In my previous post, “Rolling Dice in the Open,” I looked at not being able to “fudge” (alter the results of) die rolls as both an advantage and a disadvantage of rolling your dice in the open. That aspect of the post generated a lot of passionate comments, so I decided to spin it off into a post of its own.
As a GM, do you fudge any of your die rolls? Should you be fudging them? When you play, how do you feel about your GM fudging rolls? Do you alter rolls when running some RPGs, but not others? In short, fudging die rolls: good, bad or something in between?
I’m very interested in hearing what TT readers think about this topic, so I’m going to turn this one over to you. Whether you’re a regular reader or a first-time visitor, I invite you to share your perspective in the comments!
As one possible framework for discussing this topic, here are 5 things that I see as playing heavily into deciding whether or not to ignore the dice:
- What kind of game you’re running.
- What everyone is trying to get out of the game.
- How your players feel about fudging rolls.
- Why you need to fudge rolls.
- How often is too often?
You might also want to read the comments to my previous post, as the seeds of this discussion have been planted there — along with many interesting points I wouldn’t have thought of on my own!
Hi Martin,
I’d also like to add some questions as well:
– What is the value in hiding the fact that you’re fudging from the players? If fudging makes things more fun, why would you have to hide the fact that you’re doing it?
– What is the value of fudging over making up a quick house rule that solves the problem, now and forever?
Chris
(Chris) I’d also like to add some questions as well:
Both excellent questions, Chris!
For the first one, I suspect that’s a new idea for a lot of GMs — they’re used to keeping the bones in the soup secret from the players. Telling players when you fudge rolls sounds like no fun at all to me, though — because it has no terms attached to it.
Bringing in terms — as you did in your second question — sounds like an interesting thing to try, and if it was done well it would neatly address the whole issue.
I’m slowly being sold on the no fudge path. I do think that no matter what the game, if things are going down such that a player is not having fun, then something may need to be done, but that’s way different from the usual “hidden from the players” fudge.
I’m running D20 (Arcana Evolved). I enjoy tactical combat, so consequences are necessary.
In the past, some of my fudging would be because I gave the PCs too hard an encounter.
Hmm, my current campaign did have a fudge. I ran an encounter that should have been a moderate encounter for them. It came close to a TPK (the spryte would have been the only survivor). After considering if they could have won at all, I decided the encounter was a bad dream. The CR of the creature was just way out of whack with it’s abilities.
But that’s not really a fudge. That was the players and I saying WTF! This is so wrong!
In my college gaming, I came to really like a combat system that was pretty brutal, except it was pretty generous with the ability to heal “dead” PCs so long as you got to them quickly (to at least put them in stasis). So your friend got mangled? No problem as long as the PCs have enough control of the battlefield. This means that for the most part, the lucky takedown doesn’t result in permanent character loss (now today, I would have to consider how to deal with the fact that the PC in stasis til they get back to town isn’t very fun – I’d probably make it easier for the players to handle the necessary healing in the field).
So I guess in the end, I agree with Chris. Set up the rules so fudging die rolls isn’t necessary. Put caps on maximum damage etc. And when something totally goes wrong, talk about it and come up with a solution as a group (and consider making a permanent house rule).
Things like hero points are also helpful. They are basically player activated fudges with rules. Of course a player can run out of them, so they can’t charge with invincibility (but knowing they have a passle, they might just charge the German machine gun nest with a grenade – but something like that is going to create a great story unlike a GM fudge).
Frank
I’m at the point wherin I only fudge rolls if the encounter turned out to be higher than its listed CR. For instance, you quick scan an adventure in Dungeon and don’t realize that the jackalweres are listed as CR 4 with 4 levels of PC class each….
Unfortunately, a couple of players are starting to get unrealistic views of their character’s capabilities. So, as of our next game session, I’m informing the group that there are MANY encounters in the world that they should consider non-combat options for. It won’t have the complete effect of making them rethink strategy, though, because the adventure we’re in the middle of has none of said encounter.
I admit I fudge rolls fairly frequently. Mostly just to get dramatic effect or to fix something I did that would require a successful skill check in order to advance the story.
My players know I fudge and none of them complain. When I think it is good drama then I roll the dice in the open. I have a player who looks behind my screen now and again too, so that makes things interesting from time to time.
I am a first time reader, but I will be bookmarking this site when I am done.
As for the topic at hand, I have been a GM for about 20 years and have played everything under the sun. I do believe in fudging dice rolls when necessary.
There is no clear rule for when to do it. I do it by the feel of the story. I use it as sparingly as possible, but there are times when fudging the dice makes for better drama in a scene.
For instance in a game of X-Crawl the players are tearing through a room of Hobgoblins, with little concern. On one of the hobgoblin’s attacks he threatens a crit, on the confirm I miss, so I fudge it, because the scoring of a crit instantly raised the tension of the encounter (and never put the player in serious danger), but the players all picked up their heads and had that surprised look. They took the rest of the scene more seriously.
Fudging the dice can also be done, as it has been mentioned when the EL of an encounter is seriously out of whack and you don’t want a TPK because of a mistake you made in your design.
When it comes to fudging the dice, it is like a game of pinball, you have to know how to nudge the game but not tilt it. My players know that on occasion I fudge the dice, but I would never do it in front of them. I don’t want them to rely on my fudging as a way to save them. That is negative metagame thinking, that will ruin the game.
I don’t see fudging the dice as a big deal, largely because I spent about 4 years running Amber Diceless RPG, and a Diceless variant of White Wolf’s Vampire. In both of those cases all skill and combat resolutions are governed by how I, as the GM, wanted the story to come out.
When GM’ing diceless games, you strive to bring excitement and suspense to your game, but the responsiblity is all on you, there are no dice to blame when the bad guy seriously wounds one of the PC’s. You make that decision to wound them because you belive it will further your story and be entertaining. You develop a feel for what is going to be more exciting, what will make a better story.
So when I went back to diced games, I on occasion take liberties with the dice, when I know that the outcome will enhance the story, and increase players excitement.
As long as my players are having fun, and that they believe that I am running my game fairly, then the occasional fudging of the dice is just another tool in my toolbox.
This has been a terrific discussion so far! I’d like to open up another facet of it…
How many GMs allow *players* to fudge their die rolls? Such as setting a lower difficulty than the rules call for or letting the player “take 20” when they really shouldn’t.
Do you let your players know you’re doing it?
(tieflinggrrl) How many GMs allow *players* to fudge their die rolls? Such as setting a lower difficulty than the rules call for or letting the player “take 20” when they really shouldn’t.
I don’t see this as being any different than the GM fudging rolls; the GM knows that a roll must succeed or the campaign will fail due to a relatively niggly point, but, instead of the GM fudging the roll behind the screen, the result of the roll is fudged behind the screen.
Does the GM allow a player who’s been the victim of “cursed dice” to suddenly hit/spot/whatever regardless of the rolls? I don’t think that’d be wise. Does the GM say that the only way out of a no-win scenario is the making of this roll and failing it ends the campaign, so the roll is “guaranteed” to just barely make it and add all kinds of sexy flavour text as well as some small penalities (i.e., physical/psychological/weapon/prestige damage? I think that’d be the way to go. That way, if the player makes the roll, all is well; if the player fails the roll, however, at least the campaign isn’t done for and the player(s) don’t get away scot free.
(Tieflinggrrl) How many GMs allow *players* to fudge their die rolls?
You beat me to it, Amy! I thought that this was one of the most intriguing points in Scott’s post, where he brought up player cheating vs. GM fudging.
Look at the way that’s phrased (and I’m pretty sure that’s the way most gamers would phrase it): when the GM alters a roll, it’s fudging for the sake of the game; when a player does so, it’s cheating.
And the way most RPGs are played, I think that distinction makes a certain amount of sense — but it sure would be interesting to see one where everyone can play with results as part of the game! (And not just by way of “bridge” mechanics, like action/fate points — but in a way that’s built into the system from the ground up.)
(Frank) Things like hero points are also helpful. They are basically player activated fudges with rules. Of course a player can run out of them, so they can’t charge with invincibility (but knowing they have a passle, they might just charge the German machine gun nest with a grenade – but something like that is going to create a great story unlike a GM fudge).
This is why action points (and similar mechanics) are one of my favorite things in mainstream RPGs — especially when there’s a way that players can earn them for doing cool stuff. (That’s something I learned from Don’s last game, and have applied to my current Eberron game.)
(Shafeman) I’m at the point wherin I only fudge rolls if the encounter turned out to be higher than its listed CR.
That seems like a pretty reasonable dividing line, Shafeman (and welcome to TT!).
(anon) My players know I fudge and none of them complain.
Out of curiosity, have you asked them how they feel about it, or are you guessing? I ask because this came up several times in the comments to my post about rolling in the open.
(Phil) I am a first time reader, but I will be bookmarking this site when I am done.
That’s great, Phil! Welcome to Treasure Tables. 🙂
I don’t see fudging the dice as a big deal, largely because I spent about 4 years running Amber Diceless RPG, and a Diceless variant of White Wolf’s Vampire. In both of those cases all skill and combat resolutions are governed by how I, as the GM, wanted the story to come out.
I’d say that the main difference is that in Amber, that’s spelled out in the game — in D&D, for example, players expect to be able to influence their PCs’ fates pretty directly. Also, there’s a level of abstraction in Amber that makes things like combat work — you know Benedict is going to beat you in warfare, so you try and shift the playing field to emphasize one of your strengths. I don’t think D&D has a comparable level of abstraction.
(Scott) I was musing on death in D&D (hoping to make it less common but more meaningful), and came up with a system to patch the hole to fit my preferences.
I took a look at this system, Scott, and it’s pretty neat. I’m not sure what I think of it yet, but the ideas behind it are sound — thanks for pointing it out.
(Dave) I don’t see this as being any different than the GM fudging rolls; the GM knows that a roll must succeed or the campaign will fail due to a relatively niggly point, but, instead of the GM fudging the roll behind the screen, the result of the roll is fudged behind the screen.
If the fate of the campaign hangs in the balance of a single roll, I’d say that game has some problems — and fudging rolls isn’t really going to help! Your point about GM’s fudging player rolls is well taken, though.
In my experience, the few “no fudge” GMs/players I’ve gamed with are the type of people who also love Diablo Hardcore mode (or whatever its called). In essence, they felt “superior” because they didn’t fudge rolls. Remember the old lists of “Real Men” and “Real Roleplayers?” Like that, only less funny. =)
I think the system has a lot to do with fudging. Just in this thread alone, D&D has come up at least five time, if not more. I find myself fudging rolls in d20 more than any other system. There’s some reasons for this mechanically, but I won’t derail the discussion going into it.
Like most theory discussions…go with whatever floats your boat and makes the gaming experience fun.
Hi Dave,
…the GM knows that a roll must succeed or the campaign will fail due to a relatively niggly point…
My question- why roll the dice for such a thing? “Everyone makes Reflexes saves or gets crushed by the crumbling castle…”- whoa, why roll dice unless you really want the chance for people to get crushed?
In general, people don’t roll to see if their character dies of smallpox every year, or if they choke on a chickenbone or other random events. Why is that? Because it wouldn’t be fun. Why roll for other things that wouldn’t be fun?
Your second idea is more or less what I’m advocating- if you’re going to roll dice, roll to determine things you are willing to see- “We know you escape the castle, but how bad is it going to cost you? Will you get the princess out as well? Roll some dice!”
But if you look at that- you’re not fudging the dice at all- you’re being clear about what’s at stake and then using the dice to determine it.
Chris
Hi, Chris.
My question- why roll the dice for such a thing? “Everyone makes Reflexes saves or gets crushed by the crumbling castle…”- whoa, why roll dice unless you really want the chance for people to get crushed?
Well that’s not exactly a niggly point, now is it? I’m talking about situations where the only way to avoid a TPK is to run away and the only way to succeed at running away is for the player(s) to make a single roll. Now, even if the party got themselves into this situation because they ignored the abundant flavour text warning them that they’re not ready, a good GM isn’t going to let them wipe, but they’re certainly not going to get away with all of their gear/hides intact. Even if they should have been able to succeed (even just barely), the combination of GM and player rolls may not have been leading in that direction, so why let them wipe? Make them roll their checks to see how well they do at escaping and if one or more players don’t technically make their rolls, the GM fudges the result so that they escape with the rest of the party, but they suffer just that tiny bit more.
Sadistic? Sure, but not as much as saying, “Well, you got yourself into this mess and now you’re dead.”
My point is that a GM fudging rolls or fudging the results of player rolls to maintain some semblance of, if you will pardon the word, reality in games governed chiefly by chance.
Hi Dave,
I’m talking about situations where the only way to avoid a TPK is to run away and the only way to succeed at running away is for the player(s) to make a single roll.
How is this functionally different than the crumbling castle example? Your solution is identical to mine, EXCEPT that I’m suggesting laying it out on the table that everyone knows they’re going to escape, what they’re rolling for is to see how badly they are penalized in the process (if at all).
What I’m asking is, how is hiding the why we’re rolling dice actually more fun or helpful than telling people outright?
Chris
(Chris) How is this functionally different than the crumbling castle example? Your solution is identical to mine, EXCEPT that I’m suggesting laying it out on the table that everyone knows they’re going to escape, what they’re rolling for is to see how badly they are penalized in the process (if at all).
My guess would be that you’re coming at it from the indie perspective (games like PTA an Burning Wheel, where setting stakes is a normal part of play), while Dave is coming at the issue from the mainstream perspective (games like D&D, where most of the responsibility sits on the GM’s shoulders).
Both valid — and I do think you’re saying essentially the same thing, just in somewhat different ways.
“In my experience, the few “no fudge” GMs/players I’ve gamed with are the type of people who also love Diablo Hardcore mode (or whatever its called).”
Then your experience isn’t very wide in the no fudge area. 🙂
Seriously, I see this kind of comment every time the subject comes up. It’s usually made in a tone that suggests that the stated experience is conclusive. Care to elaborate?
As for me, I started with minimal fudge around 1981 and gradually added sprinkles. By 1987, the chocolate was dripping from my games, even though I was very skilled at hiding it. In the mid 90’s, I warned the players that we were going to zero fudge–then spent about a year weaning them.
The original reason for the switch was that my players got lazy. It didn’t matter what they did, it eventually worked. Some of my earlier players never showed this tendency, and thus the fudge had not really mattered that much one way or the other. Interestingly enough, all of them were veterans of other games with killer campaigns (me in an earlier mode or otherwise). So they didn’t abuse minimal fudging and always were looking for every roleplaying and strategic/tactical angle.
The new guys started with me and picked up the very wrong lessen from the fudging. It occurred to me that playing at any given level of fudge is both a skill and a habit–for both players and DM.
Practice has shown this to be true in both Hero System and d20 games. I ran a 3E campaign from 1st to 15th level, with nine players, zero fudge, and a total of four character deaths. One death was a bad move by a player. One was a heroic defense (that would have been cheapen by fudge). One was a desparate gamble by the wizard involving an enpowered fireball against a white dragon even though he caught the druid in the blast. The last was the only one I layed at my own feet, when the same druid got nailed by a lightning bolt out of a dark corridor. Oh, and two of the deaths, including the last one, occurred in an adventure where an NPC cleric gave the party two Raise Dead scrolls because he was “sending them on a suicide mission.” Finally, I’ll note that this campaign occurred with those same weaned players mentioned earlier.
So clearly some DMs with the desire to do so can develop the skills and habits necessary to run a fun, “responsible” zero fudge game. Having gone on very long, I’ll hit a few highlights:
1. Train the players gradually. Use weaker encounters, but let them know it will get rougher. A handful of deaths may be necessary to drive this point home, but it does not have to stay this way.
2. Don’t make rolls if you can’t “live with the result.” A corrollary is don’t use orcs with great axes to fight 1st level d20 characters. 🙂 Besides, you don’t need orcs with great axes. In zero fudge, goblins with spears are frightening enough. Either don’t use random creatures or cull your list carefully.
3. Never *make* the party fight a really tough encounter. If they need to run or find another way or even come back later, let them–if they are clever enough to do so. Meanwhile, your undefeated villain can cause indirect trouble that will make the party curse your name. The corrollary is make sure the party can *get* plenty of information. They need it to survive.
Note that I’m not suggesting that everyone *should* play this way. I am saying that one should not tag minimal or zero fudge as automatically some kind of non-roleplaying, party killing technique. (Running a zero fudge game with the exact same techniques as a moderate fudge game probably does resemble the stereotype.)
(Don) I think the system has a lot to do with fudging. Just in this thread alone, D&D has come up at least five time, if not more. I find myself fudging rolls in d20 more than any other system. There’s some reasons for this mechanically, but I won’t derail the discussion going into it.
I’m not sure that would be derailing the discussion — it was one of my original questions, and I think it’s worth exploring.
D&D comes up for two reasons, IMO: first, it’s the system nearly every gamer has played at some point; and second, single-die resolution (as opposed to pools, etc.) encourages a very random distribution, and the more random the distribution the more likely orc #67 is going to kill a PC with a lucky swat that adds nothing to the game.
Is that along the same lines as what you were thinking of?
(anon) (Running a zero fudge game with the exact same techniques as a moderate fudge game probably does resemble the stereotype.)
You made some good points, Mystery Poster #42, but would you mind clarifying this one a bit? I’m not sure what techniques you’re considering “standard” for a moderate-fudge game.
Mystery Poster #42 here. I’ll choose an ID later. Nice blog, BTW.
Blogger ate my first answer. 🙁
Instead of “moderate” fudge, how about these levels instead:
1. Zero fudge – absolutely no fudging die rolls by DM.
2. Minimal fudge – prefers not to fudge, but will occasionally for various practical reasons.
3. Embraced fudge – fudge is merely another tool in the DM toolkit.
I’m assuming that we all want a certain level of excitement in the game. How you get that excitement varies. I’m also assuming that we want a game where death is possible, but we haven’t gotten too extreme with a definition of “meaningful” death either way. An example:
An Embracer might ambush some 1st level D&D characters using orcs wielding greataxes–and everyone acts horrified. A Minimalist might put such orcs in a cave or other location where the players can get lucky with skill rolls and thus nullify a lot of the threat. A Zeroer will do what the Minimalist did–and then downgrade the weapons and add ways for a clever party to find info about the threat, even with bad rolls. At the very least, they’ll have the option to avoid the encouter altogether.
Note that any group can use clever play or benefit from luck or get appropriately dramatic. They all lead to about the same amount of excitement–albeit with some differences. The difference in kind is what the DM/Players must do versus what is merely useful.
If the Embracer DM uses a lot of relatively weak encounters, his game will probably be boring. If the Zeroer uses a lot of relatively strong encounters, his characters will be dead.
That’s just one example, but I’ll see how it answers the question before elaborating.
CJ
(CJ) That’s just one example, but I’ll see how it answers the question before elaborating.
Thanks for listing your name, CJ — that makes things a lot easier. 🙂 And your example cleared things up for me, thank you. I quite like your breakdown of zero/minimal/embraced fudge, although I think there might be a level in between “minimal” and “embraced.”
To me this is an issue of expectations.
There’s nothing wrong with fudging, or any other technique as long as everyone playing knows that the technique may be used, and agrees to it. If that’s the case, then everyone is playing the game they agreed to play.
If one person is fudging (player or GM) and no one knows they’re doing it, and didn’t agree to it, then that person is not playing the game that everyone else agreed to play. I call this “cheating.”
If, however, everyone agrees to play “D&D with some GM fudging” then it’s cool.
It’s not that fudging in itself is good, bad, necessary, or not. The issue is expectations and trust among all the players of the game. When I play a game with someone, I trust them to play the game we have agreed to. That’s the standard of right or wrong, to me.
All techniques are allowed if all players agree to their use.
(John) There’s nothing wrong with fudging, or any other technique as long as everyone playing knows that the technique may be used, and agrees to it. If that’s the case, then everyone is playing the game they agreed to play.
Interesting perspective, John! I don’t think this kind of dialogue — “Hey, I’m going to fudge rolls when it suits the game, is that OK?” — is common in most groups. I don’t have a lot to go on with that suspicion, but it’s certainly not something I’ve observed often.
Comment on the “single dice roll” situation: Lots of times the really tense scenes come down to a single roll. I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem with the campaign design (tho it could be). Sometimes it’s just that all the previous actions have failed to decisively resolve the situation.
I think of like an evenly matched soccer game. You play the full game and the score is tied. After overtime, the score is still tied, after a series of penalty kicks the score is still tied, and it comes down the last kick of the game. Was the game decided on a single kick? Yes, but only after all other options were exhausted.
For what it’s worth, I don’t fudge dice rolls. Monsters sometimes mysteriously lose 20 hps, or a spell might expire early, but the dice are out there in the open.
PS
(Storminator) Comment on the “single dice roll†situation: Lots of times the really tense scenes come down to a single roll. I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem with the campaign design (tho it could be). Sometimes it’s just that all the previous actions have failed to decisively resolve the situation.
In that case, I don’t think it would be a sympton of problems with the campaign. In the case where something major — like the survival of the whole party — hangs on one die roll, I’d say that’s a problem. It’s a good distinction to make, though (and welcome to TT!).
(Storminator) For what it’s worth, I don’t fudge dice rolls. Monsters sometimes mysteriously lose 20 hps, or a spell might expire early, but the dice are out there in the open.
I think this would be just as bad as fudging die rolls for folks bothered by such, in fact, in a way your fudging the players die rolls (for example, when the monster mysteriously loses HP, that’s equivalent to fudging the player’s damage roll to a higher amount). The fact that you roll the dice out in the open, but still fudge behind the screen is a form of dishonesty.
Giving more thought to it, I think it really worked out well in my current game when an encounter (with a Tendriculous from D&D, CR 6 with a 6th level party) was too tough, and instead of fudging, I let the PCs pretty much lose, then we discussed it openly, and I told them it was a bad dream. That way the PCs accomplishments in other battles weren’t diminished (for example, they really complained later about one encounter with two Chuuls (CR 7, party was 7th level I think), but I had run Chuuls several times in the past and felt that their CR was correct. The PCs had a very difficult time, but prevailed in the end).
Frank
(Frank) The fact that you roll the dice out in the open, but still fudge behind the screen is a form of dishonesty.
I’ve never heard this argument before, either in the specific sense (fudging one way but not the other = dishonesty) or the more general sense (fudging at all = dishonesty). It seems like many players expect that the GM is fudging/nudging/altering things behind the screen to keep the game fun.
(Martin) I’ve never heard this argument before
I guess as long as the players know what’s up, there may not be dishonesty, but somehow I still read some dishonesty there. Rolls are being made in the open which implies transparency, and true, the rolls themselves aren’t being fudged, but still the fudging in the background is making those rolls not transparent (and in fact is making the players rolls non-transparent if the fudge is to trim a few HP here and there from the monsters).
I guess my point is that everyone may agree that the fudging is a good idea, but the lack of transparency makes it seem somehow dishonest to me. And I have to say this is quite a shift in thinking for me, I used to be quite a fudger.
Perhaps it was thinking about the situation I described above where the entire encounter was semi-transparent (I don’t yet roll openly), but instead of my fudging behind the scene, as a group we discussed how that encounter just plain wasn’t fun because the creature’s CR appeared to be way too low (I’ll grant the possibility that an iconic D&D party might have done better than our AE party – though I have my doubts, the AE party had more easily available flight than the iconic party would [where the 6th level spellcaster might have fly prepared, more likely not – whereas we had a Spryte and a Dracha, both able to fly] – on the other hand, the iconic rogue would have been severely cramped by losing sneak attack, which our AE party did not have). So instead of my unilateral decision that the encounter wasn’t fun, and instead of fudging it so the PCs won instead of all but the spryte becoming compost, we just agreed it was a bad dream.
Frank
As I first asked, where is the “extra†fun in hiding it from the players?
When I used to fudge, I perceived the “extra” fun in not letting the characters die, and it seemed like I wass cheating, so hiding it seemed to be the best way. The whole bit is rooted in the drive to illusionism. And of course fudging is an illusionist technique.
If you don’t want X to happen, then don’t define the stakes with X as one of the outcomes.
That’s certainly a good attitude to take, however, it’s not really compatible with something like D&D combat where the players don’t define the stakes. Where it is applicable is that the GM should not say “You can do that if you roll a 20.” if he isn’t willing to let it happen on a 20.
Frank
I think the “extra fun in hiding it from the players” is perceived to come from two different things (though probably only one of the two for any given group):
1. Immersion – even if everyone knows that the DM is going to gleefully fudge as he thinks merited, the players don’t want to be reminded of it while the action is hot. That is certainly a part of the illusionist techinique, as Frank said. However, I think it also overlaps with general immersion in the moment–the same way you don’t really want to have a 10 minute rules discussion while fighting the climatic battle.
2. Rules Complexity/Balance/Elegance versus Desired Results – if a simple, elegant rule covers 95%+ of the situations with results you find pleasing, then it might not be seen as “fun” to fix the rules. Sometimes, simple house rules grow into gross parodies of the original, “flawed” rule. Naturally, it is “more fun” to fudge the bad outcomes than deal with the gross parody. Since not all gamers enjoy precise rules surgery to come up with a good house rule, some will find the occasional fudge a reasonable alterative. This is only indirectly “extra fun”, as compared to the perceived alternative, but substantial nonetheless.
Per my three categories of fudge above, I’d say that the Embracer probably cares more about the Immersion effects from fudge, and the Minimalist cares more about rules proliferation. (Talk about a generalization, though!) The Embracer thus sees fudge as a tool. Who doesn’t want more immersion? The Minimalist thus sees fudge as a “necessary evil”, since if he had a good house rule, he would use that instead. Given that perfection is never achieved in any human activity, they both have a claim.
Martin wondered if there might be two categories within what I called the Fudge Embracer. I am not sure. I guess I see the three categories as embodying two different decisions:
1. DM sees fudge as a negative, and thus seeks to use it as little as possible, versus the DM sees it as neutral as a hammer driving a nail. The Minimalist and the Zeroist are on the first side, with the Embracer seeing the Zeroist as only a more extreme version of the Minimalist.
2. DM would rather fudge than tinker with the rules, versus the opposite. Clearly, the Zeroist is driven by something to tinker with the rules while the other two are reconciled to the alternative.
If the Embracer is more properly split into two categories, it probably relates to the immersion factor above. On the far side of Embracer, you might have a group that has gone beyond seeing fudge as a mere neutral tool. The fudge itself is viewed as a positive–above and beyond whatever positive results it contributes as a tool. I suspect that such a DM is the type that will gleefully “fudge out” perfectly good rules (that he keeps on other occasions), as he sees fits. I’m at a loss for a good descriptive name for such a DM.
Note that all of this discussion is highly dependent on the players. For example, my players are not power gamers or rules mechanics (not even in the good sense). They are generally good at separating character/player knowledge. However, if they have a characteristic flaw as a group, it is that they will attempt to “game the DM” instead of react to the situation. Because of this, Zero Fudge is actually far more immersive than anything else! The more I fudged, the more they tried to “game” me. Once I removed the incentive to game me, they quit trying. Since I happen to enjoy tinkering with rules to get them exactly the way I want, that’s a win/win for our group.
CJ
(Chris) Aside from that, there’s a a great thread on the Forge about Dogs in the Vineyard on a related topic, where Ron points out:
That is a great thread, and quite relevant to the discussion here — thanks for pointing it out!
(Frank) That’s certainly a good attitude to take, however, it’s not really compatible with something like D&D combat where the players don’t define the stakes.
I agree. That’s one of the main reasons why I think discussing something like fudging rolls is relevant for a lot of gamers — because most games aren’t set up the that DitV (for example) is set up.
Jerome, it sounds like you have a pretty good handle on what makes your group tick, and how to keep things fun for everyone.
(Jerome) Immersion – even if everyone knows that the DM is going to gleefully fudge as he thinks merited, the players don’t want to be reminded of it while the action is hot.
I hadn’t looked at it that way, but I think you’re right: even if the immersion isn’t really illusionism, but something more general — immersion in the moment, in the heat of the game — who wants to be taken out of that moment?
So- since most games -don’t- let the group (or at least the GM) really define the potential outcomes- it seems interesting to me that the common answer is to ignore the dice in order to limit the potential outcomes as a sort of hack job to provide that input.
To make following the rules palatable- we have to break the rules…
Chris, not sure if that was directed at my post, but remember I’m pretty much a zeroist fudge DM (barring introducing new players and other such niche cases). In fact, I’m far more zeroist than even my definition suggests. I don’t adjust hit points on the fly or give mulligans. I don’t alter the prepared adventure *at all* to the make the characters have an easier (or harder) time, regardless of how smart they have played or how lucky they have been. (I do alter an adventure at the “macro” level during play if it is clear that the players aren’t having fun–e.g. because this section of the adventure turns out to be boring.)
OTOH, I have put a great deal of work into rules (and skills and habits) that make this work without turning my game into a character killing machine. And I happen (for several reasons) to dislike games where any particular PC is required for the plot to advance. (So my campaigns are not destroyed, for example, if the PC heir to the throne is killed.)
But specifically as to breaking the rules to make them palatable, I don’t think it is quite that extreme where most fudging DMs are concerned. It is more of a cost/benefit analysis, 80/20 rule kind of thing. Consider the generally reviled (if unfairly) “wandering monster table”, for example:
You download a decent little free adventure that includes a “Dark Wood” where every hour it says you roll d20. 1-4 are various and diverse encounters. 5+ is no encounter. For most people, this will not stand. They think, perhaps, that a streak of 3’s should not lead to several owlbear encounters in a row. Or it is pretty cheesy to reuse the same “bandit lair” more than once.
There are many such objections. All can be anticipated and tweaked. You can even pick all the encounters ahead of time. Or you can just roll, only stepping in if the rolls start to make no sense. This highlights a distinction between fudge and what I call “helping the DM decide” rolls. On the surface, the DM squashing three consecutive owlbears encounters looks like fudge. If he is nullifying the result to save the party, then it is. If he is nullifying the result as a simple way to correct deficiencies, it was an implicit, “I’m gonna roll, but modify the description of encounter #3 to say that it can only occur once per day.” Some DM’s only figure this out after they roll. 😀
With rolls on the table, in combat, you don’t have this option–which I guess is the related point of Martin’s other topic. If someone is in the habit of rolling before they consider whether all possible results can stand, they don’t have much choice in combat but to fudge (or live with results they do not want).
Chris –
I think there are other ways to provide the input. Things like hero points that allow players to overturn certain results in a mechanical way provide one alternative to fudging or stakes negotiation.
CJ points out also that in many RPGs there are two types of rolls. The first is resolution rolls (combat for example), the other is GM direction rolls (encounter tables for example). Changing or ignoring the results of a directional roll is perceived very differently than ignoring the results of a resolution roll. Many times on a direction roll, the GM will set the stakes ahead of time. If the GM isn’t sure if he wants the next encounter to be a dragon or a troll, he’ll make up some distribution in his head and roll. Now after rolling “troll”, he might decide the encounter was a “dragon” afterall. What happened here? Is this “changing the rules? No, what happened is that the GM really wanted to have a dragon, but for some reason wasn’t quite confident in his decision. So he rolled some dice, and then when they didn’t come up the way he wanted, he realized that he really did want that. Have you ever seen someone do just the same in a restaurant – flip a coin, and then decide on the other entree?
Frank
Hi Guys,
I was responding to Martin’s post, when he commented that DitV’s way of setting up stakes isn’t the same as D&D’s set up of stakes.
And yeah, I understand -why- people do it. I still disagree with it because it fundamentally is turning a blind eye to a consistant problem instead of fixing it. Which is why right now, the general expectation for play is “It depends on who you play with” because the real fun in a game depends on how well someone can selectively ignore the rules to get the game you really want.
Chris
Aha! Having now read a lot of the recent posts on your site, Chris, I think I understand your point better.
I agree with you, with a couple of caveats.
1. Priorities – some people would say they have “fixed the problem”, in that without the fudge they don’t enjoy their game but with the fudge they now do. Granted, that only works as an answer by ignoring your point, but if they always game with the same group and they always have fun, they don’t care about your point. 🙂 Such people will answer you that they have better things to do with their time (e.g. work on the setting).
2. Consistency – some people will say that if the problems causing the need for fudge were consistent, then they would fix it. But the problems are erratic (from their viewpoint).
If a guy gets up every morning and moves to the couch because the sun comes through his broken blinds, you’d ask him why he did not fix them. If a guy hangs a towel over one corner of the blinds three days a year when he sleeps late, he may think you crazy for asking the question.
CJ
Hi CJ,
True. Though, the commonality of the problem shows up with just the anecdotal examples in this and the other fudging discussion right here- notice the massive outcry against “bad GMing” without fudging- that’s a big sign that most people are not dealing with broken blinds, as much as a hole in the side of their house 🙂
Chris