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)