As a GM / DM / ST  I never find myself wanting to fudge a roll before I make it.....

Only when I roll like a roll that just comes out of now where and it says everyone dies for little to no reason.

Can we get an option to fudge a roll after it's made?

In reply to Azraile (msg # 1):

Delete it and recreate the roll save now you fudge it.

oh i thought they could see the deleted message

It's a "secret roll" entry, only GMs can see it.

Thanks for the info! I also thought you can only fudge before the roll.

(To clarify, it helps me decide not to join any other games on RPOL as a player, but that's really useful!)

Why would this make you not join games?

The same thing happens in real games too, and this is an important GM tool, but it becomes rather pointless if everyone knows when the GM is doing it.

It is before (or in a way; during) the roll.  GMs cannot edit rolls.

Speaking from experience roll fudging can be very important to keep the game running smoothly. What if the big bad gets a few 1's in a row? Would you like to finish off an important boss by sheer dumb luck? Or on the flip side the gm could fudge important rolls made for the players in order to stop a tpk.

Does it really matter why it makes me decide one way or another? I just said thanks for an information that's important to me.

---

Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
(If you insist, because the GM fudging rolls lowers my fun to the negative levels).

---

Yes, but deleting the roll and re-making it with the fudging option would be as good as fudging after the roll, right? It could be spotted before the edit, but PbP is all about asynchroneous playing.


Let's just say my experience is the exact opposite, but this isn't the right sub-forum for such a discussion AFAICT.

I wonder how many GMs actually fudge rolls (or don't). I never have used the mechanism.

I have to say, I've never fudged a roll on here, but I also don't generally play games that require a lot rolling, so it could just be a matter of dice-rolling volume. In my tabletop games, I tend to be very obvious about fudging, so I don't think it's pointless if everyone knows I'm doing it. I tend to only fudge in favor of not killing the players, and then only for newbies. Our core group has kids that we've introduced to roleplaying games so when they have a good idea and then roll terribly, we usually as a group decide to fudge it a little. I'd also fudge if a character KO/death would be terribly embarrassing, like say, a barbarian or fighter in D&D being killed by a kobold (and not a beefed up kobold).

In those cases, there's rarely any complaints about the fudging and that's probably the sort of thing that those of you who are pro-fudging are used to. But, I imagine that there are GMs out there who fudge for different reasons and some of those reasons might ruin the fun for certain players. Or, there may be players who are strictly anti-fudging on principle. There is a purpose for rolling dice and that purpose is somewhat invalidated by any fudging. The dice are supposed to keep everyone honest. Fudging is basically the opposite of that, even for the right reasons.

And I apologize for all that somewhat off-topic stuff. I'm going to go play with a dice roller now and delete a bunch of rolls just because I know I can.

The GM can't cheat. They run the game, what they say goes, thus cheating not possible.

However, I fudge things to keep my players balanced with each other, my super optimizer player doesn't leave everyone else feeling useless, but you can't tell players you are favoring one over another because they get angry about unequal treatment, it doesn't matter to them that they are being unequal themselves, because they don't believe themselves to be unequal or unfair.

Besides, balancing the players is part of the job, but in general if the players don't feel a risk of failure, most won't be satisfied (though many won't really know why)

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was moot, at 08:32, Fri 06 June 2014.

You are correct that as a player you wouldn't be aware, but other GMs will be able to see the "GM_whoever removed 1 roll(s) from the log" entries.

So if it's some kind of arena game or something where GMs look after different teams then the cleared rolls are audited and other GMs will be aware.

If it's just you as a player worrying about the GM then I wonder if the absence of this one feature would put your mind at ease, there's just so many ways for a GM to manipulate things to how they want them to go (and that's before they even touch a die).  If a GM is willing to go to the effort of clearing a roll and doing it again then I can't imagine there isn't much they wouldn't do!  It'd be a shame if you let this one thing overshadow the dozens of fantastic features we've got here, because I think this issue stems from the GMs you have (had), not the site!

First, apologies for mentioning the rules. I'm kinda new here and am used to forums where such calls are within the rules.
And since an admin is asking me, specifically, I figure I can answer:).
So, I'll try to answer you with maximum details. Being sick might also have something to do with that decision, so prepare for the wall of text!


So, am I supposed to ask the GM to make me a co-GM? Doesn't sound like a good idea.


No. A GM can suck without fudging rolls.
But the presence of the feature means that I prefer being a/the GM, unless I'm treating the game as a freeform one to begin with;).
(I don't often join freeform games these days, but I do treat some games as freeform. These are mostly homebrew systems).


Yes, there are. I agreed with it above. It is just more likely to be obvious if fudging isn't an option - or rather, it will become obvious faster. There's no way you could keep a long-term game without it becoming obvious of someone is paying attention. Some people don't care and wouldn't pay a token of attention, and if they notice, they still don't care.
And more power to them, but I don't like that. There is a reason why not all games are equally attractive to all players, right? Similarly, some GMs and some players just don't mesh...not even "well", but don't mesh at all.
Case in point, a GM that's hell-bent on manipulating the game and me; Me as a GM and a player that wants to be lead through a story-line with big shining arrows "Plot Is There" appearing on crossroads.
(Yes, I'm speaking metaphorically, and using over the top ways of communicating my meaning. Hope you'll forgive the sick guy who isn't even writing in his own language).


Well, here's where I say "huh"? I didn't say that at all!
Quite the contrary, I've been considering moving one of the games I'm running to RPoL because of all the features. They are indeed nice!
(Though probably not - the emerging storyline is near its completion, and I think the group wouldn't like registering).


There's no issue, as far as I'm concerned. This thread is just informing me about the best way to use RPoL for my gaming habits. It's not the hammer I thought it is, but I have my use for a wrench, too.
That is why I said "thank you" to the previous post - it was useful to me.
Of course the site isn't responsible for the habit of some GMs (even GMs that are otherwise good ones/mesh well with my style) to fudge rolls. And I'm actually glad they can do that if it helps their games!
And we know in advance I'm not going to do it in the game I run (currently only one). It's that simple.

However, about the implication on the GMs I've had... Please don't, that's funny (other people have tried the same argument in a similar discussion, and it still means "what is wrong with you, did you get burned or what?").
No, I haven't got "lasting damage" from such GMs, and can enjoy such a game just fine - for a limited period of time. I just don't see the point in doing so, or at least not often.
If anyone has got lasting scars between me and the GMs I didn't like, I'm pretty sure it's them. Why, I managed to reform one of those that tried the whole control-the-story-fudge-if-necessary and turn him to my style of GMing...by being a player:D! (I don't have the time for this these days - it was several years ago).
Basically, I've got a term for what I do do to GMs that fudge dice or otherwise try to control the fiction when I decide that just playing a session and not showing for more isn't the best choice. The term is "torpedoing the GM's game" or more politely, "wrenching the game from the GM's hands and giving it back to everybody". I prefer the first term, though, for descriptiveness.
As you said yourself, there's so much you can do before any dice touch the table. And this goes both ways.

So, why am I against fudging? There is more than one reason, actually.

1) Let's start with the deprotagonization issue. To this end, I'm going to semi-quote Ron Edwards.
"There is inherent contradiction between the idea that people can play the main characters when it's someone else deciding what happens to them". (Quoting "Sorcerer" from memory, here - the reason I remember is is that I laughed a lot after reading it. It is so true it was funny).

2) The second reason was mentioned in the thread. "There is a purpose for rolling dice and that purpose is somewhat invalidated by any fudging. The dice are supposed to keep everyone honest. Fudging is basically the opposite of that, even for the right reasons."
Yes - if I want to go diceless, I'll run freefrom, or pick a diceless system. If I'm using dice and rules in combination, fudging wouldn't be on the table. (In most narrative systems, that includes following the rule rule that if you can't think of an interesting result for both succeeding and failing, there isn't a roll - which prevents the need for fudging in the first place).
But otherwise, what's the point of the latest 300-pages rulebook? If optimisation is going to be equaled down to the average/lowest common denominator with fudging, as stated in the thread (never seen that one, myself, just using it as an example), what is the point in creating a character in a detailed system? We could as well be using Over the Edge, or Vivid 4.0 and just writing "Noble+3, Swordsman+4, Guts 4, Big Nose 3, Quick Reflexes 4, Street Poet 4: Following my lady's wishes, Punishing people for offending my nose, Being righteous" on my character sheet? And I mean that this is my whole character sheet in the scare quotes, and everything I need in order to play the bloody Cyrano De Bergerac? (Mind you, I like simple systems for more than one reason. I also like much more complicated systems, just for different reasons. What I don't like is using a complicated system that allows for optimisation, when there's no point in doing so. We could save an hour or so from character generation, and likely dozens of hours solitary reading, and actually use them for something worthwhile - like playing the game, or going to the movies, if that's an offline group).

3) My third objection is based on the quality of the fiction the game generates. I find almost invariably that the fiction is improved by not fudging. It's what Apocalypse World calls "keeping the fiction raw". In this game, you don't hammer the fiction in a pre-conceived shape. Sure, you could try - but do you really think you can by yourself beat the fiction resulting from the common efforts of everybody at the table, and the game's designer? And you lose the spontaneity of rolling with surprising results. If the fiction is better without the dice, why are we rolling them, at all? We can just replace them with random tables if they're just for unimportant parts of the game*, and decide the important parts ourselves! We could do that before playing MtG or a boardgame, if we get bored with storytelling.
And yet most games that have more rules for combat than for non-combat activities tell you that the combat chapter is important because those rules determine whether the character is going to live...
On top of thst,snd this ties with the first point, if you're sure that your single-person efforts in creating fiction beat the efforts of everybody at the table, including yourself why are those people at the table? Because you're still one of those people, it means that consciously or subconsciously, you consider the net contribution of everybody else to be less than zero*.
If I believed that, I'd be searching a new group, not wasting these people's time while acting as the vastly superior storyteller.
And BTW, if you agreed with some people to have the system mediating between theirs and your contributions to a story, not using those rules is called cheating. It can be fine if everyone is on board with that (like people that are used to that one player in a card game that always tries to sneak a peek at other people's hands), but if you know that anyone objects and are still doing it? Then it is cheating, yeah, sorry to break it for you.

*(For those that don't follow - if X>X+Y, then=> Y<0,
where
X-your contribution, and
Y=contribution of everyone else or the contribution of the system you're using).
OTOH, I can use a system's unexpected results to drive the story in unexpected directions. In fact, these are often the best stories.
The enemy is rolling a string of 1s.
The PCs either care for a movie-style fight, or they don't. If they do, they can stop back and say something like this.
"Today isn't your day, Inigo, old enemy?"
"Seems so."
"Well, let's take a breather."
Bingo, you have a Worthy Enemy...which wasn't in your storyline, was it? Have you thought of it?
And this wouldn't necessarily screw the players. If you're playing a genre where this is appropriate, like swashbuckling, you probably have some kind of resource to reward them with.
OTOH, maybe the players just want the guy dead. Well, the PCs are the protagonists, right? So when the dice are giving them a lucky break, it's not my job as GM to take it away (nor to spare them if the dice are screwing them, but let's run with the example from the thread).
So, they kill a major enemy, and remain unbloodied, giving the enemy no mercy, no space to breath, and no chance.
Great! Badass! What do you think the NPCs around thought?
And how can this impact them both positively and negatively?
Knowing the answers to this is my job as a GM. For basically everything else, I can refer to a system.

So yeah, I'm against fudging as a matter of principle. I usually try not to explain why, but since you asked...
Well, here's why:D!

In reply to AsenRG (msg # 15):

Talking of inherent contradictions, I sure wish in real life I knew what percentage I had to complete every action I ever attempted, and that I had someone willing to fudge the rolls in my favor every now and again.

The entire idea of roleplaying is a fantasy -- a cooperative collaboration of creative effort -- and the dice just give the illusion of reality and control, when in fact all they do is add a different type of metagaming.  They are probably the best a "game" can do to generating statistical continuity to satisfy our hunger for suspension of disbelief, but that's what it is:  a game.  And in a PBP, the social element of sitting around the table hoping for a number (like gamblers around a craps table) is missing, and with it the "fun" element of not fudging rolls also dissipates.

In real life, my rolls get fudged all the time, and usually not for the better. :)


So back to the point, I typically just use Secret Rolls or unmodified rolls as GM because rarely do my players know all of the modifiers or effective rules like I do, in particular in my own structured universe that they chose to play in.  Adding a Fudge Rolls feature just adds another unnecessary layer of illusion and metagaming that can easily be overcome through other methods if that is the preferred style of play, but we shouldn't kid ourselves:  rolling dice and knowing the outcome and statistics ahead of time is itself a type of metagaming.

So it looks like I'll be adding "Do you have a problem with fudging rolls" to the list of questions I ask players to avoid unwanted entries to my games.

You don't know roughly how far you can jump, how fast you run, or similar activities you have presumably done before? I find that hard to believe, but so be it. Maybe it's a contradiction to you, but you aren't everybody.
It's not a contradiction to me, and it would be even less of a contradiction to a PC. Most GMs, myself included, don't manage to convey as much information as the human senses do convey to the brain every second.
Apart from notice rolls, I hide no modifiers, and find that it only reduces the contradictions.

I have a term for that too.  Unfortunately the rules of the site prohibit its use in public forums.

So, as a player in a game, and not privy to the GMs private notes, plans, etc... what makes you think you have the right to decide for everybody that you should disrupt the flow of the game (simply because it doesn't suit your preferences)?  The other players might be perfectly happy with the situation.  I also not that your reasons for doing this have expanded from fudging the dice, to include pretty much anything else you decide you don't like - "otherwise try to control the fiction".  Sorry but "control the fiction" is another way of saying, "run the game", IMO.

Also I should point out that, "wrenching the game from the GM's hands and giving it back to everybody" isn't really an option here, where the GM has total control of every aspect of their game - including removing and/or editing your posts, and deciding whether or not you can even communicate with the other players, or just booting you without further discussion.  Basically, you can't do anything unless the GM agrees to it.
This message was last edited by the user at 17:57, Fri 06 June 2014.

In reply to AsenRG (msg # 18):

Those are not things for which you roll dice in an RPG; those are part of your character's traits.  That's a totally different thing. ;)

The rolls are, for example, how far you can jump when the floor under you is made of pebbles, you are being shot at, and your pants are on fire.  That's where dice, uncertainty, and modifiers come in.  In real life, we simply don't know the statistics for every uncertainty and can't base decisions on such statistics, but instead on our gut feeling, courage, and a very vague understanding of possibilities based on our knowledge of our traits.  It's a much less scientific approach than in the games, and certainly open to fudging from all directions.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 19):

That's a very good point.  By way of example, I had a player do this to me, and I found it amusing--and even enjoyed being held accountable to every rule and roll, as it was a learning experience for me.  But my players threatened to leave because THEY did not like it.  So the disruptive player had to go, even though I, as GM, didn't mind so much.  In the end, a game is a community effort with the hard calls being made by the GM.

The best thing to do if there is lack of trust or enjoyment is simply to find another game.

Steelsmiter, that would be a smart move.


See this last line? It tells me you're not thinking about the same thing I mean. Because what I tend to do pretty much requires you to get the other players on board:).
So I'm not doing this in spite of the other players. I'm doing this with the other players*. Sorry if your experiences with those other players prevented the efficient communication here and hope you understand my point better now, despite the language (which I warned you is over the top in my previous post).

*And that only when a single player forgets that he or she is just one of the players. In fact, that usually doesn't happen even then, as I tend to leave instead - or I simply do not join the game in the first place.


Did you skip most of my previous post, after reading one po? See the first point, conveniently numbered with 1, then the third one.
Yeah, "control the fiction (single-handedly)" is pretty similar for me as well. Except to me it translates as "ruining the game".


Thanks, but I knew that already. And I didn't actually need other reasons on top of the fudging options in ordrt to avoid joining games as a player;).



In reply to Heath (msg # 20):

"Those are not things for which you roll dice in an RPG; those are part of your character's traits.  That's a totally different thing. ;)"
And in order to do them, you roll dice against your traits. Whether the floor is made of pebbles is largely secondary - you can still estimate your odds. Actually, most people have a harder time to actually estimate their odds given an exact percentage, IME.

In reply to Heath (msg # 21):
Again, if only the GM is making the hard calls, what are the players for? The easy calls:D?
But yeah, I pretty much agree that players and GMs should be on the same wavelength. Which probably means you agree with my solution, as stated in the thread.

People have been scientifically proven to be terrible at estimating odds, but that's a whole different topic. grin

I don't know -- it seems clear to me that just because a thing is vaguely possible doesn't mean it's happening all the time, or, indeed, ever.  (Note the people early in the thread who started out with, "Hey, I didn't even know that was possible!"  You can bet they haven't been doing it, and tons of GMs who don't follow RPoL Dev still don't know!  I know I wouldn't, even knowing I can.  My overall feeling about the situations where people say they would fudge the roll like that is, "So... why'd you set up a situation where one bad roll would wipe out the whole party?"  If I, as the GM, am going to be so unhappy with a possible outcome of the dice as to want to actually re-roll them, then that outcome shouldn't even be on the list.)

AsenRG, I'd say that given the culture on RPoL, it's totally fair for you to say, in an RtJ, "By the way, I have very, very strong feelings against GMs fudging dice.  If you ever do that, I'd really prefer to just not be in this game at all, thanks!" -- and you could really expect that to be respected.  It might be hard for some GMs to come back with, "Well, yeah, I've done that once or twice, so while your character idea is awesome, I guess that's a no", but I believe almost all would seriously decide either to do that, or to accept that your submission looks awesome enough to be worth banning themselves from fudging for a game.  I think people are trying to talk you out of it 'cause we know there are awesome people and awesome games here and you seem nice, so we don't want you to miss out over something that really isn't, like, epidemic. grin

But with that said -- guys, his viewpoint is totally valid.  If he just can't get that option out of his head enough to believe in any game he's going to be in here, and it's going to drive him crazy, he totally shouldn't join anyone else's games here.  And that's OK.  He'll be one of... um, 7,238,269,180 people who definitely aren't playing in any games here.  (Per http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ , less RPoL's home statistic of 85,450 users.  Um, that number has, of course, changed in the time it took me to write this, but I can't help that.)

The thing I want to get across, is that fudging the dice rolls is not the same as railroading players, or not always.

I do not ever fudge rolls to get, or prevent, story developments.

I do so exclusively to balance players against each other.

For example, in one game I had a new player, a couple casual players, an imaginative player, and two rules lawyering optimizer players.

If I just let the dice fly, three of my players would have been useless and would have felt like.

So I fudged rolls in favor of the three weak players to keep them from being overshadowed by the others.

------
Any GM that would let players be useless because other players have better system mastery and an optimist streak, is not a GM I want to play with.

Theoretically, a GM could use other tactics, but the only ones I ever saw either had the GM being overly controlling, or had a GM basically tell players to leave because they can't use the rules properly. Neither option is acceptable to me.

Out of interest (for those who like such things) I did an analysis of our current dice roller log files (which took several hours, so if you do like such things don't expect it again any time soon) and the results came out as:

True. I just maintain they're a whole level better at estimating odds when they have sensory feedback than when they've got an abstract number. (Our brains have developped to work with sensory feedback, and especially for physical tasks, before we had language, much less numbers).
But as you say, this is a different thing from the topic.



Yeah, but from people in the thread, it's you, me, and Gaffer:). But yeah, I share your feelings on that. If a TPK isn't fine in your book*, don't put it on the table. Yes, it's that simple.


*A TPK is fine in my book. I make that clear to the players, as well as the fact that if it ever happens, I'd give them characters to play 20 years after their enemies won. This might be an "overthrow Sauron" scenario, for example, if I was into running Middle Earth.


Yes, I can do that. I'm kinda new to the board and it seemed that this is totally counter to the board culture, though.
I've done it once or twice IRL, too, and it worked just fine (especially given that I was "don't fudge when it concerns my character" and didn't presume what the other players want or don't want). Not joining games is simply easier, not the only option.


Heh, I think you believe fudging has way more influence on me than any game possibly could. No, it just would make me value the game less. (And sometimes I join games where I know the GM might be fudging or not... but explaining the conditions for such an exception would be longer than the explanation why I dislike fudging. And I refer to it as "my monster post", so I'm not inclined to post an even longer one).
Keep in mind, that still makes me one of those 85450 out of 7238269180 people (also using your numbers;)) that might be running games here. I find the site has more tools at my disposal than most others (skipping the names because they're irrelevant).


Yes, it's not always. I'm free to dislike the practice on its own merits whether it involves railroading/illusionism or not, right?



Then why did you pick a system that even allows system mastery to matter? Seriously, I answered your point in the monsterpost. You're under number 2.
(The simple solution to your situation is to make the opmizers scrutinize everybody's character sheets, BTW).


I really, really want to know why the optimist streak even matters here. Are pessmists less likely to optimise?
But I agree, PCs being unequal is a big NO to me as well. Except I tell this "no" to the system. It's why I wouldn't run Exalted before at least houseruling the chargen to the hell and back (or even more likely, switching it for a sane system, that doesn't allow some characters to start with 100 XP and faster progression over others, just because both were building to concept!)


"You're on the same side, and we're friends. You two are best with the rules, though. Help the rest make their concepts as powerful as possible for starting PCs, please, will you? If there's an unusual challenge, like someone wanting to start lower-trained and progress fast, I can help you by giving you permission to use the equivalent of the WotG/LotW Loresheet that allows that. Or something similar, just ask for help if the concept doesn't mesh well with optimising".
Doesn't seem controlling to me. Your players are on the same side, aren't they? My players sure are.
Most optimizers just enjoy crunching the numbers, and all optimizers I know would jump at the opportunity to do it for more than one character. The ones that wouldn't help everyone else are also the ones prone to abusing the rules in order to get ahead, IME.
But of course, if you've got such players, you've got bigger issues than unequal rules mastery, and an OOC talk is probably in order. It might also be the time to switch to a system that reduces the benefits to optimising or makes it obvious how to optimise before the game, I'd think. Regardless of the result of that talk, which you still need to have!

Heh, Jase, thank you for the info...but it doesn't tell us much about how popular fudging is among GMs on RPoL. Secret rolls are the ones the players can't see, right?
You don't need to change those, just to announce something different. Obviously it wouldn't register as fudging in any archives you're keeping. And 21.8% of them just means...nothing.
Now, the percent of cleared logs+fudged rolls together amount to 0.22%, and of fudwhich isn't much (1:579 public rolls were fudged, rounding it), but considering just how often a GM would need fudging, (hint, most fights don't resolve in one roll), it might well be "every important roll" was fudged, or deleted and then fudged if it didn't go well on the first try. After all, you don't even need to do that if the die roller gives you a result you like naturally on the first go, right?
Or, more likely than not, the picture isn't even remotely as bleak as that:D! We can also decide all of those rolls are due to a handful of GMs, who still insist on rolling in the open to maintain some ullusion of choice (when no actual choice would be there to be seen, if it wasn't for the illusion).
Thing is, we don't know one way or the other! What we know is that up to more than 1 out of 5 rolls on RPoL might be fudged-and we're counting the players' rolls as well. Whether anyone who uses hidden rolls actually fudges it, or is just using secret rolls because he or she believes this helps avoid metagaming, is simply unknown.
But thank you for entertaining a sick man (me) with data to crunch:D!

I just want to make it clear, once again*, that I don't fault RPoL for it, nor is it changing my decision to purchase membership when the option becomes available. Nor do I fault the GMs that have chosen to use fudging, as long as their groups are on board.
But since you asked for my reasons to dislike it as a GM tool, whether a tool I should (ha!) use, or a tool to be used on me-well, I elaborated. As I was afraid, it did start a (wholly unnecessary IMO) duscussion, which was getting kinda heated at a certain moment.

*Because such subtext tends to be lost in discussions, especially as they progress.

I can't believe this thread has had so much dialogue related to one person's decision to not play in games because of the possibility that the GM in those games might fudge a dice for any reason.  Personally, I have no opinion/interest on whether or not AsenRG wishes to play or not in a game - that's his business.

Going back to the original poster's enquiry - about being able to fudge a dice roll AFTER it's been rolled - I can kind of understand why that might be wanted... on occasion I've rolled a dice in the open (i.e. not secret) that I've suddenly wished I'd rolled secret so I could have the opportunity to re-roll it...

It's all very well to say, "if you don't want a particular outcome, then don't have it on the table", but if the tables are pre-defined (e.g. in a rule book), then sometimes you want to re-roll, or fudge the dice to eliminate the possibility of a particular outcome, or enhance the probability of a different outcome...  Once you've rolled it "in the open" - then at the moment, the only option is to clear the roll quickly, hope no-one spotted it, and roll it again.  Something which didn't used to be possible, but which now is - and something I'm very grateful for.

In fact, the more frequent use I'd find for the ability to delete a specific roll from the dice log would be for when I'd rolled a dice with perhaps the wrong modifiers, and I wanted to re-roll it - with the correct modifiers - probably using the fudge feature to get the same base roll as the first time so that only the overall total changes.

As the guy whose decision is being discussed, can I just add that this baffled me as well:)? I was almost tempted to conclude many people have been waiting to invite me in their games. (No, it still doesn't sound even remotely likely:D!)
But it did baffle me, since the first time anyone asked for clarification, as stated in the same thread. Of course, if people are asking nicely and I have too much time on my hands, here's what happens;)!
Granted, it was a civil discussion and helped me understand the board culture better, so I'm not complaining for being baffled, just noting you're not the only one.
This message was last edited by the user at 13:43, Sat 07 June 2014.

And of course, fudging dice rolls is only part of the problem.  What about the GM who's running a published module for the designated character level and decides to put in a stronger or weaker protagonist for a particular encounter ?  Or house rules per se.  Fudge the system rules so characters get more HP, but balance that up by fudging the treasure rules so they get more magic items.

Out of interest, how does free form handle this ?  Is every outcome based on GM ruling rather than just dice throws ?

Different freeform groups differ, but yes, it's mostly the GM ruling, assuming there is a GM:). Although it might be another player if his or her character is the concerned party.
But again, freeform groups differ at least as much as different systems do, IME;).

First, The only system in which system mastery is not an issue (not accounting for who the players are or their preferences) is to not have a system.

Second, not all players want their characters to be butchered for the sake of mechanical efficiency. Additionally, some of us are very personal with our characters, and put "others playing with my character" right next to "others playing with what I keep in my underwear."

Third, the effectiveness of optimizing is inversely proportional to the creativity, imagination, and strategic ability of the player. This applies to their own characters as well as how they compare to others. Hence why I included the imaginative player with the optimizers in my example. Neither the system nor assistance can equalize a player's ability to effectively use what is available to them (toss in sticking to the character concept and it only gets harder) Players are not equal in this, which is why mechanical balance makes more problems instead of solving them.

I have had players complain about how pathetic my character was, then I took every chance and outshined them with my "pathetic" character, no system mastery, or silly math games involved.

Fourth, perhaps I'm missing something, but your reasoning for not liking a GM who fudges dice centers around said GMs fudging dice to railroad characters, thus it is only reasonable to come to the conclusion that your problem was the fudging being a tool for railroading.

Fifth, choice of system is more then just a matter of whether mechanics can get out of hand. There are lots of other factors as well, including the default fluff, how well the mechanics can be used and altered for your campaign, how many and how well the players know/like the system, etc

In reply to jase (msg # 25):

Love the stats!

Not true, multiple systems make "optimising" downright useless.


Believe me, I'd rather stay far from your underwear;)!
If the system requires butchering the character in order to make him or her optimal, you've got a poorly made system, or at least one not fit for the job.



Many of the systems that solve those issues tend to be simpler than their counterparts, and many can be adapted for pretty much any fluff and campaign. As far as I'm concerned, the players can suggest a possibility - whether it's because they would like to play it or because they think they know a system that works better - but the GM is going to interact with the system the most and as such has the right to veto anything he or she dislikes.
Once a decision is made, though, they can play what is offered, or skip the campaign. I'm fine with either, including when I'm not behind the GM's screen in the GM's chair.
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was inflammatory, at 20:01, Sat 07 June 2014.

Oh yes, and you're missing posts #15 and #26, both written by me. Post #15 explains why this isn't true. Post #26 refers you to post #15, with a hint how to find the relevant passage, when directly answering your post.

In reply to AsenRG (msg # 34):

Personally I've read all your 'reasons' for not liking fudging and your conclusions are based on faulty premises. Every last one of them.

Online, it is easy to skip out on games or players, but in real life, you have extremely limited options (in fact I currently have no one around that even knows what an RPG is).

You sometimes have to accept less then perfect options simply because the alternative is to not play at all.

And I agree with steelsmiter, you have a lot of faulty reasoning. Sorry if I can't explain myself very well.

Does it really matter if his reasoning is faulty or solid when, at the heart of all of this nonsense, is the fact that it's one person's opinion?  :D

As it stands, the statistics on the use of Fudging as is built in is actually pretty interesting, and seeing this much conversation over a non-issue has also been rather helpful in a handful of other ways, but the debate is boggling.

Some feel fudging has a legitimate place, others don't.  Why is it a big deal?

As a quick edit: I am genuinely trying to understand, I'm not trying to give anyone guff.
This message was last edited by the user at 02:59, Sun 08 June 2014.

In reply to Lunarius (msg # 37):

That's sorta the whole point of a debate, he put his reasoning out there, so he should be open for counter points.


On Topic, i fudge rolls when i want to, usually because i wanted something specific to happen, i don't try to fudge things like enemy attacks (unless it's in the name of not absolutely murdering the player in one hit, and i play systems that tend to do that) i usually do things like spot checks, listen, hide, etc. Perhaps to throw a little difference, you know maybe the super sneaky stealth guy got caught on a fluke? he was so sure of his sneaking that he never prepared for that, so what will he do now?

It doesn't seem like AsenRG was looking for a debate, though--his reasoning was asked and he answered, and then everything snowballed.  Shouldn't a person be able to answer a question with their reasons and not wind up in a debate over it?

And to be clear, I also fudge if I have to--I do it to protect the players from my own mistakes, to be honest.  It isn't anyone's fault but my own if I make an encounter too hard; I don't want to kill the fun entirely but I also don't want to wipe the party.

The reason that anyone doesn't want to fudge dice, or do want to fudge dice, doesn't have to be open to debate.

Everyone is entitled to play the kinds of games they enjoy -- it's no reflection on the people who disagree and prefer to play differently.

For example, I don't have to be open to reasonings about why GURPS is good.  I can give the reasons why I don't like it and don't play it -- there will still be people who will pop up to tell me why I'm wrong for not liking it because it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I can type my fingers sore refuting their points, or I can just keep avoiding GURPS like the plague and not worry about the fact that they think it's great when I don't. :P

That's the beauty of a site with a very diverse player base.  Don't like it -- don't play it.  And you don't have to explain yourself or justify why you like something or don't beyond what you want to.  That doesn't mean that the people who keep telling you that you're wrong are right -- any more than it means you're any more right than they are.

I intend to keep right on not playing GURPS no matter how many people like it.  And the OP can keep right on not wanting to play in games where he can't be sure of seeing the dice rolls.  In the end, neither of us is likely to be too bothered if nobody else chooses to jump on our respective bandwagons -- there might be some good games we're eliminating from our possibilities, but that's on us.

It is easier to understand and accept that someone hates cherry coke, when they are not telling you how it is clear and tastes like fried chicken.

When one expresses an opinion then states reasons that are theoretically facts but are incorrect facts, then one wonders what they are actually talking and clearly there is either a miscommunication, or they are operating under incorrect preconceptions (or you are, one of the two).

Besides debate is fun, interesting, and brings to light lots of things one may not have considered previously, just so long as it doesn't devolve into argument.
----------

quote
Not true, multiple systems make "optimising" downright useless.
unquote

This isn't the system, this is how a system is used. The so called systems that try to avoid the issue are less systems and more freeform guidelines for storytelling rather then roleplaying (similar but subtly different things)

-------
quote
If the system requires butchering the character in order to make him or her optimal, you've got a poorly made system, or at least one not fit for the job.
unquote

Partly true, but then most systems are built like toolboxes rather then absolute unbreakable rules, yet always seem to be treated like absolute rules anyway.

Besides, there isn't always a perfect system for what you or for some other reason is not a good choice.

And players tend to like systems that are problematic in the optimal risks butchering sense. Classes all by themselves can make many concepts practically unbuildable, and yet many players won't touch a classless system with 49.5' pole.

What is commonly liked and wanted, can obviously be at odds with other likes and wants.

Toss in the mix the fact that different players around the table want different things from the game and you get a huge and complicated mess that no set of system rules can perfectly handle. Thus the GM should be adjusting everything on the fly to keep all the players enjoying the game.
----------

quote
Many of the systems that solve those issues tend to be simpler than their counterparts
unquote

AKA, freeform guidelines rather then actual systems. And the GM still has to fudge things to make them fit anyway.

I.E. the GM makes a 50' wide gorge intending three ways the players might cross (but obviously not including jumping), but the barbarian player decides he wants to try jumping across anyway.

Some systems give him a chance of succeeding despite the impossibility of the task, then how is that supposed to be handled without the GM setting the rules aside for a moment?

Kind similar to those thieves that want to steal people's pants without getting caught and think they should be able to do so, just because the system doesn't explicitly say that some things will be impossible.
----------

quote
they can play what is offered, or skip the campaign.
unquote

Sometimes this isn't the choice, sometimes it is actually choosing between "play what is offered" or "don't play at all."

-----
And the single most important point,

The GM is there to provide you with an experience. Therefore the GM should be focused on giving you an experience, not on perfectly using the numbers and rules.

Fudging is a tool to provide a better experience when the rules are being a hindrance. I don't think anyone would like to get a speeding ticket because they were driving a hurt and dying buddy to the hospital before they bleed out, just because the law says no speeding (which is there to protect people and obviously it can't cover every case, but it leaves things in the hands of police to not enforce the rule when it becomes a hindrance rather then try to account for every possible circumstance)

Besides, so long as he is giving you an enjoyable experience, why does it matter how much is randomized and how much isn't?

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 35):
Oh, I could add others, if I considered them important. Except I decided that three is a nice number, and don't need others. Since I haven't seen your counter-arguments, I'll consider your assertion about my premises unfounded.

Seriously, people, is this turning into a thread about "pros and cons" of fudging? I've been in enough such threads on other forums to know they invariably end in a stalemate, and wouldn't have joined another one. It seemed like a nice informative thread on a forum's feature I was unaware of...so I said "thanks", and clarified for what.
Oh, the hue and cry, that someone might not like to play the way you do... Surprise, surprise - I can probably name you entire gaming communities that like things differently from the way you do! Ever heard there are games that specially make fudging against the rules, because it defeats the theme of the game? There are. And I'm not even playing them, albeit for personal reasons.
Or are you trying to persuade me? You can't, not anymore than I'd persuade you. My empirical proof is firmly against fudging - as in, when I stopped fudging, my games improved by leaps and bounds, so I'm not going to spoil them again. And when other people started imitating this (or I found other GMs who have been doing the same independently), my enjoyment as a player rose as well.
As stated below, I don't feel the need to compromise with my fun, because it makes it less fun, thus defeating the point.


Maybe you have extremely limited options, but please, do not extrapolate to everyone! As is, my extended circle of gamers is close to the triple-digits.
The number of people that would likely want to join if I announce I'm running a game will similarly end up in the double digits, likely on the unwieldy side. Faulty or not, new players seem to like the style of play that emerges from my logic, and I'm doing my best to get them in the hobby.
So yeah, I don't make compromises to what I like. If I had to, RPGs would start to lose the competition with my other hobbies. I don't have to compromise there, either. Said other hobbies are also the reson I'm trying to limit it to one session per week - they're competing for the same time slots during the week-end.



Yes, thank you! As evidenced by my second post in the thread, my reaction when asked to provide reasons was a (rather perplexed) "why does it matter to you?"
Now, if it was a thread pro and against fudging, I would understand claiming that this is the point of the debate...and I wouldn't participate, because I don't feel like having this debate again.


Why do you assume I need to debate it, though? I could point you to several such debates on other sites (except I think it's against the site rules - I'd need to check, but the links wouldn't add anything to the discussion anyway).
After the first 2k posts of debates on a single topic (counting the whole thread, not just those ofone side), do you honestly think you'd be able to come up with an counter-argument I haven't refuted already? Or counter-aruments to my refutation that I haven't similarly refuted? Maybe, given enough time, but if I'm going to spend all this energy on a debate I've already had, I'd rather have one on politics that could impact me meaningfully. Or musical preferences - now that's SeriousBusiness:D!!!
As it is, I'm lacking the energy even for that, so I'm not looking for debate.


Yes, this last line is especially important, I feel. That's why I've taken care to state it that I don't think less of my opponents for their choice.
I don't need to think of someone as inferior in order to refuse to participate in their game. I just need to decide the way they're running it is a way that would lessen my own fun.


It's a good thing that we're not discussing cherry coke, then.
And frankly, I don't think you're looking for debate, but argument.


OMG...I didn't expect the RPGPundit's logic here!
Yeah, no, they aren't. Some people from both sides of the debate wish they were. I've specifically tried and succeed roleplaying in a supposedly storytelling system, and storytelling in roleplaying games. It flew under the sound of applause.



Yeah, I've met a couple such players... except I run mostly classless systems.
My answer? "I can give you the mobile of a GM that runs this, and you can hope they've got room in their group. Or you can play the system we're offering now and hope the next one will be what you want - but frankly, I wouldn't hold my breath".
One of them left. Several times that number remained. One of them is now running his own game...with the systems he was suspicious about.


The GM never has to compromise. He or she might, but never has to.
I ask you not to fudge? You can just tell me to leave. I won't hold it against you, and in fact might send you a player that hates it when her character dies. Because you'd be a better fit for what she wants, if you're fine with keeping her PC alive.
Someone asks you to run a system you don't want, or is going to work only with constant supervision? "No. I'd need to keep it under constant watch. That's an unreasonable amount of work to expect from me, and it would lessen the quality of my game, because I can only multi-task so much. I prefer to be following the system instead of watching it closely, and using the time I'd spend on keeping the system into shape to think about the consequences and twists instead". (Granted, that's my answer - you could just say the much simpler "no, because I'm going to interact with the system as much as all of you combined, and I don't like it". That's true.)
Or you can houserule it to hell and back. When players talked me into running a D&D fantasy heartbreaker (with weakly restricting classes), I ripped off any magic above 2nd level spells, restricted the access to magic-using abilities for setting reasons, changed the hitpoints to a damage save with potential for instant incapacitation, and removed levels, changing the experience system to "improve as us use the skill". Oh, and I added social combat. And I'm still sorry I didn't go further.
But the point is, I now had an unholy mix of Runequest, WotG and CP2020...which was the game I wanted. And I ran this game for about a year on the site of the publisher (if the publisher wasn't a personal friend, I wouldn't have bothered).
It's still remembered there, and it's one of the few forum games that reached conclusion.
The best part of it is, all the rules I needed were shorter than the posts I've written in this thread.


Or the GM can tell them outright "this is the game, it works best for X and Y. Don't focus on Z, or prepare to be disappointed." It's not unreasonable to tell people you're running cyberpunk, so if they don't want that, it's not the game for them. The same way as you can tell them you're running Savage Worlds Thrilling Tales, and if they hate pulp, or exploding dice, or cards-as-initiative, they're welcome to run something else.
Or you can houserule it to do what you want it to do. A lot of the most popular games will likely work better after you take the big hammer to them to put them into the desired shape. See the example above.


I think you're using "fudging" in a way I'm not familiar with, here. No definition I can think of is required when running Burning Wheel, or Torchbearer. In fact, fudging is explicitly discouraged.


If barbarians in that world can jump that much, roll it.
If they have abilities similar to Earth people, tell him his barbarian recognises it as an impossible task. And tell him OOC that the character has no doubts he could hardly jump half that much. (The current world record is about 9 meters, IIRC, and you're talking over 15. It's just reasonable to admit that his barbarian can see he's not likely to pass the middle of that distance).
If he insists on jumping anyway, roll falling damage.


Care to name one such system? The ones I can think of all tell you "if it's not possible, you don't get a roll". I assume such systems do exist, but still.


"Stealing the pants of someone" is probably easy to someone who can steal someone's underwear...:D (That's an actual achievement of some legendary Russian thief, according to a book of Russian crime traditions. Of course, it required quite the set-up, but it was done. He got the guy's underwear, and the money the man was hiding in said underwear. All without removing his pants.)
Are you playing similar characters?
If not, "we're not playing an MMO where NPCs have slots and you can steal from any slot if you make the roll. Just because something is on someone's person, doesn't mean you can steal it. Focus on his pockets, purse, and bags."



I'm not in your boots, but my solution would be to find other players.
There's a man (going by the handle Old Geezer, true name Mike Mornard) who had played with Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson before D&D was published. He likes to answer that with "if Gary could find 20+ players in the hole that was Lage Geneva in the 70ies, so can you, today", or something to this effect. I'm prone to the same solution.


The experience I'm after includes uisng the numbers and rules. Therefore, by fudging the GM is working against me getting said experience. It can't provide a "better" experience, because by appearing, it destroys the experience.
The rules cannot be a hindrance by definition - otherwise, we should have changed them even before the game began. It might be acceptable if you didn't see how they'd interact - but you just tell the group "people, that makes no sense. Here's what happens instead. Now, can anyone suggest how we can houserule this?"


I don't know about the law in your country, but the law in my country already covers this, by having a special "Emergency case" clause which means you're not guilty. You can even break some laws in such occasions. Oh yes, it's actually right after "Self-defence" in the Penal Code. So you can claim "emergency case" as your defence.

...refer to post 15, point 2. I came to play by these rules (which include the houserules you've notified me about). If you're changing them without players consent, you're no longer providing the experience I came for. It's quite possible* I wouldn't have come for the rules you're actually using, when we account for "on-the-fly changes because you considered the results unacceptable".
Yes, I said extreme houserules are fine. Houserules aren't fudging, I already know them and they're something I can account for when picking my characters' actions.

*Like, it's a 90% probability. Call it a sure thing if you wish.

First, cause this is the biggest point

Quote
I won't hold it against you, and in fact might send you a player that hates it when her character dies.
unquote

I would tell your friend that they might be unhappy with me cause I don't try to keep them alive. And that seems to be a major misconception of yours. I don't fudge things to keep players alive. In fact I prefer things to be fairly lethal and in general have to tone down the lethality I'd prefer since my players rarely want to create characters every month.

Fudging does not equate with keeping the players alive or making things easier for them. It is about enhancing fun, and reducing the unfun, using an on-the-fly method rather then trying for perfect mechanical balance (the idea of which is non-sense anyway, at least as applied to roleplaying).

I am a spontaneous GM. I don't prepare for games. Ever. Have never needed to, because I don't try to perfect everything ahead of time to fit some plan. I just react to the players.
------------------------

To follow the previous point,

"Always fail forward. Everything that happens should move the story forward."

As far as things go beyond dying, the above is the best advice I ever heard for running a good game. Fudging things make the above advice easier to achieve.
--------------------------

quote
I've specifically tried and succeed roleplaying in a supposedly storytelling system, and storytelling in roleplaying games.
unquote

You just supported my statement but sounded like you were refuting my statement. What you play and how you play are completely different things, as evidenced by the fact that you could storytell with games made for storytelling or roleplaying. The difference is in how you fill the holes. Some games you have some descriptive word with no limits on how that word can be used other then what the other players are willing to accept. That is a guideline for freeform. A game like DnD that describes the limits and leaves a referee for the corner cases is a system.

(these are what I consider the common sense definitions. Wouldn't surprise me if someone is more technical but then I'm sure they'll tell me, and then it can be hashed out if it happens)
--------------------

quote
I prefer to be following the system instead of watching it closely, and using the time I'd spend on keeping the system into shape to think about the consequences and twists instead
unquote

Funny, the bold part is the reason why I am in favor of fudging things, rolls or otherwise. And yet you think that somehow fudging things requires more time spent on the system.

But truthfully, the entire point of fudging is to spend less time worrying about the system and more time worrying about the enjoyment of the game.

If the system provides some unexpected problem or issue and it can be discreetly dealt with behind the curtain, then do so. The alternative is to open a debate and discussion (usually hours long) to solve a corner case problem that might never appear again for years and waste lots of time on that. Why do so when you can fix problem without ever bothering the players in the first place. If it affects the players enough they would notice, then yeah sure they should have some input, but if it is completely backstage, on the GMs side of the screen then it isn't the player's problem.

The players should only have to deal with what the GM puts on the player side of the screen (aka on stage) while the "backstage" stuff should be completely handled by the GM anyway. After all, that is what the players came for. Yeah some minor issues might affect the players wordly expectations, but those issues are almost universally fluff related stuff. If it ever becomes a problem (because I forgot to mention it[which happens given the volume of players expectations], or it conflicts with some point mentioned earlier), then they players need to be brought in for discussion.

I am all for fudging things to keep things rolling, but I do limit it to the backstage stuff.
---------------------------------------------------------

quote
Or the GM can tell them outright "this is the game, it works best for X and Y. Don't focus on Z, or prepare to be disappointed."
unquote

Fundamental philosophical difference. You are exclusive of others that fall outside your defined boundaries, and don't seem to care.

I am inclusive, and try to flex the boundaries to accommodate any who want to join.

This difference is the root of some of our differing points, but not the main point about fudging.
--------------------------------------------------------

quote
I think you're using "fudging" in a way I'm not familiar with, here.
unquote

I think I did expand what I was referencing, not that it matters that much though. Fudging is altering any result of the mechanics before applying to the experience of what is happening. Such as altering a dice roll, or anything else that changes what the system says should happen.

99% of the time it is fudging a roll, or deciding that a roll should get extra bonuses or penalties, or deciding that something is, or is not, possible despite the rules saying contrary (and thus get a roll or not).

I stay within the limits of common sense and whatever laws of physics I have applied to the world. Generally, the players have a good idea of these, and sometimes ignore them anyway (but that is something to discuss rather then fudge, particularly if they expect me to ignore these things)
----------------------------------------------------------

quote
That's an actual achievement of some legendary Russian thief, according to a book of Russian crime traditions
unquote

As this feat requires making the target practically unconscious, tricking them into removing said items themselves, or taking said items when they are not worn, this is not something I believe in.

As to remove said underwear while being worn, literally requires either looping it other each foot between the foot and the ground or tearing the underwear which is going to pull on the target hard to knock them over if they aren't braced for it not to mention the sound. The first circumstance is literally impossible while the target is wearing pants (try it, you'll see), not even if wearing a skirt (as the skirt allows access but the target has to be walking and drawing the underwear low enough to slip off the feet will trip the individual as they can't open the legs far enough, not to mention the new breeze in the nethers and feeling the slide of underwear over one's thighs)
-------------------------------------------------

quote
if Gary could find 20+ players in the hole that was Lage Geneva in the 70ies, so can you, today
unquote

Gary probably was good at dealing with people and probably knew most of them, at least as acquaintances, prior to recruiting them. Additionally, DnD didn't have the negative views tied to it yet, and as something completely new and original, it would have peaked curiosity if nothing else. More, the why they were playing is so far removed from what most players expect today, it isn't even funny.

Me, I have limited time to go looking, have no idea where to look beyond comic book shops, have no social life, don't know anyone nearby as I've lived here for less then a year, and have little in the way of social ability (cha of like 4, except prettier). My gather info checks are basically auto-fails.
-------------------------------------------------

quote
law in my country already covers this
unquote

So your country tries to write a black and white lawbook to deal with a world of color. That must be one ginormous set of laws.

Was never one to believe in worrying about technicalities anyway. That's what the judicial system is for.
---------------------------------------------------

quote
I wouldn't have come for the rules you're actually using, when we account for
unquote

Are you sure? Cause I GM to give you an experience, but you have no idea what goes on behind the screen. You know only what I tell you about what is happening in the world. If you find it satisfying, then how would claim it isn't. And if it isn't satisfying, then you should be telling me what the issue is, and I can garuntee you that you would never say "because you are fudgeing things," because you would never know. You might complain about being too lethal, or not lethal enough, and I might compensate, by changing the difficulty of encounters, but the only things you'll notice about what I'm doing is to see how often and how hard the players get hit, and how smart the enemies seem to be.

Thus, when you sign up for a game, you are signing up for an experience. You may or may not be happy with it, but will never know whether it had anything to do with a GM who fudges things, (unless the GM tells you themself).
---------------------

In reply to AsenRG (msg # 42):


I'll just go ahead and say that I agree fully with this part of the previous post. The rest of the post, as well as every other post that makes a statement against your post is pretty much what I believe.

As per Fudging to keep players alive, i don't do it to always keep them alive, i do plan on letting them die, but perfect example: My players ambled into a big ambush, and well, it wouldn't end up very fun if on the first round the driver was killed, and half the squad since they lost initiative and were not in cover.




This is me too, i always want a bunch of players and try to say yes to their requests, so long as they aren't crazy and off the wall or something. Or i work with them if i think their request is too powerful or something.
This message was last edited by the user at 13:14, Sun 08 June 2014.

OK, here I have to I present my apologies for misunderstanding you! Namely, I'd put too much weight on your words about looking for a compromise with the players' preferences, and so assumed you'd be prone to grant her more leniency then my "dice fall as they may" philosophy:). Naturally, I have no way of knowing how lethal your games are.
Either way, that wasn't meant as an example of why you fudge. It was an example saying that the GM doesn't have to compromise, but runs the game the way he or she prefers, with the system he or she prefers, and those players that both want in and that the GM wants to let in the campaign. The point was that you can simply tell me to go away for having a style that doesn't fit yours (which seems obvious). And the other point was that I wouldn't hold it against you, as it's just your right for GMing.
So, please consider it a poor example, and not trying to tell you what you're doing in your games. By the tone of your post, it seems this offended you, which was never my intention.

BTW, I'd recommend you to try DCC RPG. That might fit your preferred lethality, and since everyone starts out with 4 PCs of 0 level, trying to get their first class level, you might all find it fun. Losing at least three PCs is expected.
Oh, and no optimisation is possible if you play it RAW. Roll 3d6 in order 6 times isn't prone to optimisation, unless you use loaded dice (but that's not optimisation, it's cheating). But it's great fun, IME:D!
...Or don't try it, if you don't want to. It was just an idea that sprang to mind reading the different preferences for lethality.

I might address the rest of your points later, or - fair warning - I might not. This discussion has stopped being fun a while ago, I admit, so I might have stopped posting by now. Just wanted to be clear that misrepresenting your style wasn't part of my intentions, though.



Yeah, got it, I'm the devil in your book. For...whatever reasons, as you never stated your own reasons clearly.
One thing is true, however. I do exclude people that fall outside my boundaries. That's what boundaries are for, separating what you want from what you don't want. No, I don't see a point in caring about this - on the contrary, I care very much that people don't even try to cross a boundary. Or I'd need to call Boundary Patrol on them (which can get different degrees of ugly, depending on which boundary they tried to cross;)).
Now, if they're friends, but they want to play RPGs in a different way? Well, we can discuss it, but if we insist on mutually exclusive things, we're better off going to the movies and having pizza to spend time together, than playing a half-assed attempt at a RPG campaign (during which we're all likely to question why we're trying, when we could be doing other things that don't involve compromising). Or playing videogames, or cardgames, or a boardgame, or sharing some other hobby (many people in my current group share more than one hobby with me).

Tl;dr RPGs aren't the end of the world, sometimes it's better not to include everyone in a campaign, and friends have to give each other some breathing space anyway.

And now you can consider me the devil for it, too. You're free to auto-agree with everyone who disagrees with me, too.

Hm, i sorta wish i could just say "you don't like the exact way i run my game, so you're not in" but like darklighthitomi the gaming community here is depressingly small. Plus the systems i run, even on Rpol, tend to garner very few players (Other than Only War, whoo boy that gets a lot of players quick)

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!  Hold up, guys!  We're letting something very important slip past us here.

...Are there really people who don't like Cherry Coke!?!?


faints

Well, I have to say with absolute certainty that out of all the drinks in the world, mine are prioritized in this order

Code Red
Mellow Yellow
Mountain Dew
Diet Dew of the previously mentioned kinds
Cherry Coke
Coke Zero
Root beer float
Tea.

So it's totaly on my list :D

Topic change much?

Typically a portent of a closed thread.

Also, closer back to our original topic, For the record: The stats given shows one deleted log entry that was not a GM hiding a roll from players, but rather them seeing how the feature worked, since I never used it before.  I wouldn't be surprised if I was not the only one.

Another use for delete option is to delete/hide a roll made by a player which they should have made as a secret roll.  Such as a character who isn't supposed to be (as far as other players know) a force user, using a force skill.

That doesn't reflect a fudging, but correcting an oversight in checking an option during the roll.
This message was last edited by the user at 02:25, Mon 09 June 2014.

So, AsenRG, your PC has made it through a ten thousand post game that’s taken two real-life years to complete, he’s made himself a small fortune, built himself a castle and he’s just about to rescue the princess he wants to marry...

But suddenly, you roll a string of 1s and if the GM rolls more than 3 on 1D6 your character will die.

You’d prefer your character to die than for the GM to fudge a roll ‘for the sake of the story’?

If so, I admire your honesty, but I suspect you’re very much in the minority. I think most players would want to ride off into the sunset with the girl and/or have another adventure with a cherished character rather than see their character die over a stupid bad luck roll.

I’ve heard far more players complaining about the dice being against them than complaining about GMs fudging rolls. In fact, this thread is the only place I’ve ever heard anyone say that...

Personally, I’d like to see a ‘karma’ fudge option, whereby a GM can secretly choose the result of the next roll made by a certain character, so the poor PC doesn’t roll that string of 1s in the first place. You wouldn't use it often, but if a player has just rolled three 1s in succession, the last thing he wants is a fourth.

As for ‘torpedoing’ games...
I suspect this is the inflammatory comment that got most people's goat and exploded the debate. It's the main reason I've bothered to respond.

As the GM, I have to think up plots and story hooks and interconnections not just for one character, but for all the characters, and all the NPCs, too. And that’s a lot of hard work. Hard work that I don’t want to repeat just because I rolled Snake Eyes on the dice roller.

Even if only one player wants to be fudge-free, that means every time that player has a character die, I have to write that character out of the plot, figure out the knock-on effects, think up ways to bring that character’s essential contributions into the story by another means, and spend time with the player developing a new character with new ties and interconnections to the other PCs... Just having such a player in the game is a fair sized torpedo in itself. :(

Having said that, if my players come to me as a unanimous group in the OOC thread and say to me openly, “We’ve decided amongst ourselves that we want to play this game entirely without fudges, come what may,” then I’ll run the game the way they want it, without any rancour. They’ll probably spend half their game-time rolling up new characters, but if that’s what they want, that’s fine by me. Until I get bored with perpetual character generation and thinking up new plot lines for the new characters (which probably won’t take long) - then I’ll close the game and open a new one with new players who are less demanding.

However, if one or two players try to browbeat others and/or spoil my game, ruining my fun or the fun of other players, I’m with BBR, I’ll ban them outright. They can go and soapbox in someone else’s game - if they can find a GM who will let them.

If you don't like my game, leave it by all means, but don't try to torpedo it. I own the nukes.

IMO, if you want your life to hinge on the roll of dice, go play in a casino. RPGs, even dice-moderated ones, are more about the story than the dice. Most gamers play games specifically because it’s an environment where we can beat the odds, rather than having the odds beat us - they’re an escape from the ‘bad dice’ we all-too-often roll in RL. Why on earth would we want to roll bad dice in a game, too?

We play games to win.

The way in which we succeed is interesting, and the dice add variety to our successes.

Getting a few hard knocks and bouncing back is exciting, and the dice can facilitate both the knocks and the bounce back.

Not succeeding at all, or having some initial success only to have it all taken away from you, simply sucks. That's not what the dice are for, IMO.

I don't. In fact, I play games to have fun. If there's no chance of winning, I might not like it so much (and probably wouldn't play that game), but winning is secondary to the fun of the experience in all cases for me, as long as the chances are fair. I've banned players who try to munchkin the system with their obsession with winning.

Agree with steelsmiter.

The game itself is important. You win (or lose) your life, when you die. If you live to win, you live to die. You must live to achieve and fail, to gather experience like you'll never die. Characters live as this. They learn like they will never die. But they are destined to die. Because they are as mortal as we are. And even if they are not, they will live only as long as those who cherish these characters live.

I am against fudging rolls for the win's sake. I care not for win, but fun. I will fudge a roll, if it will make a character hilariously fall in a freaking cherry pie, but I won't fudge a roll so a character/boss won't die. I will accept the failure, if I'm a player, and I will accept the blame, if I'm a GM.

Fudge is for fun! Not for win.

Perhaps I overstated my case.

Winning for the sake of winning in a munchkinesque manner is not what I meant. I just meant that life sucks enough, without having games suck too.

Yes, gaming is about having fun, and most of the players (and GMs) I've met don't get much fun out of their characters dying, except in the most exceptional and expedient of circumstances.

I have no objection to killing a character if it furthers the story and enhances the fun, but I'm disinclined to kill a cherished character (mine or anyone else's) on a (near) pointless dice roll.

Characters may go out in a blaze of glory aiding their companions to achieve their lifelong goals, or taking out the uber-villain in a self-sacrificing bear-hug off the cliff, but in my games they won't die from a double-critical arrow shot by the third bowman from the left, nor from a septic toe picked up from a rat bite, even if the rules state that there's a 1% chance and the poor sop rolls 01.

That roll is to determine how severe the sepsis is and whether the other characters have to carry a 250lb barbarian on a stretcher, it's not to see if he dies.

Personally I'm there to have fun, not to win ... but then again, I don't have a problem with characters dying either, no matter how attached I am to them - that's the beauty of RPGs, you just roll up another character and start a whole new adventure with them.  :>

Of course, anyone who's ever played more than one game of Paranoia thereafter expects to die more often than not, no matter what rules are being used.  It just changes you.  <grins>

Ah, Paranoia. That's one I haven't pulled out in a while. Though, I think that might be an example of one of those games steelsmiter referred to where the system discourages fudging. That's the game I pull out when certain party elements in my tabletop group need to get some backstabbing out of their system. The whole point of things is to die in ridiculous ways. I'm normally a "Don't kill the party (much)" GM, but when we pull that one out, I get a little bit of sadistic glee from all the player killing. I am perhaps meant to run more lethal campaigns than I usually do.

Not true.  Unless a system is so fluffy that it's basically freeform by another name, optimising is never useless.  It's making your character strong and dexterous if you mean for them to be melee fighting regularly.  It's making your character intelligent if you mean for them to be doing a lot of study and writing things up.  These are optimized characters.  Now the degree of optimization may certainly be different from system to system, and there are systems (Paranoia, I'm looking at you) where you're basically screwed no matter what, but excepting systems like those there aren't really any non-freeform systems where optimizing is inherently useless.

In reply to Maidenfine (msg # 57):

Actually, in Paranoia, "fudging" is an art form.  Players are given "perversity points" to modify the rolls of themselves or others, which they can spend -- though maybe this isn't fudging in the regular sense of the word since it still comes before the roll.  In the paranoia game I'm running, I'm actually finding it really hard to run it online with perversity points because waiting for others to spend (or not spend) perversity points holds up the game in a pbp system.

But I still think there's a value to the GM fudging roles in Paranoia after the roll, just as in any other game (at least for rolls where there are no perversity points put into the pot, because that would make them mad at The Computer -- i.e., the GM).
This message was last edited by the user at 18:24, Mon 16 June 2014.

The old WEG Star Wars RPG actually had a section in the rule book which pretty much said that the GM should fudge rolls - "never let an entire campaign be derailed by a single lucky/unlucky roll", or words to that effect.

So yes, let the dice do what they want most of the time, but if a freak coincidence (like the wild die rolling 6, thirty times in a row) means a TPK, or the Emperor falling off a platform (no safety rails on the Death Star) and breaking his neck on Day 1 of the campaign, then fudge it.

2nd Edition Paranoia:


I haven't read the rules for Tank Girl, but I think the WEG guys might have had an opinion. grin

...All the same, one of my favorite games on RPoL really clicked in at a point during a totally random encounter when a Wyvern hit my Swordsmistress for 34 damage and I realized the GM wasn't even looking.  He just rolled the dice and posted what they said and was leaving it for me to check and figure out if I was still alive or not after that.  Would it have kind of sucked if my character (three years old at that point, I think) had died right then?  Well, yeah -- but it was also.. I don't know, thrilling.

Almost sort of a little bit like real danger.  I mean, clearly, not, because even if she had, in fact, died, I would have suffered.. er, disappointment, followed by the joy of making a new character.  But on some level it was close enough to trick my brain into feeling like WHOAthatwasclose!

I mean, I didn't exactly have a sense before that that the GM was fudging things, or would, but knowing that he definitely wasn't was... interesting.  I've kind of tried to adopt that same sense in my GMing, but I don't think I've quite made it.

Hmmmm.... scribbles down note

Oh, yes, I should have quoted that famous infamous line, if only I had had my rulebook handy.  But the practical reality is that players want their use of perversity points to actually count for something, so those rolls are the closest thing to sacrosanct I can let rolls get in such a crazily delusional game.

Also, the rules were amended in the XP version about 10 years ago, which may be when they added perversity points and a little more structure to things like accusations of treason, as well as adding play "styles."  So that rule of thumb is more of a joke than anything else now, though it can still be used frequently in "ZAP" style play, I'm sure.

I'm pretty sure that knowledge of editions past Second is treason even at my Clearance.  LALALA LAAA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!

...Or, to tie in to that Community Chat thread -- Kids these days, with their hair, and their Perversity Points.  In my day, we had to traverse the Complex uphill! Both ways! In the Synthesnow!  And gol' durnit, we were happy about it!

Of course you were.  Failure to be happy is treason.


Your character was only three years old ?!!  Talk about babes in arms.  Tough GM ...

I know that thrill.  In my case it was realising the 'captive' I was standing next to was actually a polymorphed Yellow Dragon.  Concentrates the mind wonderfully.  But would you have felt the same if your Swordmistress got critically and fatally smited (I refuse to say smitten) by an unarmoured kobold armed with a feather duster, just because the dice fell that way ?  (fell that way several times, actually given the damage potential, but you know what I mean)  :>

I know what you mean lol.

Then again what gm would allow that to happen? That being said. Tuck's
(was it tuck, I forget) kobolds.

I am running a horror game, makes me wonder how people will react if I ask opinions about fudging.

Hey, she's precocious. shrug


Well... yeah.  The dice can totally do that in Earthdawn (virtually every roll is `exploding').  So d4-2 is a lot less likely to get up to 36 than, say, a d20+2d8, but... it's always possible.

Psychologically, in this case, the sense of danger wasn't really from the Wyvern -- it was from the GM.  Knowing that he was just rolling the dice and passing on the numbers.  And that sense of.. `threat', stayed, because in encounters after that I knew that we were, well, you know.  On our own.  So I don't think it mattered where the numbers came from in the game.  It was more meta.

As a person who has intense favoritism toward fudging, I have to say that I would absolutely hate fudging in a horror game under almost all circumstances. Nobody gets any favors in a horror game. It seriously removes too much grit.

I popped the question in ooc. to be fair one guy would be dead twice over without fudging.

If I were to be informed of that, I'd be annoyed if it was my character in a horror game. Although admittedly certain systems are too complicated and involved in their character creation process and I might be ok with fudging to avoid said process. Other than that, I think the dice and characters should both fall where they may for horror.

Fair enough I suppose. It is something I have been thinking about. It was a battle plagued with bad rolls. But we will see what happens.

I would certainly of allowed this. I think it makes it interesting, it would be an epic death, one that would get talked about long afterwards (that is the measure of a great event).

Even if I was going to save the players, it is imperative for me to never let the players know that, because if they did, then they would act like I'm going to save them, which leads to less fun. After all, if I make an encounter they are supposed to run from, they probably won't run unless they know without any doubt that I will let them die.

I fudge for story, to keep things rolling in a direction that I think will make things interesting. So if there is a TPK, for example, I'll fudge the last roll to keep to keep the last player alive, then they get taken prisoner, the other players roll new characters and are fellow prisoners captured elsewhere. The surviving player now holds the quest and is able to recruit the other prisoners into the original story instead of starting with a new adventure.

Personally, I think that is better, because if you actually become high level character, then you earned it (for the most part), rather then it being a guaranteed thing. Being able to say that you earned what you got when others couldn't, has always been a good feeling for me.

It is also part of my encouragement of smart play over "hulk smash!" play, as hulk smash will likely get you killed.

To be perfectly honest, a kobold with feather duster vs Sword Mistress is going to have one swing if he can't avoid it then run away as fast as he can - the point was to illustrate glorious vs ignominus ... but again, if it makes for a good tavern tale, then who am I to argue.  There just won't be any kobolds with feather dusters in my gritty games, though I can't promise in the others.  Though since Utsukushi plays in a couple of 'em, I suspect there may be kobolds with feather dusters appearing in any or all ! ;>

My own take is that I'll fudge rolls to keep things moving - the online format kinda requires that non-crucial search/knowledge checks sometimes succeed to stop things bogging down - but the chips can fall where they may in combat.