding that following written rules give (and when I forget and stray from the path bad things seem to follow ). "Stakes" works that way for me (and doesn't for Balbinus *shrug*). Why? Because while still running inside the rules you usually avoid looking up this modifier and that instance rule and so on. But without the bumps from the disjoint of understanding of the world that tends to come from unilateral decision making and world interpretation (see JimBobOz's thread about the PCs Gone Wild beating up people and such). I agree, they agree, we roll, something happens.

QuoteAm I living wrong?

Maybe? (j/k)