Do you fudge dice rolls?

Absolutely, as a GM. Sometimes I roll the dice for randomness, other times I already know the result I want and just like the sound the dice make.

Well, uh, technically, nah.

>>51128262
Yes, but only as a GM, and only in favor of the players. Generally it'll be if they're getting absolutely destroyed by something that was meant to be fairly easy.

>>51128403
Then why are you rolling dice at all? There's no point rolling dice if the PCs are supposed to win. And you just can't stand the thought of PCs losing, awww.

File: 1484026922431.png (412KB, 484x341px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 484x341px

>>51128420
People can play how they want dude

>>51128420

Because randomness is fun and exciting, even if you occasionally need to tweak the extreme values on either end.

>>51128262
I just roll the dice to make it seem like something is "out of my control." I know the outcome before I roll the dice. Been GMing for a year with my group and they still think I'm the most sandboxy GM out there.

>>51128403
*And if getting their asses kicked was not their own fault.

There is a difference between dying because you do stupid stuff and dying because you get fk'd over by rolling two crit fails in a row.

>>51128262
Yes all the time.
Wait, you mean as GM? Well, only if it supports the fun of everyone.

>>51128449
Just gonna pop in and say that yes, you can play how you want and fudge all the rolls you like. But you better be willing to tell your players when you do.

You do tell your players right? I mean, what would you be afraid of?

That they might not like you fudging? That it would ruin your illusion? Cause I hate to break it to you, but they probably already know. And if they don't like it, that's a problem. If they do, just tell them and it won't be a problem.

Tldr: fudge all you want but don't be a pussy and try to hide it

>>51128262
I don't fudge dice, no. However, if I feel like players are beating a monster way too quickly or are having too much trouble, I might give them some additional hit points or "forget" about their regeneration.

File: tumblr_ntc8ygLB1c1u08pito1_250.gif (1MB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x250px

>>51128501
Why are you being so aggressive about this though? Did someone who fudges rolls hurt you in the past or something?

>>51128262
tried it briefly as a GM

didn't really like doing it that much and went back to not fudging

>>51128582
Eh didn't mean to be overly aggressive, it just was always something that ticked me off as a player. As a GM switching to open rolling was the best choice I ever made. It helps to separate the "planning" mentality from the "playing" mentality; I'm here to roleplay these monsters, not make sure everything works out for the best. Cause I already build the encounter to be fair, so now I just have to play it to win.

>>51128501
You don't violate kayfabe dude.

Only when the roll is for literaly nothing.

>Hmm, yeah 17 is pertty good.
>Oh, it's not important guys

If you fudge in any other concept, you're a shit GM.
And if you throw the "durr hurr what if someone gets one-shotted" then you are even worse for putting things in the game that can one-shot players and need /just/ the right dicethrow.

>>51128670
Of course you don't. But everyone there is in on it; that's what they want. If someone in your group doesn't want that, then there's an issue. So just make sure everyone is OK with it first.

>>51128449
And get stabbed when they fudge rolls when playing for money.

File: design-686-2013-06-25-06-49-18-1.jpg (10KB, 383x383px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 383x383px

I've DMed for a long time.. I've done it in the past but over time I just open roll. I think everyone appreciates it better, including myself. Knowing that the fates are in control and not just myself. It promotes a healthy mindset towarsd the game and keeps everyone on edge in tense situations. Its just more genuine and appealing to me and mine.

As a player, of course you're going to want to 'win' in most situations, but overall, I think, again, it promotes a healthier mindset and appreciation towards the game when you know that the DM is not implicitly going to help or hinder you one way or another so far as that central mechanic is involved.

Yeah, only if something horribly unfair would have gone down otherwise.

That's my little secret though; some fights I gotta run a little kayfabe behind the scenes if I realize the encounter is too strong or my players are holding the idiot ball.

This is one of the things I personally believe Gainax got wrong. If a system is such that rolling will give you results you think will ruin the game then change the system/mechanics rather than fudge.

As a player knowing fudging had occurred ruins things and as a GM I ask myself if I am tempted to "would they be ok with it if they knew". The answer is always no.

Being heroes does not matter nearly as much if your rolls did not matter. Dying does not either because it means the GM just decided it was your time to die.

Here is a big one. Most advocate for fudging for players, so save characters, but the same folk hate it when the villains get fudging even when the stated purpose is still "to make the game more fun". So in the end I say if the only thing keeping the game fun is my lying to my players (not a character in game lying, but me the GM) something has gone wrong.

File: Voice of the Master.jpg (29KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x400px

>>51128463

Same here. Sometimes I roll dice to get a random result; and equally often I roll dice to create an illusion that I haven't already decided what happens.

Though since I don't actually let my players see the die rolls, "fudging" is a bit of a misnomer, rather I sometimes look at the result and sometimes I just roll the dice to create a die-rolling sound.

>>51129066
>This is one of the things I personally believe Gainax got wrong. If a system is such that rolling will give you results you think will ruin the game then change the system/mechanics rather than fudge.

Yeah, Gainax got that wrong. Stupid Hideaki Anno, thinks he's a good director. Overrated creep.

Seriously though, you're demanding for an unrealistically perfect system there buddy. Such a thing doesn't exist and cannot exist, because the act of playing an RPG is a complex social dance between the players and the DM and the illusions between them. It cannot be dumbed down to a mechanical level, if it could, CRPGs would have completely erased the need for human DMs by now.

>>51128262
Even as a DM I open roll. Very easy for anyone to see. Rarely do I need to make secret rolls.

I can fudge so many other things that I feel it's only fair I follow the dice along with my players.

Sure, I'll fudge dice rolls to cover up my own mistakes as GM. Normally because I've put in an obstacle that the players can't overcome.

For example, I need a random encounter on the road to break up the journey and so I pull a level- and environment-appropriate monster from the book. Turns out I didn't read it closely enough and without prior knowledge of this monster's weakness, the PCs are at a severe disadvantage. It's my fault and there's no reason the players should suffer because of it. So I'll start having "really bad rolls" or cut the monster's stats or something to patch the fuckup I've made.

Never. Not as a player and as a DM I roll everything in the open. If I can't live with the diceroll, why am I even rolling at all? Chance and the outliers that come with it are one of the reasons why are you dice exist in the first place.

>>51128262
When I play 40k and my opponent isn't looking, I'll lie about a die roll or two in favor of whoever's losing.

File: serb.png (347KB, 500x417px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 500x417px

>>51128262
MAN, THAT IS ONE FUCKING COMFY IMAGE.

>>51128678
A goblin can one shot most martial lvl 1 character with a max crit. Woops, better not put any goblins in my level 1 encounters.

>>51129371
This. If I'm worried that the monster might kill players I don't roll for it to begin with, but narrate it snarling or otherwise threatening them (like it has driven the PCs up in a tree or smth), but not actually attacking. Fudging is unnecessary if you just use your judgement instead to begin with.

>>51128262
I never fudge die rolls, hard to do it when I do them all in the open haha.

I think it lends a good sense of lethality to the game (pendragon)

On the other hand I give each player one fudge roll per session I think it helps them take more risks knowing they have one precious re-roll.

Rolling dice is like flipping a coin. In the process of doing so you figure out what you actually wanted to do all along.

Fudging rolls can definitely improve a game, depending on a DMs style. Sure there is an illusion you are throwing over your players. But this whole game is based off illusions.

There's no right or wrong way to play D&D. If you think there is then you are pretentious as fuck.

>>51129508
If your games or your characters are so vapid that their sustenance begins and ends only with dice rolls... then I'm sorry for you and every group you've been a part of.

>>51128723
They can't be not OK with it if they don't know about it.

>>51129635

What?

>>51129474
You are fudging right there. You are fudging the integrity of the NPC.

>>51129640
Its a utilitarian situation. If I tell my player in going to save his character by subtracting 1 damage off the roll he will get upset. But if his character gets killed he will need more upset.

Considering this is just a game, do I really wanna stroke my peen, notch another player killed in my belt, and smug at how good at DnD I am? Or do I just want my players to have fun, with characters they are emotionally invested in, and a game that makes their week a bit better?

i fudge numbers frequently.

randomization is good but sometimes it ends up feeling unfun. if one player has been hit every single round for ten rounds i will give them a break so that they don't lose their character over some trivial luck shit.

if a player does something smart i give them a bonus, which isn't really fudging so much as it is creating rules on the fly.

i also really enjoy rolling dice at random times to keep my players guessing.

Yeah, only as a GM, and only when things are going too good or too bad for me. A boss encounter where he misses every hit isn't very exciting I think, so I try to break it up.

>>51129704
NPC can have a change of heart. It's not fudging by definition since I'm not rolling.

File: 1482881990053.png (55KB, 217x190px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 217x190px

>>51128262
As a DM of... 3-4 years only, I fudge all the time.

Why?

It's important for the players to feel that there is randomness. If they thought I was in control of everything all the time, their actions wouldn't matter because they would only succeed or fail if I already planned for them to. Dice rolls are basically rewarding the players for how they built their characters.

It's just as important to maintain a proper engagement curve. If you've ever studied movies for instance almost all movies have the same narrative structure. Introduction of characters, things go well, introduce the major source of conflict, protag is succeeding before a major fall, followed by a redemption and climax. This narrative structure is used over and over because it WORKS. Obviously you can do variants but if you don't the basics of achieving an engaging narrative, you can't hope to modify it.

Basically, I fudge rolls for my players to have a good time. If you're right in the beginning of an arc (where players are supposed to be succeeding) and they lose by taking 4 critical hits in a row, that's bad. If they're in "The Fall" where bad stuff is supposed to be happening and they are just blowing it away... you fudge to add tension.

But the illusion of randomness is important because without it they don't feel like their choices matter.

Basically, if you're a good DM. You fudge so that the players have a good time. You don't save them from dying or let them succeed at whatever they want (or even force them to fail things you thought they would) but if randomness is going to fuck up the engagement of the campaign... Yeah you fudge

The problem is that D&D was originally conceived as a very difficult game, where both character creation and character death was fast. Later editions of D&D tried to remove the high lethality but didn't bother to change many of the rules that made it like that.
People should probably play something other than D&D if they want heroic characters who rarely die.

>>51128262
>Do you fudge dice rolls?
Constantly.

>In what context would you decide to fudge the numbers a bit?
Any. For the entertainment of the group. I like the suggestion dice brings me/us, though they're only suggestions.

Entertainment do not have to mean sucess, just as "meta" don't have to mean to be abused to gain an advantage. Everything is for the mutual entertainment of the group, no mater if you're a player or a GM, everyone is there to be entertained and if you can't trust each and every one to be there to entertain and have an entertaining time together then what's the point?

>>51128501
>don't be a pussy and try to hide it
I'm also going to ask them to read the entire adventure befor we play it as well, anything else would only make me a pussy, right?

>>51128678
You haven't played much RPGs have you?

>>51128723
That's the basics to all roleplaying, make sure everyone is on the same page and playing the same game. The group is the game. Everything else are just sources of inspiration.

I don't fudge, but I do roll meaningless rolls all the time so that my players don't get used to the idea that "dice roll=stuff happening soon" and also to give the illusion of randomness to stuff thats not really random.

>>51128941
That's not my (decades of) experience.

Then again we never were much for the D&D style almost-roleplaying.

>>51129066
The game is the group, that's the secret, the rest is just inspiration and suggestion, illusions to entertain.

>>51129889
Protip: Fudging all the time means you're a bad GM because you can't design encounters worth a crap.

Depends on your players I'd say. If it's people that have a lot of experience with dnd and want a challenge then no, I'd go 100% by the book, but if it's newcomers and casuals that just want an epic adventure then of course. My personal go to is acts of divine intervention. A god does something to save the day, or help arrives just in time etc. Nothing makes people happier and more pumped than hearing a horn sound in the distance and a cavalry charge ride in to save the day

>>51129288
>an RPG is a complex social dance between the players and the DM and the illusions between them

This. Entertainment and mutual trust in each other that everyone is there to entertain.

>>51129998
glad to know i'm not the only one who does this

>>51129335
>I can fudge so many other things..
Which is why I fudge or even completely ignore to even roll or look at the results of a roll. It's just another thing in the make belive I as a GM have control over. Random is fun when it offers inspiration, it's shit when it don't.

>>51129946
I don't even understand what point you are trying to make. My point was: if you are going to fudge rolls make sure your players are ok with it. If they don't want that type of game, don't run that kind of game without telling them.

>>51129371
Inspiration. If you don't need it you don't roll. If you need it (find it entertaining) you roll. Might change from one moment to the next to change again in the very next, or it won't. It's all just for the inspiration to entertain, it ha sto entertain though or you (as a player and a GM) have failed.

>>51129376
Well WH40K and WHFB was intended as the other side of the D&D coin, the miniature war game with the RPG-flair, instead of D&Ds proto-rpg with a miniature war game flair.

I think it's interesting that there's a heavy mindset by GMs to throw threats back at their players when their players act a certain way. If they take PAM and certain combats get too easy, they might run into some enemies with the same ability. I know it's basically apples and oranges but some people think GMs fudging dice is okay, while it's one of the worst things you can do as a player. Not much of an observation but I figured I'd throw it out there.

>>51129879
What? How's your reading comprehension? In the situation he stated he directly says that he makes a character do something he would not normally do do to them being too "powerful". That's not change of heart. That's fudging the situation.

If a rabid starving tiger meets a lone PC is it going to have a change of heart and decide he's not THAT hungry? Or is he going to eat them? Anything but the later is fudging.

>>51130129
I find it infinitely more entertaining, both as a GM and as a player, when I know that a diceroll actually stands and is not up to the whims of the GM. The entire gameworld is at the GM's mercy, but the dice are the great equalizer.

>>51128262

I'm a DM i'll sometimes fudge my dicerolls if my players are attempting to do something really badass.

>Player: I'm on the griffins back?
>Me:yes
>Player: I want to pin its wings back and make plummet it into the ground
>Me:That..will be a grapple check
>Player: Does a 17 do it?
>Me: (Rolled a 19) Yup sure does, you grasp both its wings back causing the two of you to drop suddenly
>Player: (grins with joy) AWESOME


Way I see it, its a game so it's worth it if it makes the game more fun for everyone.

>>51130050
If you design encounters solely on CRs and not the integrity of the story, then you are also shit.

>>51130210
Agreed.

I never fudge a roll, but fuck will I alter dc on the fly

>>51130165
>If a rabid starving tiger meets a lone PC is it going to have a change of heart and decide he's not THAT hungry? Or is he going to eat them? Anything but the later is fudging.

Maybe it spots a more appetizing prey. Maybe the fey are fucking around again. Or maybe you just shouldn't have narrated it as being rapid and starving to begin with, and it just decides that the PC isn't worth the trouble once the PC manages to hurt it. Realistically, most things shouldn't be too willing to fight to the death anyway.

>>51130183
Everything is up to the whims of the GM. It wouldn't be a RPG if it was not. You'd be playing a board or miniature war game. The dice are just another illusions (suggestion).

>>51130216
The game part is more important than the story part. If you disagree, stop GMing and go write a fucking book.

>>51130050
>design encounters
Found the shit GM

>>51130210
GMing done well. Players ends up being entertained, you end up being entertained as players trie smore amazing things and starts getting creative and gets rewarded with great moments thanks to it.

>>51128262
Only critical fails, I don't claim to have rolled well enough to pass anything, but my gm has a real annoying habit of going way over the top with natural 1s. Stuff like getting knocked out for hours trying to do something basic or taking long lasting or even permanent maluses.
It wouldn't be quite so bad if he balanced it out with critical successes giving the same degree of bonus, but it's just minor stuff like finishing off an enemy or getting a slightly better dealing.
tldr, a critical fails can kill a character but a critical success only provides a minor benift

>>51130050
Not understanding that 3 consecutive crit fails can't sink a PC against even an easy encounter.

>I think I found the shit GM, thanks.

>>51130293
The story part is more important than the game part. If you disagree, stop GMing and go play a video game.

>>51130483
Which is why, you'll notice, I did not say that all fudging is bad. But if you need to fudge all the time to prevent things like that happening? That means you're a terrible GM using fudging as a crutch.

File: vSO5p46.jpg (31KB, 480x312px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x312px

>>51128754
>comparing gambling to ttrpgs
>"I cannot differentiate between reality and role play."

>>51130586
Ya know what, that's fair.

A better way to state my position would be to say: "You should be willing to fudge at ANY time", for the sake of the party's enjoyment.

Most encounters shouldn't be life and death without possibility for retreat. However if a player is on a simple mission to shake down some NPCs that owe the quest giver money, multiple crit fails shouldn't result in them getting killed off when they were making "correct" choice.

Choose to antagonize an entire bar and start a mob again you? Totally different story. That's on you bud. But I don't let my PCs get killed off during a demonstration of archery skill because the enemy HAPPENED to put 3 consecutive arrows through my player's eye socket.

File: a0.jpg (5KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 480x360px

>>51130210
As someone who uses a 2d6 system, which mostly involves players rolling for success, I can't do shit like that.

Grapple flying lemon is a hard challenge, so you gotta roll 9+ on 2d6 to beat it. bad odds, but better than real live.

>>51130835
Expansion on this: I think ally you guys who have constant problems with crit success and fails are u dumb.

You should not have critical success and failure with every roll.

Some attempts, like tricking a wary npc, are critical success just to achieve what you're trying at all. You roll the dice because success will add to your legend.

Other tasks need a crit fail just to not work. example: tying a knot. Only in combat under stress should you even roll this, and even then you need to roll a 1 in order to fail at it.


Player wants to do somehtnhg retarded? Well, roll high! You should be happy that your natural 20 lets it happen at all, even with penalties.

Player doing something easy? Natural 1 sure ain't gonna hurt, it just mains you screwed up a little and take longer. That won't matter unless you were doing something which needed to get done NOW

File: 0258a66ec642505585fcf552f05304d1.jpg (33KB, 523x591px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 523x591px

>>51128262
I only do so when one of my players does, like, six misses in a row, even though his stats are saying that he should be able to hit something around 90% of the time.

So not really fudging per see, but more like overtly saying "This is ridiculous, fuck those dices. I'm granting you that hit".

Beyond that, I never cheat with the NPC's. That bandit just died because of an incredibly bad roll ? Great, this means I'll have a good time describing the ironic demise of that poor soul, who accidentaly fell onto his own knife while attacking the PC's.

>>51128262
If the players are getting absolutely butt blasted because they're rolling cold, I fudge the dice against them to match sometimes, especially if it's low stakes and them failing would just be lame and meaningless.

I've done it but I try not to as a rule.

I figure that if I must have a given result, it's inappropriate to roll. Just admit you're switching over to cutscene mode.

If you want to play a game of Big Damn Heroes where their crazy plans always come off without a hitch, then just assume those crazy plans always succeed.

My approach is that it is interesting when things go wrong unexpectedly--the whole point of a RNG is to introduce unpredictable results. So if a kobold scores a critical hit with a crossbow and sends the party of bad asses fleeing to regroup... that could be cool.

I'm fucking terrible at math (I can do it, but I'm rusty and it takes a while without a calculator), so I sometimes approximate. I always go for the lower end of damage when I'm approximating, though. My friends all know, and it's never really been an issue.

I fudge dice in favour of the players when I GM a bunch, or I have them roll the dice (in the case of games like Dungeon World, where the players roll the damage inflicted on them by monsters). Or I roll in the open.

Not normally. I'll do it on rare occasion, but a player usually has to earn that with exceptionally bad luck, but it's more like I'd just give them a reroll to use however they want. Generally I think if you are willing to fudge a roll as a GM you should consider why you were even rolling it in the first place. When I'm a player and I think rolls are being regularly fudged I just feel like I'm being tricked into thinking I have any sway on the outcome of the game
>>51130483
Does that even exist as anything other than an unpopular variant rule in 3.5?

>>51128262

Never, and its led to me playing some completely gimped characters, and/or losing fights in the most pathetic of ways.

>>51128262
Sometimes, mostly when rolling hit dice.
Monster attacks and such get what they get, if you die, oh well.
But if a lich gets like 12 health or if a chest contains 10 measly coins, I will of course fudge .

>>51130118
GMing is as much a game of misdirection as it is a game of presentation. If the players know exactly what the result of the die is then it ruins the mystery of the game and leads to a poorer game as a result.

One of my best game was one where all I did was roll dice and either nod in agreement, act surprised, or look entirely blind-sided by the result. Sometimes I would even roll dice just because I wanted the players to pay attention or to see them squirm and give me ideas of what I was going to do to them.

If true transparency was a sought after GMing trait, every GM ITT and beyond would play out in the open with the stats for every monster they throw at them there for all the world to see, right down to the abilities, the AC, and its HP total.

The dice are only there for plausible deniability, nothing more and nothing less.

>>51130270
So basically, fudge?

Because that's literally what you're doing right now. If we have a starving creature and it sees a creature that it perceives as being weaker than it, it's going to attack with the intention of killing.

If you're starving, you're not going to pass up an appetizing burger just because a restaurant might be a few miles down the road, you're going to attack the burger and wolf it down as quickly as possible.

And realism has nothing to do with a game that's already a work of oratory fiction, if there's meat, the tiger will eat, and anything to the contrary is just you fudging its actions in the PC's favor.

>>51130050
Found the shit GM fellas, no need to stay, we found him.

>>51129998
That's still fudging.

>>51128262
If the story was better with the roll fudged.

Could someone thread this?

>>51134747
No it isn't. Fudging is changing the result of the roll after you roll something that you don't like for whatever reason.

>>51129998 is about rolling for things that don't require rolls just to keep appearances.

>>51130210
You can't do that unless you're a luchadore.

>>51134783
You're still rolling a meaningless roll just for the sake of maintaining appearances and assigning an arbitrary result just to maintain a credible level of threat in the campaign.

Which is fudging.

>>51134857
No, fudging is changing the roll AFTER you roll it to get a better result.

If you don't roll at all, it isn't fudging, it's just designing a campaign a certain way.

I could roll to see if the king has 1000 gold in his treasury and if the roll says no and I change it, then I fudged the roll. But if I decide from the start that the king has 1000 gold in his treasury, then there's no fudging involved.

>>51134918
Whether you decide on the result before or after you roll is irrelevant, it's still fudging.

Notice how in both of your examples, you're still choosing how much gold the king will have in his treasury regardless of the roll.

>>51134964
So to you, all writing and preparing you do for the campaign is fudging?

Fudging is changing and manipulating the numbers (or facts) to suit your needs.

Let me expand on my example.

Suppose the players demand payment from the king for services performed, which is something I had not anticipated, they demand 1000 gold.

If I didn't decide before hand how much gold the king has, I might roll for it, and if it turns out that its less than 1000, then I have to fudge the roll to pay the players.

If, on the other hand, before the session even started I decided that the king has more than 1000 gold in his treasury, I can pay the players without having to fudge anything, because I already decided beforehand. I might still roll to make a show of it, but I'm not changing any numbers anywhere.

The other possibility is that I decided before the start of the session that the king has 500 gold in his treasury, and if I still play the players, then I still fudged, but not the dice roll.

And finally, if I just roll the dice to make the sound, unrelated to anything, just to misdirect the players, then I am also not fudging.

>>51134555
>The dice are only there for plausible deniability, nothing more and nothing less
No, the dice are there as a medium used to determine probabilistic results, that was their intended purpose, no amount of mental gymnastics will change that. When you choose to change the purpose of the dice and nullify their original use, you change the nature of what you're all participating in. Your "best game," wasn't a game at all. It was you telling the story you wanted to tell, not even a cooperative story telling at that, and lying to your players. Their rolls didn't matter in the slightest, because what you wanted to happen was going to happen, regardless of what they did/ attempted to do. The only redeeming factor is that you calling it your "best game" implies they got their gratification at the end.

True transparency is sought after, but that doesn't mean stupidly exposing everything about the story or the encounter as you claim it is. It's honesty and integrity to the system from the DM, it's not abusing rules, and it's letting the dice fall how they may. It allows the players to have gratification from knowing that it was really them, and nothing else, that let them overcome difficulty, through role-playing and determination alone. Secrecy is needed to prevent involuntary meta-gaming, that's it.

You can do what you want, but when you fudge dice, or even ignore them outright, don't pretend you're RPing, because you aren't. And if you can't tell your players what you're doing without them losing all their gratification and enjoyment, then you're likely not doing a good thing.

File: shrug(1).jpg (62KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 500x334px

>>51135285
>Your "best game," wasn't a game at all.
>You can do what you want, but when you fudge dice, or even ignore them outright, don't pretend you're RPing, because you aren't.
Whatever you say man. As long as everyone had fun, I really don't see what the problem is or why you're getting so upset.

>>51135105
If you roll a die but alter the result, or you forgo a roll to decide on a predetermined value, it's fudging, plain and simple.

Doesn't matter if it's before or after, doesn't matter if it was planned or improvised, doesn't matter if decided to roll or just took the base value.

If you choose a numerical value w/o consulting the dice, it's fudging, plain and simple.

File: 1481856026510.jpg (19KB, 420x354px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 420x354px

>>51135460
>why you're getting so upset
I thought people on this board were old enough to stop projecting.

What you do has no affect on me enjoying my own RPing, so there really is none.

While I empathize on how unpleasant it must be to have your DMing methods suddenly thrown under fire, you really should try some self-revaluation, instead of ignoring criticism. That doesn't foster growth or betterment.

File: dice fudge.jpg (963KB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

963KB, 3072x2304px

>>51128262
I rarely fudge the dice, but I really like to dice fudge

>>51135579
Yeah, you are simply wrong. Go look up what fudging means.

Designing my campaign is not fudging.

File: shrug.jpg (12KB, 141x131px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 141x131px

>>51135689
>I thought people on this board were old enough to stop projecting.
You obviously care pretty strongly about me fudging dice since you said "your game doesn't count because you fudge dice and GMs who fudge dice are ALWAYS shiiiiiit!"

If anything, you're the one who is projecting mate.

>>51135757
You have plenty of tables to roll from if your intention was to construct a campaign.

>>51135689
lol got em lol

I open roll. But then again, I only actually call for rolls when I think going either way would make the game more fun or we're in a mini-game like combat, so that might be a form of fudging.

It is the kind of game I would prefer to play in as well.

>>51128262
Never, why roll dice if you already know the result?

>>51136093
Because the players don't.

>>51136093
Why watch a movie you've already seen?
Why replay a videogame when you already know what to do and what will happen?
Why order the same food at a restaurant if you already know what it's like?

there's more to life than just novelty. Never accepting anything else is a surprisingly boring life.

>>51128350
Have you ever put a DMPC in your game, like a, a real SUPERHERO?

>>51136170
>Why watch a movie you've already seen?
I don't.

>Why replay a videogame when you already know what to do and what will happen?
Unless there is a new experience I don't.

>Why order the same food at a restaurant if you already know what it's like?
Because eating is required to live, if it was not I would not bother doing it.

>>51128262
If I accidentally kill the players by making the encounter way higher difficulty than could reasonably be dealt with, I'll either fudge dice rolls if it's a short encounter or deus ex a weakness or path out if it's a lengthy one.

>>51136276
How incredibly boring.

>>51136384
>Not experiencing the same thing over and over
>Instead looking for new experiences
>Boring
Not sure what your definition of boring is but I think you may need to reevaluate it.

>>51136445
There's always something you miss, so you're really missing out on more by only experiencing it once than you would if you experienced it multiple times.

File: 1482073659218.png (502KB, 878x842px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 878x842px

>>51135764
>you said
But I didn't. I simply said what you're doing is lying to the players about them having real input, and giving them hallow gratification. What you do is lying, no two ways about it, but yet it's also still gratification of a kind, so good on you for that at least.

I also never said your game doesn't count, but really it's hardly roleplaying if you can call it that. See the follow:
>Story: An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment.
That's from the English Oxford dictionary. Roleplaying is pretty much just telling a story as a group, but separate from storytelling by the presence of dice to decide if you succeed or fail. When you omit the arbiter-like nature of the dice, you aren't roleplaying anymore. You're just storytelling.

I also never said you're shit, please do try not to twist my words. All I said is, again, if you can't tell your players what you did (either omitting or fudging dice) without them becoming disgruntled and voicing dislike for it, then what you're doing isn't good, for various reasons.

And if you can and they say "Ya that's great, we love that" well then good on you for being so in-tune with what the group wants! Keep at it! I'm thankful though that's not present in mine.

>Gets called out for projecting
>no u

File: Shrugging.jpg (19KB, 481x391px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 481x391px

>>51136658
>But I didn't.
Yes you did. It's right >>51135285 as I previously quoted.
>Your "best game," wasn't a game at all.
>You can do what you want, but when you fudge dice, or even ignore them outright, don't pretend you're RPing, because you aren't.

I mean if we're going to continue this conversation then you need to stop lying and own up to what you said.

File: dice chocolate_gaming_dice_set.jpg (38KB, 600x447px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x447px

>>51128262
Fudge Dice?
Sounds delicious.

File: 1475400682039.jpg (58KB, 728x426px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 728x426px

>>51136658
You tell him, how dare he have badwrongfun with his friends, everyone knows that these games are serious business and anything less if false nu-fun.

Pic related

File: 1483669241002.jpg (788KB, 1603x1077px) Image search: [Google]

788KB, 1603x1077px

>>51136765
Ya, I'll stand by my statement. I wasn't really a game. Not a roleplay, no, it was storytelling due to the omission of dice deciding what occurs. It counts for something, because it was apparently fun for your group, but that doesn't make it a roleplay, just a fun story you told where the other felt like they were participating.

>continue this conversation
I can't find one. Look anon, you can keep digging your heels in and trying to find flimsy reasons not to actually start a conversation, but it's a pretty obvious. If you don't have anything to say about my other points, then it's over, time to stop typing.

>>51137041
What exactly do dice rolls have to do with roleplaying? Isn't roleplaying an element that's divorced from the game's mechanics?

I'm such a good GM that if I do, you'll never know it.

:^)

>>51136658
You know roleplaying without dice exists, don't you?

>>51137200
>>51137622
I feel like it in fact isn't divorced from the mechanics of the game. I'm aware RPGs without dice exist, but there's often some other system in place for arbitrating the results of chosen actions. It's in my opinion that this system of arbitration, which is neither the one who's directing the game(DM) or a participant(player), that sets any kind of RPG apart from simply group-storytelling, or even Improv (in essence).

But hey, again, that's just my opinion. If you disagree, that's ok.

>>51137823
Roleplaying is just you interacting with the world that the DM prepared in a way that shapes the narrative. You don't need to roll dice just to say "Howdy Sailor" to some random NPC that happens to be within earshot.

>MUH CRITS
If you fudge and don't tell your player at the start of the game you aren't a bad GM, but a bad person.

>>51137970
>If you don't tell people that you fudge dice, you're literally worse than Hitler.
Don't you ever stop. I'm not going to call someone a shitty GM for fudging dice so long as the campaign itself is still entertaining.

>>51137942
That's not roleplaying! That's just wasting your time, because all the important stuff warrants a resolution - if something doesnt have a resolution mechanic, it is either a filler or game designer's failure.

>>51138311
>what is immersion
>what is fun

>>51138311
>Roleplaying is wasting your time
Welp, guess we know why you play tabletop now.

So, do you just run straight combat or are you the type of autist who boils everything, even social interaction, down to a die roll?

I don't even use dice for most things. I just pretend to. I prefer that (almost) everyone is having fun more than abiding to an arbitrary set of rules and numbers.

File: SkeletonBonecrusher.jpg (172KB, 900x1081px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 900x1081px

I will if its my fault for misjudging how strong something is

I threw a giant skeleton at a party and it nearly wiped them. It got initiative on them and fucking mulched the wizard before anyone could even react.

>>51129787
Who are you, his fucking therapist? Grow some balls and play the game without cheating.

>>51137942
Ya you're right anon you don't, but for things that warrant risk and reward and penalty, you do. Thus the dice come in.

>>51138878
>Tabletop Game mechanics warrant dice rolls
Brilliant deduction, dice still have nothing to do with roleplay though.

>>51128262
I don't think you should. I think you lose a lot of dramatic tension if players on some level realize that the possibility of failure is a charade. And I don't think most DMs are good enough liars to keep up the charade.

>>51128501
Why are you so mad about this anon?

>>51128262
Everyone who GMs fudges.
Anyone who says otherwise on the internet is flat out lying to you.

>>51138924
I can't help you be less fucking stupid anon. If you can't understand with ample explanation in this thread why I think that, and you can't defend your own points (if you have any), I don't know what to say.

Go play some adult education games, they have ones for developing critical thinking.

File: 1376692384780.jpg (40KB, 800x804px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 800x804px

>>51139502
>States that game mechanics warrant dice rolls as if it's some cutting edge discovery
>Calls other people retarded

>>51128262
You people are ignoring a far more pressing issue:

Where the fuck do I get a d20 mug with a lid?

>>51128262
im not going to say i have not before but it is very rare

>>51128262
I'll be honest and just admit that, on occasion, yes I do. I'm not proud of it, but I tend to find that a few changed rolls from failures to successes helps keep things moving sometimes.

I'm a piece of shit, I know.

>>51129450
If they're level 1, then rolling a new PC isn't any big deal. It's no excuse to coddle them like babies, adventuring is supposed to be dangerous. Nuschool faggot

>>51139736
nah, that's fine, it is a part of playing with random chance.
Random chance sometimes decides to be an absolute cunt.

I did a while ago, but now that we play on a very cozy table I haven't had a chance.

It sucks because I have awful dice luck and my players have great luck, so they breeze through my challenges way too easy.

>>51139779
The problem with that line of thinking is that if you kill them too often, they just become desensitized and start mass producing back-up characters with colorful names like Jimmy, Timmy, Billy, and Rob.

All in all, tabletop is supposed to be fun. If you're running a meat grinder and people are cool with it then hey, more power to you. You should still recognize that not everyone is going to appreciate having to reroll a new character just because they had shitty luck when they were otherwise doing fine.

>>51136184
*Shakes head*

>>51128262
Ideally a tabletop is entirely deterministic and just complex enough to seem like random chance is occurring.
But that would require at least computer assistance.

>>51130270
>>51129879
You're fudging the moral roll, retard. There's no difference between rolling a 6 and assuming you got a 1, and not rolling and assuming you got a 1.

>>51139678
http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/htqn/

Five second Bing search.

>>51130569
The video game part is more important than the fucking book part. If you disagree, stop story parting and write a fucking game part.

>>51130216
>>51130293
>>51130569
>story
cancer. the game is the story, fucking KYS

>>51129889
>rewarding the players for how they built their characters
see above

>>51140003
>Badwrongfun? CAAANCER
Way to go 4chan mememachine

File: tT09a7r.jpg (798KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

798KB, 2560x1440px

>>51139818
even as a player though? its not like I can't accept bad things happening, but if my character is going to suffer/die at the wrong moment, when its pointless in a game that isn't about mass-murdering PCs, then I get the fudging going

>pic completely unrelated

>>51140071
Players aren't the ones who are intended to fudge dice, GMs are. It is part of their game responsibility, and is often defined in any how to GM section.

>>51128501
actual autism, folks

>>51138743
Not that anon, but I'd rather have no balls than have an inflexible iron rod shoved up my ass.

>>51128262
No. I don't.

It defeats the purpose of rolling at all. I don't want punches pulled for me and I don't pull mine.

If my players 2 shot my bbeg I also don't throw a fit. It's part of the game.

I'll do it if one of the players is getting dicefucked or if I'm failing every roll in a dramatic fight.
Obviously I only do it very rarely, and I usually only bump the number up or down by 3 or so, so it doesn't really effect the player's enjoyment or the "integrity" of the game. I also only do it in combat, which doesn't have any bearing on the story, just the numbers that are being thrown around. I mainly just do it to make the players sweat a little more in some fights or boost the spirits of the player that's been rolling 5s all night.

>>51128262
All the damn time. If the players are getting screwed by shitty rolls I throw them a bone, and if they are doing so well it's getting boring then they start to have "bad luck."
Only way to keep things exciting. Fuck d20 systems.

File: cca616a2a5e238a57143a9be31435ae5f1155f7f3b6fca96b394c3c8f8da97f6.jpg (67KB, 564x747px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 564x747px

>>51134857
>>51134747
>>51134964
You're describing something different than >>51129998

He's not rolling to decide on something that he actually already decided on or adjusted when he got the wrong result. He's rolling a dice without it being tied to any decision at all. I do this too, IIRC, I got the idea from some Gygax interview.

The point is to solve the problem of player's getting a meta sense of the frequency of wandering monster encounters and other rolls, knowing when and what were triggering "checks" when their PC should have no sense of it. Making meaningless rolls adds noise, thus increasing the desirable distance and mystery between the GM's tables and numbers, and the player's play experience.

Fudging is a sin, but modern players are sheltered babies and their DM's pathetic pushovers. It can't be helped.

>>51134764
If the DM had final say on all "story" decisions, we'd all suffer only bland and cliche experiences. You'll get no better stories than from the randomness of dice.

>>51140090
I'm well aware of that. I still do it as a player.

As I said, piece of shit.

>>51140276
Then, yes, you are breaking the social contract of the game table.

>>51140248
>look ma, I can troll now!
Silly new players, not knowing the ancient ways of appropriate fudging.

So, who is the autist who always shows up to these threads really angry about dice?
It's the same guy each time, each time being laughed at by the whole thread.
What is his backstory?

>>51136765
>Your "best game," wasn't a game at all [because every aspect was predetermined]
>same thing as "your game doesn't count because you fudge dice and GMs who fudge dice are ALWAYS shiiiiiit!"
>dismissing entire post with this shit argument
>after previously dismissing entire post with "umad?"
Nice garbage grade sophistry. Why are you so insecure about having your trash gaming habits outed that you can't even engage in a meaningful discussion with a clearly intelligent, civil poster without resorting to such desperate bullshitting? Why did he put up with you for so long?

>>51140382
Nah, this poster does this every time random chance.
They're super mad about DMs fudging for some reason, and repeat the same arguments over and over regardless of whether they are refuted.
Let alone that the entire thing is a matter of opinion and he acts like his is fact, and it becomes a quite obvious troll.

>>51140415
>>51140382
Also, there's
>>51139316
to consider.
A man comes up to you and claims not to fudge dice, you claim to him that you have found a liar. Because it's true.
Really the whole thing is a ruse by one poster to try to act like there is some contention on an otherwise undiscussed issue.

>>51128262
Not anymore. When I was new I would all the time. Eventually I moved on to just letting the dice fall. If my PCs get destroyed by something lame or my would be hard encounter gets btfo I just roll with it. Much more fun for me that way.

>>51128262
In combat, rarely. However, for random encounter rolls, I often do, usually for determining exactly what shows up when I roll an encounter.

>>51140382
Can you really call them "trash game habits" if the party is still having fun though? I mean, that is the whole point of playing tabletop isn't it, to have fun?

Also the other guy was a huge fucking wanker, going on about this and that when it isn't even that big of an issue unless you're so much of a type A personality that you actively monitor every single roll the DM makes from behind the screen.

And if you do that then, sorry love, but you're the bad-guy in all this, plain and simple, no better than the person who goes "actually GM, that monster's AC is 17, not 18, sorry pal but it's obvious that you don't know how to run the game" and shit like that.

>>51128262
As a GM, I never fudge rolls.

However, I don't always let the roll decide what happens. After all, that's up to me, not to the dice.

>>51140439
>A man comes up to you and claims not to fudge dice, you claim to him that you have found a liar. Because it's true.
Uhhh, no it isn't?

Just cause that one anon is a shithead about letting the dice fall where they may and probably not even sincere about that. doesn't mean that no one does it ever.

I open roll in basically everything I run these days. The dice fall where they may. That may not sound like a fun or a good game to you and your way doesn't sound that fun to me either, but that doesn't mean I or everyone else who claims they play that way is lying.

>>51140632
Sorry anon, enough trolls have claimed to enjoy that without really enjoying it that your story becomes unbelievable.
Boy crying wolf scenario.

>>51139925
Have you ever tried Alter Self?

>>51128262
I run Dungeon World. The players make all rolls; as GM, I never touch the dice.

>>51140619
>i dont fudge rolls i just ignore the rolls when they dont do what i want

really rattled the old 'rons

>>51128262
On occasion, when it would unquestionably improve the game.

>>51139903
This is bullshit. Unless you design a shit dungeon, there should always be exits/alternatives to any encounter the party didn't bring unto themselves (assuming good play), and there should be some ability to have gauged the risk/reward (even if part of the risk is the unpredictability of the risk) to decisions undertaken by the party. With this as given, as in dungeon design not being the problem, it can be assumed ALL player death is their own fault. Yes, even if it's due to shit luck. Shit luck is part of the system, and that's the world they're gaming. Everyone knew the score up front - well except, new players but that's how they learn: through failure. The fact is, a better player wouldn't have died there, or wouldn't have been there in the first place.

I'm not going to save you from that, though I might give you a baby's first dungeon if you really suck. I don't run a meat grinder in any way, I reward player creativity and good play, and when they suck, I'll give them meta tips to help them not suck, but I'm not going to distort the world to accommodate their carless play or some indulgent snowflake nonsense they brought to the table.

Also this
>>51138743
While I do obviously manage the general vibe on the table and keep play active and fun, if they're getting upset just for dying, they should learn how to manage their own fucking emotions, kind of like how all adults are expected to? Or just play something else, monopoly perhaps? I don't know, I've seen it get pretty competitive. I never understood GM's treating their players like fragile children. Children, schizos and the gf you just broke up with are the only people you're ever expected to manage the emotions of on their behalf, unless you're GM'ing nu school D&D.

>>51140328
>one insulting aside in a 200 word post makes you a troll
back to tumblr

>>51140840
Man, you're such a shit about this topic that it discredits it for people with a more legitimate interest in it.

File: 1433093672963.jpg (131KB, 565x575px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 565x575px

>>51139560
>States they don't
>Can't even back up why so
A real, genuine retard is found. Amazing.

File: 1483671939599.jpg (153KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 550x550px

>>51140599
I don't know, is "fun" really the end-all of gaming? What about exploring evocative worlds, engaging with an elegant but complex game system, experiencing an exciting narrative, etc?

Some players have fun no matter what's happening, you know the type (or kids, in the right situation). You get them altogether in a party and stick them on a poorly written self indulgent railroad, and they'll still have fun, and no one's going to stop them. But that doesn't absolve them from being criticized.

Players of Mary Sue's sure do have fun. That Guy's & That DM's have fun. They're still cancer. Cancer isn't a problem if isolated, let them get together in a group of That's, but keep them the fuck away from me, and if I did accidentally step my toe in that ran water, I sure as hell am I gonna maintain my right to shit talk them [from a safe distance]

>the other guy was a huge fucking wanker
No he fucking wasn't, he was being very civil, he just strongly disagreed with your (?) position, and argued his side well.That doesn't make him an asshole, but thinking it does certainly makes you one. Just because you're a pussy doesn't mean holding strong opinions makes you an asshole. He argued his points very well, they're all points I agree with (and nobily without the vitriol and insults I choose to pepper my own with) and none were given a single rebuttal - and what I had to say above, on the subject of tolerating your cancer, is a lot less strong than what he did:
>And if you can and they say "Ya that's great, we love that" well then good on you for being so in-tune with what the group wants! Keep at it! I'm thankful though that's not present in mine.

>>51140672
*shakes head*
Nah, nah...

>>51140882
If you're so new you can't handle my banter, I very much doubt you've got anything valuable to contribute to the discussion anyway. It's cancer screening, a simple heuristic and not an unfun one either.

>>51140672
Nah, naah.

>>51141068
fresh off the boat, eh?

>>51141025
I'd sooner back up my reasonings for why the sky is blue or that water is wet.

You roll dice to settle outcomes like who gets stabbed in the face but not for basic human interacting between you and NPCs.

Oh hey, it's that rolling autist again.
What's up rolling autist?
How have you been since last time?

>>51141088
just an old and bitter crossposter, faggot

>>51141113
I'll take that as a yes.

>>51141033
>I don't know, is "fun" really the end-all of gaming?
Is that supposed to be a trick question?
>Reads the rest
Oh, I get it, you're one of those guys who can't stand "badwrongfun" and anyone who doesn't play exactly as you'd like is cancer, I gotcha. Listen pally, it doesn't matter if the group is the best or the worst band of fuckwits to ever grasp a polyhedron, if everyone at the table is having fun, what does it matter how they're doing it?

You said it yourself, you have your containment group that you can scream obscenities at [from a safe distance] so why do you care how everyone else decides to run their game?

>>51128403
>>51128467
Occasionally this but mostly I fudge rolls on loot tables.

>>51141096
I'm sorry newfag but rolls to determine NPC morale have been in RPGs since the day D&D first saw print, disposition and factions and such since JG wrote its first module.

>>51141196
>being this bitter about getting called newfag

>>51141196
What in the absolute fuck are you even going on about?

Even if you roll up a nasty sunnuva bitch, you'd still have to roleplay how they interact with this particular PC. Like does he glare, does he flip him off, does he spit on him, call him a faggot, there's a ton of ways a nasty SOB can establish that he's a nasty SOB and that my friend is something that you can't accomplish by just rolling dice and comparing the results against a chart or something.

File: 1484025518741.jpg (49KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x480px

>>51141174
The point is relying on some undefinable metric of "fun" as an end all be all justification only results in meaningless relativism. Anything can be arguably construed as 'fun,' so that everything is justified. Incoherent game design can be fun, railroading can be fun, cheating GM's (read: GM's who fudge the WRONG way) can be fun. If you criticize any of it, you're wrong and a literal fascist imposing your views on others. And not only that, you're also some cutesy overexcited portmanteau buzzword: bigbadevilguy! no wait, I mean badwrongfun! haha gotcha!

File: 1433648455374.jpg (73KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 720x720px

>>51141096
>He doesn't roll to decide important social outcomes
>persuasion doesn't exist
Retard alert.

>>51141277
The thing is though, those elements actively make the game less fun for most people.

If nothing you do matters and you're just being ferried from point A to point B, you lose interest and the game becomes less fun because nothing you do matters.

If the rules are difficult to understand and you're spending most of the game trying to figure out how to utilize the most basic of actions, the game is no longer fun because you don't understand how to play, which leads to feelings of confusion, frustration, and the like than actually relaxing and going with the flow of game.

And cheating GMs are just shit in general, nobody enjoys being cheated and if people feel as though the results aren't fair, they're either going to stop playing (fuck this game) or just phone it in (I roll I guess, still going to lose anyways).

There's a reason why these elements show up in most THAT GUY/GM stories mate, it's just not fun to deal with.

>>51141068
What does your screeching add to your argument? If anything it just makes you look like a crybaby.

>>51128262
if i miss more than two attacks in a row i fudge rolls. I don't wanna spend all of game night being useless. fucking bite me

>>51141317
So you'd make someone roll persuasion just to say "hi, my name is Bob?"

File: 06ae790f5e8226e24e02a4e05b7cd73f5d3209033e6ecac5457b10bc3ae95f19.png (170KB, 510x346px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 510x346px

>>51141196
I was just poking a hole in your statement with a literal reading because you're pushing down a pointless strawman argument but I guess the joke didn't land. The anon never stated anything to the sort you're claiming.

He said RPGs that don't have dice often require some of other form of arbitration, you (or some other idiot) replied that that's not true for [trivial thing], and he said that he only meant it for risk/reward & penalty situations, and then you (or some other idiot) sperged out and refused to continue any meaningful discourse as you drifted further and further from the claim - that dice, or some other method of mechanical arbitration, are essential to tabletop gaming. The sperging ironically concisely
>Tabletop Game mechanics warrant dice rolls
reinforced this. What he was in essence arguing is that 'mechanics' is what makes it the 'game'.

If a hypothetical GM predetermined everything, and didn't make dice rolls, for an ultimate railroad, you would have a pre-written story told by multiple speakers and also some extraneous props. If the GM also made meaningless dice rolls for the illusion of the players, giving feigned nods or looks of surprise, as the other poster described, you'd have what looks like an actual a game for the players (if they don't notice the deception), and a pre-written story told by multiple speakers and extraneous prop for the GM or any omniscient observer. I suppose it's a bit like schrodinger's cat. Is this fudgefag's campaign just another shitty railroaded game or a grotesque, soulless imitation of a game? It depends on the observer.

>>51141416
No, I'd make them roll to try to get the baron who doesn't have much of an opinion of them suck their collective cocks, as opposed if he did enjoy them, at which point they'd not have to roll but rp it out.

File: [Raughs in high quality].jpg (118KB, 1338x716px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1338x716px

>>51138311
>"Putting yourself into the role of a character in a game isn't roleplaying!"
>"Literally the only things that matter in a tabletop RPG are those that have a 'resolution mechanic'!"
>unironically being this autistic
it's okay to stop anon, you don't need to dig this grave any further

File: e744d1c0e8e1e51962be852df5e92f9f823fc9c677a2017aef1783f4e867287a.jpg (28KB, 625x535px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 625x535px

>>51141388
Imo, banter adds much color and humor to the points made. It's not my fault there any many whiney babies who choose to clog up the thread with their complaints rather than either shutting the fuck up or contributing. It's reddit's, or more accurately, moot's fault for inviting you lot in.

If you disagree, you're literally a BADWRONGFUN who can't appreciate how other people can have DIFFERENT ideas of FUNposting. FASCIST

As a GM: no.
As a player: only in combat, after i've missed a few times.

>>51141536
I suppose if you think it's fun that's one thing, but frankly I think it lowers the level of the actual discourse if you care about that at all. You aren't going to convince anyone of anything, at any rate.

>>51141474
Why would the party even have an audience with the Baron if he thinks them as unworthy of his time?

Did they just waltz into the royal chambers without any of the guards stopping them along the way? I mean, it's assumed that since we're meeting with a Baron, we have a good reason to do so yes?

File: Screen Shot 2016-02-05 at 3.21.51 PM.png (86KB, 231x296px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 231x296px

>>51141379
>most people
You've got no metric to decide that. What gives you the right to decide what isn't and isn't fun? I'm going to now ignore every reasonable point you made as to why it might not be fun, because oh, I get it, you're one of those guys who can't stand "badwrongfun" and anyone who doesn't play exactly as you'd like is cancer, I gotcha. Listen pally, it doesn't matter if the group is the best or the worst band of fuckwits to ever grasp a polyhedron, if everyone at the table is having fun, what does it matter how they're doing it?

Fun is meaningless. It's largely subjective. A lot of things are. Note: it's not entirely subjective, fuck you, it isn't, either nothing is or everything is, vulgar pomo fucking cunt. It doesn't stop us from evaluation and criticism, even if it means there will be disagreement.

Fudge is a trash game habit because it undermines the soveriegnity of the system. It's hubristic on the part of the GM - though I'm sure nu school cucks would be surprised to hear that since those unthinking dolts only think they're being empathetic to their poor baby players. It puts everything into misbalance, turns every roll into a decision to intervene, turns randomness into randomness when I choose it to be. It coddles the players, and from their perspective, assuming they're ever made aware of your egregious deception, and lucid enough to process its consequences, fundamentally destroys their relationship with their seat and table, that in which they invite themselves into the imaginary world and learn to feel out and follow the unchanging natural laws of its universe, where the GM is its shepherd and not its commander. The only way to respond to your fudgery is to try to forget it happened. It's always a black fucking mark, even if it's only known to your heart. There's no way around it. Faggot

>>51141609
I said doesn't think much of them, not thinks they're unworthy of his time. If he needs a solution to a problem and one of his underlings brings him these "guaranteed problem solves", he can size them up and think they're nothing special, but accept their help because he needs it that much.

Read the witcher ever? In the first book, almost the exact same scenario comes about.

>>51141707
A low quality post, but I do appreciate your use of the word vulgar in the first spoiler.

2/10

>>51141707
>You've got no metric to decide that.
Except for hundreds of thousands of THAT GUY/GM stories where shitty GMs pulled the exact shit that you're talking about. I can also go on rpg.net, paizo forums, basically any fucking online venue and show you stories where the OP (and others) were dissatisfied with the game because someone in it was a cock and ruined the game for everyone else.

If you feel as though that alone isn't enough then please show me a story in which a game was dealing with the things you were talking about and the game was still considered good.

File: you-left-wing-leaning-parasite-you-expect-me-to-sit-here-and-1498510.png (94KB, 500x461px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 500x461px

>>51141608
I completely disagree, there's nothing I appreciate more than good discussion. I've made some very swell points ITT and your censuring tumblr sort have only contributed empty feel good nonsense followed by baseless refusals to engage on any deeper level, both in response and in general. It's pathetic and completely predictable. You've got jack shit to contribute here and should rightly fuck off

>>51141765
It's hard to take someone seriously when they say they appreciate a good discussion when they so adamantly reject all criticism and swear constantly like a middle-schooler. It's certainly quite possible you do appreciate good discussion, but if you signal that poorly you're less likely to get it.

>>51141708
Even if he doesn't think much of them, wouldn't it make more sense for a Baron to at least attempt to put on an air of diplomacy just so the reckless band of mercenaries are less inclined to snitch you out if a rival put out an equal bid for their time?

Also, you're introducing a lot of variables here. The original argument was whether or not I needed to make a roll to say "hi, my name is X" to an NPC but now we're talking about Barons?

File: AGC49.gif (70KB, 740x540px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 740x540px

>>51141742
I hope you understand I mean it in the sense of populist, not racy or explicit.

>>51141749
You can go on dragons foot, K&K, piazza and find everyone agreeing unilaterally fudge is sin. I'm sure you can also find dens of sin where people praise that indulgent snowflake etc. cancer, probably start with ERP forums. The trouble with argument ad populum is that that too is relative. Your sordid relativism really bites back in the ass when confronted at any seirous level, huh? But keep up your sophistry, see if it'll get you anywhere.

>>51141847
I did understand that, and that's why I appreciated it.

>>51141799
While we may have different definitions of good criticism, point to me where I have failed to address any? The post that quote nest links up to directly addresses the 'trouble' he brings up, by suggesting it's not in fact a problem, but a question of design or GM philosophy. It received no reply but kvetching over my mean words. Words which did nothing to obscure my points, imho - replace 'shit' with 'poor' if you're so weak hearted, but please just stop pussying out of the fucking fight.

>>51141892
Okay, I just had the thought it might be misread like I'm just calling pomo ugly when I typed it out abbreviated

>>51141847
It's funny how you're bringing up all these fancy terms yet claiming that I'm the one keeping up some sort of sophistry around here.

For the record, you really shouldn't claim that everyone of a particular group believes in the same thing w/o question, it makes you look like an idiot because if I find even one person that disagrees with that statement, the whole thing falls apart.

Just saying.

>>51141925
Sophistry doesn't mean words you don't know. It's using shifty arguments to dodge real discussion, criticizing my vocabulary and not my points for example, or honing in one overextension of a meaningless adjective for another. Just saying.

>>51141919
I'm not sure if you're confusing me with someone else or what because it seems like you're arguing with like ten people at once but those posts don't really have anything to do with what I was saying. I'm not actually attacking the strength of your arguments, I just mean that your methods may be antithetical to your desire for good discussion.

>>51140689
Exactly. And I often roll openly, too. However I always abide by combat rolls. Also I roll perception rolls secretly but always abide by them too (of course I roll when they are not needed as well).

However for random occurrences/"wandering monster" tables and the like, if I roll something I don't like, I'll pick something else.

>>51141978
At this point you're basically just arguing that because anything can be fun, it means that you cannot ever criticize something because someone else might find it engaging.

If everyone at the table is having fun blowing each other and throwing shit at the walls then so be it, just recognize that people might not be so inclined to pander to your definition of fun and be willing to either duck out once it's apparent that you're not going to enjoy the game or be willing to compromise to at least see if their definition of fun is enjoyable as well.

>>51141978
Your whole argument is fucking stupid. I can have fun doing stuff but still recognize the flaws in it.

If you can't take criticism then you're just a bitch, plain and simple.

>>51128262
I roll shit consistently so yes I do

File: Whatcha Doing Rabbi.jpg (179KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1024x768px

>>51142198
>>51142092
>because anything can be fun, it means that you cannot ever criticize something because someone else might find it engaging
This exactly the opposite of my position. It's what I described the logical conclusion of the other anon's position is.
>The point is relying on some undefinable metric of "fun" as an end all be all justification only results in meaningless relativism. Anything can be arguably construed as 'fun,' so that everything is justified.
Being "fun" doesn't preclude criticism, not least because anything can be considered "fun" by somebody. You might enjoy your dumb bullshit, and I won't stop you from liking, but I'm still going to go on thinking it's dumb bullshit, and even argue why with my peers if I feel like it.

So can we finally get back to discussing WHY fudge dice is dumb bullshit? Or are we going to keep on discussing IF it's even possible it can be considered such?

>>51142023
I don't know what you're talking about. You said I avoided responding to all criticism, I pointed out that I was directly responding to criticism throughout the entire quote thread, which derailed after my post here >>51140840
in which I responded directly to the post, and subsequently had the points ignored in favor of a response that only complained about my problematic choice of tone. There's an irony in suggesting its my rude posting that ignores criticism, and thus impedes discussion, and not those of the tone police. While it may be too self congratulatory to suggest a case study of this thread would find high order banter, swearing and general unpleasantries is highly correlated to good argument, the inverse is pretty easily palatable.

>>51142198
>>51142092
also lrn2readingcomprehension

>>51142376
Yeah I guess I wasn't paying too much attention. But to be a pedantic ass, I said you rejected all criticism, not that you didn't respond to it. When your response involves something along the lines of "this is why people like you are always without exception complete fucking faggots" it seems like you don't really even care about what they're saying and are basically just going out of your way to be a douche.

>>51142376
>The point is relying on some undefinable metric of "fun" as an end all be all justification only results in meaningless relativism. Anything can be arguably construed as 'fun,' so that everything is justified.
Fun can be defined by everyone at the table having an enjoyable time with one another though. In this case, it's the group's enjoyment as a whole rather than just my opinion vs. your opinion on what's enjoyable.

That's the difference here, in order for a game to progress smoothly, you and at least 3-4 other people need to sit down and agree to the same standard of fun before play, which is damn near impossible if everyone isn't on the same page.

Plus, it's a bit difficult to have a discussion with people like you when you've already decided that I'm a disgusting plebian before the discussion officially began.

>>51142421
You've been moving goalposts so much this entire thread I'm honestly unsure if we're in the same stadium anymore.

What even was your point before going all "fun is a buzzword kek" on us?

File: 1472208765385.jpg (146KB, 960x758px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 960x758px

Absolutely not.

The GM doesn't control the world. If a GM tries, it ruins the integrity of the world. The point of rolling is to simulate the reality of the setting. Once fudges are made, it's no longer an organic world.

Things aren't always going to be cinematic this way and you can't roll for absolutely everything, but there isn't much that ruins the atmosphere or fairness quicker than a participant that fudges.

If they face something strong, they will probably die. If your villain fucks up, he fucks up. That's how it is.

>>51142451
Assuming you don't mean reject as in 'consider then accept/reject,' I don't understand how you can reject criticism while also giving a thought out response to it? Just calling me "a shit" is a rejection. Addressing my points with a direct rebuttal, regardless of whether or not you top it off with an ", asshole." at the end is a complete response. The cherry on top might be rude and unnecessary, and in anywhere besides an anonymous imageboard or a close circle of friends, often grounds for misinterpretation and a breakdown of civility, but we are in fact on an anonymous imageboard, where for more than a decade we were allowed to banter like close friends without getting fucking tone policed

And giving a long, serious response to a post a place as ephemeral as 4chan is the height of caring about their thoughts. Though it is true, I really don't give a single fuck what offsite newfags might misinterpret it as, I already said they never have anything meaningful to contribute anyway, as they've proudly demonstrated ITT.

>>51142572
>The GM doesn't control the world.
Yes he does.

>>51142573
>Acts like a disrespectful cunt throughout most of the thread.
>Please don't hurt my sensitive fee-fees.
Oh hop off your own dick. You get back what you put in asshole and considering where we are, he could've laid into a lot more viciously.

You can't act like a prick and then get mad when other people treat you like a prick.

>>51142573
I think your assumption that people that disagree with you are offsite newfags is probably an inappropriate over generalization. Maybe this is just a difference in opinion, but I think it's perfectly possible to give thought out responses to things while also never actually being open to the possibility of being wrong. But that's not something I can really prove because I'm not in people's heads so whatever.

>>51141847
If a dm fucks up and accidentally creates an encounter that's far more difficult than intended, would that be an appropriate situation to fudge rolls (or do something similar) according to the logic of that comic?

File: 1472208765385 - Copy.jpg (19KB, 269x258px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 269x258px

>>51142615
No.

If you're a GM and you think you're controlling the world, it's going to show. I can already tell you would/are a garbage GM. You have to view it like you're a gate into another world and telling them what's happening. It's a skill that takes a while to develop.

Every single GM I've met that was garbage made it obviously clear that they were controlling the events consciously. They had the awful mindset which transferred through to the gaming experience. You have to train yourself to know all aspects of people and reality. Motivation, personality, mannerisms, desire, etc. Not only this, but you have to gain knowledge about Earth so that it can easily transfer over to the other setting.

The setting is already there and is playing out by itself. If you are going to consciously make the world or dictate the events, it better be through rolls and an incredible knowledge of why things happen.

absolutely.

>>51142729
definitely.

File: 18592d8b0ce21502b136450bcf489e247478eec3b30f95c465b5d97950d3237c.png (92KB, 237x287px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 237x287px

>>51142515
I haven't shifted my stance once. I'm gonna do this one like old time books having summaries of their chapters

>>51140840
>in which I describe my belief that dungeon design and GM philosophy should be such that player death is in their hands

>>51140382
>in which I plead an anon to engage sincerely with another of my intellectual heights, and in which I describe fudge as a trash habit
>>51141033
>in which I argue against the pitiful criticism that fudge can't be trash if it's fun aka "people can play how they want dude"
>>51141707
>in which I launch a spoilered defense in the form of an epic poem of my statement that fudge is trash

>>51141469
>in which I narrate the course of the derailment others' argument for the forgetful and dimwitted, and in which I describe the paradox of the fudgefag's cat

>>51140248
>in which I mediate on a discussion of fudge and not-fudge regarding meaningless rolls

I also agree with the other anon attacking fudge dice and think his largely unaddressed arguments stand for me:
>>51135285
>>51136658
>>51128501
Oh man, look at the salty responses to that last one, obviously a real touchy fucking subject.
In any case, no one engaged with the poor fellow besides repeated nonsensical accusations of him trying to police others' games, despite his repeated denials. What a shitshow, you can do a lot better than this /tg/.

>>51142709
The only way that a setting can actually play itself out is if it's being run through a 3rd party program that has preset algorithms that would allow you to construct a world with a living breathing environment, like Dwarf Fortress.

The reality is that the GM always controls what's going to happen within the campaign. He controls which monsters you fight and what they do, which NPCs you meet and how they interact with you, etc. etc. Nothing happens just on a whim, it's there because the GM willed it to be so for the sake of the campaign.

I can already tell that you're not interested in a discussion since you've already gone through the trouble of overgeneralizing everyone who disagrees with you into a group of "bad people who don't want to play" but I'm hoping you can at least understand how your initial argument may be flawed considering the nature of the game we're talking about.

>>51142709
So are you some kind of sage that perfectly understands human behavior, society, and geography? NPCs aren't ghosts that you channel, you literally need to decide what they say.

>>51128262
As the gm sure.
I'd say roughly 80% of the time I let the dice fall as they may.
When I do fudge it it's usually for theatrics sake.

>>51142778
>This is what narcissistic personality disorder looks like ladies and gentlemen.
I'm just saying, people would be more interested in talking with you if you weren't such a faggot in addition to being wrong.

Here's one (you) for the road pally, I hope it lasts.

>>51142781
Reread my old post, especially about mental training. It's all about learning the third position and attitude. My argument is only flawed to people who see it as a surface level experience. I understand what I'm talking about and through much study of the human mind, I have realized the secrets to great immersion. You can play as you like, but I prefer to provide something deeper.

>>51142790
I'd say I'm more knowledgeable about human behavior, society, and geography than most of /tg/ because of the attitude I have towards the integrity of my settings.The key is rigorous planning and study.

I agree, NPC's aren't ghosts that you channel. You're relaying what they say in the format of a tabletop game which is the closest thing we have to a full world simulation. Their personality has to be as organic as possible and disconnected from your own mind which as I have stated before, takes a lot of training. I do it because I love it and want to provide the best experience possible. Other GM's don't have to and that's fine, but it will be an inferior experience compared to if they tried to be as much as a third party, or a "Seer" as possible. There will always be the human element, and that is why tabletop can never be perfect, but getting to the maximum level of disconnection possible and being a vessel of description is the key to becoming a master story teller. I'd say for the average GM, aim for 70% disconnection.

>>51142878
70% seems kind of arbitrary, but I think you're right that that would be the ideal sort of dm. Too much work for most people to reasonably do though, which is too bad.
you really do seem like a bit of a narcissist bro

>>51142932
I don't believe I'm a narcissist. I just used to be a huge pussy and overly-empathetic and now I've stopped caring about tiptoeing around peoples feelings. I care strongly about this and I've thought a lot about it so I'm willing to defend it.

People can play as they like and if it works for them, great. This is just my piece about being a good GM and if they want further immersion in their campaigns..

File: d65237bff23b1a1cb34f43fb94ee9c3d8041a0c95ac045c17c1d6584bc25426c.jpg (28KB, 405x322px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 405x322px

>>51142657
What? I clearly stated it wouldn't make a difference whether or not you end a post with "asshole." as long it was a serious response. I don't give a shit what you call me but please contribute to the discussion, don't just break down into hysterics. Solely calling me "faggot" or spending a paragraph to give me some sophistry about meanieheads or whatever else you can pull rather than addressing my points and engaging in sincere discussion, is the only thing I find non contributive, and only the latter I think unhealthy. Faggot

>>51142668
I'm assuming people who tone police me are newfags, not people who disagree with me. I've been posting with this unremarkable degree of rudeness for more than a decade, and I remember when we all used too. yes, even on /tg/. imo the only change ITT is the emotional trigger fudge dice seems to be for nuschool sucks.

And yes, I was assuming people who disagree with me on fudging dice are new school players, I've no evidence for it, but reason enough to suspect it - it comes out of an excessive empathy towards players, coddling players, disrespect towards/hubris over the system, lack of thought to consequences to sys changes, etc. They've also demonstrated impressive inability to emotionally cope with any form of disagreement re their little houserule ITT - one wonders if it's only a sign of their humorous immaturity, or perhaps it's because they're personally so attached to it as it's the only rule change they can get away with in as stiff a setting as a pathfinder session, be that it exists specifically as a deception played on the players. Who knows?

>>51142822
Learn to have a little fun

>>51142878
>My argument is only flawed to people who see it as a surface level experience.
No, your argument is flawed because you're basically saying "I'm the most intelligent person in the world, I know the secret to everything" while missing the obvious point that the GM is in control of every aspect of the game.

This isn't some shitty anime where you're looking through the looking glass into another world here (and if you are, get help, seriously), you're constructing a world for the PCs to interact with. Without you and your players, nothing within this world would exist because there'd be no reason for it to exist.

>>51142975
>I don't believe I'm a narcissist.
You wouldn't know if you were suffering from a mental illness. This is why therapists are a thing y'know.

>>51142975
It's not about people's feelings, you just have a bizarrely high opinion of your own intelligence and DMing ability completely devoid of humility. I guess I don' know you aren't some genius or whatever but I think I would have a hard time taking literally anyone talking that way too seriously.
>>51143053
Fun fact: simply asking someone if they are a narcissist is a surprisingly good test for gauging someone's narcissism, researchers have found.

File: 647a2332e0915d69c9fc334a09ff3e47e28eeaa1b7cec1f57fc2d0d2d3a0f314.jpg (41KB, 310x240px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 310x240px

>>51142709
>>51142878
this

what do you think about the spoiler here >>51141707

This part especially
>It coddles the players, and from their perspective, assuming they're ever made aware of your egregious deception, and lucid enough to process its consequences, fundamentally destroys their relationship with their seat and table, that in which they invite themselves into the imaginary world and learn to feel out and follow the unchanging natural laws of its universe, where the GM is its shepherd and not its commander.
I think agrees with your perspective. The GM is channeling the world, defined by the system, through him as accurately as he can, like an artist channeling a muse through his hand. Their job is to maintain that fragile imaginary for the players to engage with and one of the most essential pieces is the world maintaining continuity/inner logic etc. GM's certainly play a hand in designing the world with their campaigns and the system with their house rules but that doesn't contradict the system being law. Not the rules as written, but the system in play.

>>51143063
We've both been called narcissists ITT. For some reason people ITT are really uncomfortable with being told someone disagrees with them fudging dice and are resorting to every line to avoid the argument. Maybe it's guilt? I think it's guilt.

File: 4298050+_bcee43d51b91a12592cc1f87e425789f.png (70KB, 243x200px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 243x200px

>>51142709
I don't think you grasp the concept of how a interactive story is supposed to play out.

>you (the gm) set events into motion.
You disguise this action as the antagonist (or whoever) setting his plana into motion.
>the good guys (our pcs regardless of how good they may be) get involved either because it involves then directly or they actively decided to get involved in it.
A action YOU (again the gm) gave them the opportunity to do by having story related events happen near or to them
> the pcs do stuff
Now this is where it gets complicated because a good story teller is never entirely sure how things will go from here. Maybe the pcs go how you expected them to allowing the story that you (once more the gm) set into motion to continue.
Or maybe they do shit you never saw coming, maybe the bad guy murders the fuck out of them or kills a npc you had plans for because they force his hand or something.
Again these are ALL things you have control over. While you don't actively control the pcs you do control the aftermath they create, how npcs that you (again you the gm) likely made; react.

So yes the gm does control the world even if he didn't build it.

>>51143111
I'm not really concerned with the dice argument myself, so my talk about narcissism wasn't about disagreeing on that front.
and I thought he was you so I combined the narcissistic aspects of you both into one mega-douche

I play to find out what happens. As gm, I just set up a situation I think would be fun and let dice stand. Fudging ruins the trust a party nreds in their gm to really get invested in the game I think. I've never been a preplanned story guy though. when doing a campaign, I roleplay how people react and set off events. The thing is to not get emotionally invested in their success or failure.

>>51143024
>"I'm the most intelligent person in the world, I know the secret to everything"

You didn't read my other post either where I stated that there's always human error and that I'm not all-knowing, but that I have enough information to use systems which I designed which can accurately present the world to the players without my first-person bias.

>his isn't some shitty anime where you're looking through the looking glass into another world here

Once again you've failed to read what I've posted. If the human mind is incapable of organizing everything, you must plan (Which I have stated in my previous posts which you have failed to read). The use of planning and well designed systems can assist any storyteller in achieving great immersion, but if someone can streamline as many systems in their mind as possible, the better the experience will be.

>>51143053
I used to see a therapist for OCD which is luckily resolved except for the fragments. I specifically asked if I had any other disorders (I mentioned narcissistic) and they specifically told me I had nothing else but the above mentioned and depression. You are attempting to diagnose me through an internet forum which is stupid in itself.

>>51143063
I don't have a bizarrely high opinion of my own intelligence. I have already mentioned in above posts that I have human errors and that I require some systems but that I have become a great GM through my dedication to accurately knowing the systems in my own mind and creating a fun, immersive experience.

>>51143111
Thank you. I wish you luck and fun in all you games

>>51143127
Reread all of my posts. The unpredictability of tabletop is resolved through rigorous planning, systems, and understanding the nature of living beings.

>>51143111
>It's not that I'm a total asshat whom nobody would admit to liking, it's that everyone else is guilty for...some reason
I hope you understand that this is actually a narcissistic trait.

File: 1480457272457.jpg (8KB, 236x213px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 236x213px

>>51143174
>The unpredictability of tabletop is resolved through rigorous planning, systems, and understanding the nature of living beings.

You sound like a incredibly boring gm which may be just because you have a boring group.

If you can literally use math to predict what everyone does in your group then I pity you.

>>51143174
If you understand living things so well then why do you come off as a euphoric sperg who gets off to how enlightened he is by his own intelligence?

Like wouldn't that give you the ability to say "hmm, people don't like characters that behave in this way so I should probably not act like them in the future" or something like that?

File: Atlantis-milos-return-disneyscreencaps.com-3453.jpg (56KB, 730x447px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 730x447px

>>51128262
>Play with nigger gm
>he has his typical fucking nobleman DMPC, with wich he pats himself in the fucking back all the fucking time by giving loot to himself and ignoring the rules of the game,
>Repeatedly tells us that he fudges rolls whenever he wants, because "good masters do it"
>Repeatedly forgets basic rules and combat structure, or just outright changes them, because "it wouldnt make sense for it to be otherwise"
>has me count his fucking damage because he somehow doesnt know how much damage is 2d10 + something under 10 and it´s armor piercing value

I only know, when i get to be in the high end of the table, i´m gonna protect the integrity of the fucking game. No, you aren´t "making a good story" you´re just fucking retarded and you can´t write for shit because you are 24 years old and still type like a fucking toddler. It´s like a fucking retard gagging on his own fucking dick, while he constantly repeats how fucking awesome he is at running a fucking module.

I swear to god, if roleplaying wasn´t so fucking rare in my country, i´d boot out of this fucking group in an instant, save for a good fella who´s a good sport. Im already making a whole fucking setting, fleshing out every bit of it, so no player has to go trough retarded bullcrap like this, strolling around while knowing that the GM may just completely take power out from you, turning your sword into a fucking limp dick

>>51143214
>This one time, this one guy did a thing poorly
>Therefore it is ALWAYS a bad thing, even if used properly and sparingly.
Whatever you say man, it's all your fault anyways for playing with niggers.

>>51143204
Our games are incredibly fun, varied, and full of life. It's not all math, and that's where knowing how minds operate comes in. Reread my posts.

>>51143207
You've already determined that in your mind and you're unwilling to change your opinion even though I've clarified everything, showing that the current problem is not in my explanations but your asspain.

It doesn't matter if players like or dislike a character. That is a character in the world and there's no way that every single character is going to be likeable to the other characters/players. It's like real life where you avoid people you don't get along with. The point of tabletop is simulation with soul. The soul comes from the adventure, story and passion. The simulation comes in from systems, intelligence and preparation.

>>51143253
When is it proper?

>>51143253
i suppose fudging would be ok if you dont go around parading it like a retard, and hide it with utmost secrecy. Otherwise, it´s just you being retarded and telling players you´re cheating at the fucking game.

File: 90af8d82addec264711840f596abc0c7117b88c6ac8dd35501686cb8eaaf72f8.gif (640KB, 300x210px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 300x210px

>>51142490
>Fun can be defined by everyone at the table having an enjoyable time with one another though
I already addressed this

>you and at least 3-4 other people need to sit down and agree to the same standard of fun before play, which is damn near impossible if everyone isn't on the same page.
ERP manages to do so with a much, much more radical idea of a "good time" than anything we're considering here

>it's a bit difficult to have a discussion with people like you when you've already decided that I'm a disgusting plebian before the discussion officially began.
No, it's difficult to have a discussion with people who refuse to engage on any level on a subject with anyone who disagrees with them, pulling any excuse at hand they can to avoid serious consideration, as evidenced ITT with either a swarm of derailing non-responses to or total ignorance of every post - not just mine - making a thought out argument against fudging dice. But let's just read unforgivable persecution in-between the lines of all those points we're ignoring, yea?

>>51143174
>Thank you. I wish you luck and fun in all you games
I asked you a question

>>51143187
I hope you understand that the points made extend a lot further than your simplification.

>>51143140
Yeah I figured, it was just a chance for a joke. but I hope your idiotic conflation has made you realize how petty a slur mental illness is, nigger.

>>51143277
How can you parade it and hide it at the same time?

>>51143277
If you have to hide it from your players for it to be okay, why is it okay?

>>51143290
I didn't mean to accuse him of being mentally ill, I usually just think that people have different levels of narcissism as a part of their personality.

>>51143293
>what are ,

>>51143270
When the dice would result in a situation that would jeopardize the overall nature and enjoyment of the campaign.

Like a bugbear rolls a crit on a dude who is at full health, instead he only rolls normal damage since the Bugbear's crit would've literally one-shot the guy since he's only like level 1 or so.

Or you have an important fight that the group is just blazing through while you're rolling absolute garbage, you can make it so they hit just enough times so that fight isn't a total curb-stomp and they feel jilted by the results.

Overall, you just gotta get a feel for the game and ask yourself "would this result cause the game to become poorer overall for everyone involved?" and if the answer is "yes" then it's okay to fudge just enough to make the campaign not too forgiving and not too unforgiving.

>>51143314
because otherwise they don´t feel like they´re playing a game, they´re just along the fucking ride for your shitty novel.

I dont approve to fucking fudge the dice, but god, if you have to fucking do it at least be discrete about it

>>51143290
I meant to respond, sent the post too quickly.

That spoiler is 100% correct.

>>51143331
So I've thoroughly reexamined the comma, and I still don't understand how he was hiding the fact he was fudging rolls if he proudly admitted to it.

>>51143314
>If you have to hide the monster's stats from the players for it to be okay, why is it okay?
>If you have to hide the NPC's true intentions from the players for it to be okay, why is it okay?
>If you have to hide the location to all your hidden treasures and rooms from the players for it to be okay, why is it okay?

And the answer to all those questions is because they don't ask and the GM is expected to put on a show while exercising liberal uses of deception to get the players invested inside his campaign.

A magician doesn't reveal the secret of his magic trick after the act is over and GMing a game follows the same principle. If the players knew as much as the GM, it'd just make the game boring for everyone involved.

>>51143316
It's still niggery. Why do you have to derail an argument into meaningless psychological analysis? Even if you are too dumb to see where I'm obviously playing the part for humor, how does it change any of what I or the other poster say by concluding they're some cali girl's version of "OMG such a, like, narcissist"?

I guess it's kike shit, not niggery, really, pure kike shit. Not just completely sophist but relying on jewish psychoanalytical bullshit too. inb4 wrongspeak's the next thing used to ignore my points.

Anyway I'm going to bed. You've disappointed me tonight, /tg/.

>>51143331
Wait I see what you were saying now, nevermind.

>>51143355
sorry, im not a native english speaker, maybe i fucked it up. what i meant was this

>DON´T parade it in the openn
>DO be discrete about it

let me know how the sentence would be correctly written if you can. never late to learn

>>51143388
All I said was "you seem like a bit of a narcissist, bro" after agreeing with him.
>>51143395
No you were right actually, I'm an idiot.

>>51143384
But in all those cases, the players know that you're hiding all that information. You're not hiding the fact you're hiding it, just the specifics. With fudging dice, you're hiding the fact it's happening at all.

np bro

>check thread
>dice autist is out in full force again
Man, some people just get really aggressive when you tell them you have a different playstyle.

>>51141184
This.
I fudge on loot tables fairly often.
It gives me a lot of time to figure out what to give them, plus I'll look at the entry and see nearby entries-- which may be better/more relevant

>>51143332
If a monster that can one-shot a level 1 guy with a rare critical jeopardizes the nature of your campaign, then don't put him in it. The trouble is shit GM's railroad the players into the unavoidable fights, which puts the problem of planning out difficulty on the GM, often done in prep and on the spot, rather than on the party weighing their own options for themselves. If they're weak enough to get one-shotted by a bugbear, how about they don't fucking fight it? If they want to risk it, knowing it's only on a crit, they can risk it. Fudging it so the risk wasn't what it actually was is cheating them, there's a reason they'd be upset to find out you did.

>>51143412
Now you're splitting hairs here.

The point is that the players won't know that you're rolling dice because they shouldn't see what you rolled in the first place and if I wanted them to see the results of my roll, I wouldn't have a screen so they wouldn't see it in the first place (while also having notes that help me remember key gameplay mechanics as a bonus).

The players know that the GM is hiding information from them, how is fudging any different, so long as you use it sparingly so it's not obvious?

>>51128262
Everyone fudges numbers, even autists who claim they do not fudge numbers.

>>51143403
I was talking to the other guy, too. Are you new to anonymous discussion? You're not always only speaking to who you're quoting, you're often not even speaking to him at all.

>>51143449
>>51143412
in the end, players know the GM will fudge dice as is appropriate to make a more fun game.

>>51143332
If we're talking D&D, it's very much a game of attrition. It's not fighting that's inherently interesting, it's the situation that leads to combat that's interesting. The outcome can almost be mathematically simulated. What makes that fight interesting is that the party is down to their last torch, the fact that they might have to drop some of their sick loot to escape this bugbear, that the knife wound from a goblin earlier in the dungeon is coming back to haunt him. The attritional aspect of hit points makes them interesting because you are wagering a portion of your character's ability to complete an adventure every time you choose to engage in combat. Remove the wager by fudging dice, and you remove part of what in my opinion makes D&D such an engaging experience.

>>51143457
Yeah well since you quoted me I thought I would respond to clarify what I had said. I wasn't the one acting like a nigger because I didn't use the accusation of narcissism to derail the argument.

>>51143266
You've become a caricature of yourself, a way of gaming even the most black trenchcoat of gamers would consider retarded.

>>51143454
I don't. Why would you? Part of the fun of the game is the random outcome.

>>51143445
>If a monster that can one-shot a level 1 guy with a rare critical jeopardizes the nature of your campaign, then don't put him in it.
Problem is, a stray critical can (and will) kill most level 1 PC's in one hit.
>there's a reason they'd be upset to find out you did.
Which is why I only do so sparingly and I make sure not to make it too obvious. I could've looked surprised because I rolled a crit or I could've looked surprise because I rolled a 19. It's not like I'm just having it miss, it's just the difference between being maimed and being outright killed before you even get a feel for how the game works.

Then once they've gotten to the point where a crit won't kill them in one-hit, then I can do it a lot less. Do you understand me?

>>51143496
Exactly what a liar would say in order to start an argument.
Especially the part about needing clarification.

I have a DM who fudges all the time. I caught on to him ages ago. When I've played with him for 5 years I realized what stats are worth investing it.
We're playing class less systems and investing in combat is basically only a gauge between players. I haven't feel threatened by the enemy competition in 3 years. Moistly, because no one has died outside of foreshadowed events.

I am of a different mind. Consequences matter and randomness is a factor, however, I give so many oppoturnities to avoid combat and the players know I don't scale encounters after their skills but how the world is.
Even the combat specced shun combat, though they are by large and large immune to what I throw at them.

But here's the thing. Their actions matter, they solved the barbarian horde invading by challenging their leader to a duel. They converted a devil, they brokered a political marriage with the evil vizier and through political maneuvering dethroned the king.
Two characters have died, one through said alliance with the vizier who she had betrayed and the other from absolutely failing a dangerous magical experiment on the rift to the final boss.

Both have been mentioned as highlights of the campaign. Character death is not a bad thing, if done right.

>>51143486
You should try darkest dungeon, or warhammer fantasy based instead of trying to twist old editions of D&D to your playstyle.

>>51143506
You know if you just roll in clear view of everyone it actually becomes impossible to fudge rolls? It really isn't that outlandish.

>>51128262
Never. You don't roll unless it is important, and if it is important then failure is as important as success.

>>51143509
>not rolling to see if the barbarians are willing to duel
Casual newscum

>>51143486
And you can still have that with fudging dice, as you've seen in my example where I say that he would roll normal damage instead of a crit.

Attrition means nothing when almost everything in the MM can OHKO you 5% and you have no means of avoiding that stray crit, short of prarying that the GM rolls low damage.

>>51143522
>trying this hard to get arguments going to cover the lie
Enjoy autosage, scum.

>>51143449
Because it's promoting illusionism: that choice doesn't matter.

>so it's not obvious

Do you really think you don't have tells when you lie?

>>51143538
Anon, he doesn't actually play how he says he does. He doesn't even have a game. All of his advice is armchair waving that fails upon contact with players or GMs.

>>51143544
Feel free to live in your fantasy world I guess, whatever's fun right?

>>51143509
My one question is why you chose to stay when it was obvious that you were no longer satisfied with the campaign?

>>51143548
Well, if we're going by lying tells, the "rolls only" people smack of never playing a game in their lives.

>>51143538
Which is why at low levels, combat is a bad solution to the overarching question of "how do we remove the sick loot from this adventurous location?"

>>51143516
Blow me.

>>51143565
>Blow me for giving me good advice to get what I claim I want

File: 2c257db7681df1c0be93de07a24b223cc39cd1f9ad1640d970536ff0fb73348e.jpg (95KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 960x960px

>>51143449
The point isn't about that it's hidden, the point is that if players found out you were fudging numbers, they would be upset. As in, you don't need to hide monster's stats "for it to be okay," That would mean players don't even know monsters have stats, and if they found out, they'd be upset. Of course they know they have stats, regardless of whether or not they're visible, and some DM's do make them visible. But they don't know you're fudging your dice.

Fudging your dice means you can fudge anything. The entire world is up to your whim, not the systems. There's actual laws or inherent logic to the world. That's why player's will almost always be upset to find out you're fudging shit regardless if it's in their favor or not. It inherently undermines their ability to engage with the illusion of a real and consistent world - the only solution is to try and forget about it, or never find out in the first place.

>>51143502
>Problem is, a stray critical can (and will) kill most level 1 PC's in one hit.
That's how it's designed to be. You can house rule that out if you don't like it, or just buff D&D's already forgiving unconscious rules but fudging it on the spot undermines the relationship between the GM, Players and System.

Why not straight up tell your player he died but we can just pretend it didnt hit if he wants? Because he probably wouldn't take it, and all the other players would be distraught anyway for their illusion getting destroyed just by the offer. Imagine just telling him afterwards that he actually died but you fudged the roll. Do you really think he'd be less upset than if his level 1 was rightfully slain?

The reason why you don't/can't tell them is because it's wrong, and you know it is as much as your players do.

>>51143581
>players get upset when you tell them you are making a meta change
I've never run into a player that finnicky, mr. doesn't play.

>>51129417

Just dont think about the geometry of that die to much. Dont ask yourself what the roll is. I was about to request sauce to purchase but then i realized

>>51143565
Darkest Dungeon is a pretty good game that is similar to what you were talking about, even if that guy was being a douche.

>>51143548
You assume that just because I, as a GM, made a creature roll normal damage on a 19 instead of critical damage with a 20 vs. a level 1 character, it suddenly means that none of the player's actions actually matter.

They're taking damage, this creature beat their AC, and they're much closer to being KO'd as a result, the danger is still present it's just that now it's still a game of attrition rather than shitty luck.

>Do you really think you don't have tells when you lie?
You think I don't use subterfuge to offset my tells with fake tells so my players never know when I'm serious or when I'm lying, what kinda casual GM do you think I am?

>>51143579
Because I'm perfectly happy with my Swords & Wizardry game, having moved from Castles & Crusades. I can do 3.5, but I strongly prefer adding an "XP for loot" mechanic.

>>51143592
Yeah, I gotta say, that's some crazy shit.
>>51143581
The players described here would have their asses fall out at the most basic of homebrew, let alone entirely improv monsters.

Low tier players at best, if even real.

>>51143516
What the fuck are you talking about? What he described is exactly like real D&D. fudging is 3e+ shit because everyone tries to create combat railroads using CR formulas so that players have no option but to fight, so they get fucked if the GM planned poorly. fudging is just patching over bad GM'ing

>>51143612
You don't sound very happy, given how extensively you leap at defending your choice of badwrongfun.

>>51143623
Nice no true scotsman and idealized-on-paper GM, anon.

>>51143581
The keyword for your argument is IF.

IF they find out, IF they take it personally, IF they feel as though it makes their actions moot, IF IF IF.

The thing about if's my friend is that it's just as likely to go one or another. I've never met a person who found out I fudged dice and even then, I found out that most of my GMs fudge dice too so it wouldn't really be that big of a deal.

If people get that upset over it then they're more than happy to leave but I've never had that problem on either side of the GM's screen so I have no reason to worry about it.

>That's how it's designed to be.
Well nobody said that D&D was a perfectly made system but now's neither the time nor place for.

>>51143660
Not even if.
Players don't take that shit personally and don't mind that shit.
If they DO mind, they are particularly sensitive little daisies who, as has been said, would have their asses fall out at the barest hint of improv.

>>51143607
>You assume that just because I, as a GM, made a creature roll normal damage on a 19 instead of critical damage with a 20 vs. a level 1 character, it suddenly means that none of the player's actions actually matter.

I'll bite on the non-strawmanned version. The player chose to engage in this fight where there is the possibility that they can be OHKO'd. By removing the possibility, you reduce the meaningfulness of player actions.

>now it's still a game of attrition rather than shitty luck.

So not how low-level combat is designed to work?

What do you lose by having the fighter actually get KO'd?

>You think I don't use subterfuge to offset my tells with fake tells so my players never know when I'm serious or when I'm lying, what kinda casual GM do you think I am?
oтвяжиcь

Random decision removes all meaningfulness from any player action.
The only conflict resolution that is proper for simulationists is a deterministic one.

>>51143700
>The player chose to engage in this fight where there is the possibility that they can be OHKO'd. By removing the possibility, you reduce the meaningfulness of player actions.
How exactly am I reducing the meaningfulness of their action when the only one who knows about the critical is me? There are plenty of times when you can go through a game and just not roll a 20 and the player is still being maimed for however much damage.
>So not how low-level combat is designed to work?
D&D as a whole is a battle of attrition mate. Some editions emphasis this better than others but the entire point is to put the players in a position where they have less of a safety net when things go tits-up on them.
>What do you lose by having the fighter actually get KO'd?
For one, there's one less meat shield to soak up damage for the PC's with less health, which could lead to a TPK if the enemy is able to just work his way down the line.

And nobody wants to have a game end early b/c of luck.

File: 705411accbc804aa0b57b78c82d76a966cf912bbb6c0e295855da0fb9dd7a7b7.gif (206KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 300x300px

>>51143592
>>51143615
Stop being retarded. I didn't say [meta change] or homebrew, I actually suggested that. I said telling him that you fudged. You roll the dice out in the open, he's already heavily wounded and takes a serious hit with more than enough damage to be dead as fuck. You say to the table, "Hmm, this doesn't fit my STORY. Let's just pretend it missed, okay?"

Now if I or anyone I know was the player, they'd look you in the eyes and say "What the fuck are you talking about? I died. It happens."

And your response is to just look at him aghast and wave your hands in the air, "Oh well GEE, aren't you Mr. FINNICKY! Heh heh hhh" ?

>>51143605
Kill yourself. If he wants to play oD&D on the computer, there's nethack and a hundred other proper adaptations. Darkest Dungeon is as far from it as 3+ to 0e.

>>51143660
It's a hypothetical retard. The point is, WHY not IF. WHY would they be UPSET if they found out? How hard is that to understand? If they wouldn't be, WHY are you hiding the fact?

>>51143640
This thread is some insane stupidity. That is how D&D was designed. That's how the game works, that's how it was written to work, that's how it described in play, that's how it was officially played. If D&D is not about resource management of all things, then you might as well say it's about anything at all - such as robot/goblin ERP. If you disagree, no true scotsman!

>>51143738
No player is that finnicky, anon.
If you have players that finnicky, they are absolute shit babies who can't deal with anything.
If you are a player like that, you are a whiney-ass player.

>>51143738
>hipstering so hard you choose inferior game options and unused methods of tabletop play even by the designers
Holy shit.

>>51143730
>How exactly am I reducing the meaningfulness of their action when the only one who knows about the critical is me?
See
>>51143445
>If they want to risk it, knowing it's only on a crit, they can risk it. Fudging it so the risk wasn't what it actually was is cheating them, there's a reason they'd be upset to find out you did.

>D&D as a whole is a battle of attrition mate
Also see
>If they're weak enough to get one-shotted by a bugbear, how about they don't fucking fight it?

>And nobody wants to have a game end early b/c of luck.
What, is your game so railroaded there isn't even room for a newly rolled PC to enter in?

>>51143738
>Nethack
>oD&D adaptation
Nice of you to let us know your opinion is completely worthless.

>>51143764
>not making up dice rolls
>inferior game option and unused method of tabletop play even by the designers

>>51143753
If it's such a rare finicky, whiney, hipstery attitude, why do you have to hide it from your players anon?

>>51143772
>Having such a loose framework you can drop new players in at any time
Even by the most stringent of standards that is insane and cartoonish.

>>51143738
Hypothetical scenarios aren't really a good platform to base your argument upon.

For instance, hypothetically, you could have a campaign end during the first encounter just because of shitty luck, which would probably disappoint everyone at the table who had plans for the campaign once they reached a certain point but that doesn't mean that it's suddenly okay to forgo dice rolls entirely now is it.

Both are entirely possible but one depends on the players being shit-cocks and the other depends on shitty luck, which is rare, but could easily happen.