Should the GM roll out in the open?

>>51659951
Rolling in the open is usually more fun. You should only roll in secret if your players metagame, but you probably shouldn't play with metagamers to begin with.

Your players should trust you enough to lie to them.

>>51659951
Depends what roll it is, but most of them are "safe" to roll in open.
Problem only starts when there is a counter-check and depending on sequence, hiding the roll might be beneficial for players, or they might end up fucked pretty hard in situation that should go smooth otherwise.

I roll in the open for combat only. Else I get the

"BUT MY FUCKING AC IS XX WTF" after the players start getting tired or defeated.

>>51659951
Entirely up to the GM, but >>51659985 is true.
Your players should trust you enough to do right by them regardless of where you roll.

>>51659951

I trust my GM so i don't mind him rolling behind the screen even with information we can safety take part in, it adds to the suspense when waiting for the result.

>>51659951
i roll in secret, but because i like story telling and rolling in secret adds some tension. Also i want to confess that sometimes i aid my players when i roll if the result would make for a great story, like allowing one of them to do something really awesome to end a long and hard battle

the point of rolling is to take something out of any of the players', including the DM's, hands ... so if you're fudging rolls then you had better just not ask for them in the first place

the only reason to not roll openly is to create tension about perception checks but IMO this is advanced stuff and shouldn't be the basis for a general principle

I usually roll in the open whenever something comes up that could be mistaken for me unfairly going against a single char. Like the medic who kept being targeted by a sniper.

>>51659951
Play on roll20, always roll out in the open now at players request.

>tfw i roll 20s left and right while the group can barely get above a 10.
Sometimes its nice to watch them struggle at the hands of a kobold

>>51659951
I usually run horror-themed games so I prefer to roll in secret. Sometimes I'm making passive perception vs. stealth or bluff vs. sense motive (or whatever the system equivalent is), then I weave it into the dialogue. For example, "The merchant shakes his head. 'Nope, never seen that talisman before'. (roll) You have a feeling he's not telling you the whole truth."

I frequently roll dice meaninglessly, just to keep my players on edge. There's nothing quite like furious rolling and note-taking behind the GM screen to make a player question every decision they're making.

However, I never fudge dice rolls. My players know I'm a fair GM, and the few times someone questions a dice result I'll lift the screen and show it to them. The game only uses one die so I'd have no means of shenanigans on that front.

Nah, rolling in secret is a powerful tool

You can ease off just a bit when things are going poorly. Or ramp it up if it's a little too safe and boring

And nothing worries players more than a random roll out of nowhere that doesn't actually mean anything

>>51659951
Not always. If searching a room doesn't turn anything up, the player doesn't have to know whether it's because there's nothing to find, or because the roll failed.

In decently designed system, when played with good, mature players, there is no need to cover the dice rolls from players for any reason.

>>51659970
Literally what makes it fun.

>>51659951
If you're gonna roll open you may as well show them your NPC sheet. And your notes for the campaign.

>>51660119
In a lot of systems rolling open allows your players to deduce most of their enemies stats and combat abilities after a couple of rounds. I know some DMs show the stats of the enemies, but I find it dumb.

Attack rolls I roll in the open. Saves and non-combat rolls I roll behind the screen.

If players suspect you're fudging, you can always move away what's covering the dices and show them this time. I do this sometimes when the NPC rolls extremely high or extremely low. There's literally no argument against hidden rolls.

When I started GMing I rolled in secret so I could fudge dice in favor of the party, some parts that I didn't want to go through character creation again and since character creation is lengthy to newbies we were invested in the characters.
Lasted probably around 6 months with more often than not weekly games until I and the other GM in the group shifted from secret rolls.

I want to say it was to one reason of the shift was that where as I cheated in favor of the party, I was convinced the other GM cheated in his desire to kill PCs.
Though that is mostly because I can't really remember if it was RollPlay, The Gentleman Gamer or Acquisitions incorporated that convinced me that it is a better habit to make a majority of rolls in the open.
The only dice I hide without a doubt are NPC stealth tests and as we play over Roll20 I hide random table rolls.

Rolling in the open produces more entertaining than "muh story/character/mcGuffin" ever can in my experience.

>>51660119
Fudging a roll and making it obsolete are entirely seperate things. Going up or down by one or two on the result isn't that bad. If anything, it keeps the tension in a fight.

Maybe one side is dominating due to really good rolls, and one of your creatures is just one short of a hit. In that moment, if only for the tension of it, you give it that one needed to hit. Thus, the tides turn just a bit. Not enough to alter the tide of battle, but enough to keep dramatic tension

Other times, monsters might have far higher stats than your party is capable of dealing with, so you decide mid-attack after looking at the result to nerf it down a little, maybe even for the entire combat.

The only time its not okay to fudge rolls is when you are outright lying to favor one side. For example, when you keep saying monsters crit unnaturally often.

File: 1464842052669.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

I roll in the open because my players are even newer than I am and thy don't know what I'm rolling for anyway.

I fake roll all the time to improve the illusion.


I don't want to start a new thread because I figure it's an all too common thread that'll draw hate but does /tg/ have a collected list of resource material or advice for new DMs I'm just working off the Starter Set and it's going well but I'm starting to struggle and now we're leaving the first dungeon I want an RP heavy session in the town with very little action and I'm stressing about how to make that fun and work. Dialogue has been the hardest part for me.

I don't mean to derail the thread but I figure it's such a common question it can be quickly answered.

>>51660663
Well, first thing, think up a set of simple NPC's the party is likely to talk to. A tavern keeper, a blacksmith, a vendor of some sort. Perhaps something else entirely.

Right a couple personality traits down, real simple single word ones, for each character.

Then you react based on how PC's interact with the NPC. Maybe start off the greetings to get them into the flow of it.

Then, react based on the couple traits you wrote down for that character.

If you've got a plot hook in mind, weave it in somehow, but don't force it. The more you try to force something, the more a party will rail against it.

This is also good advice in general, to just have a pool of NPC's with simple personality traits ready for if you need someone to do something, like exposition, a plot hook, or simply to world build a bit.

>>51659951
Roll in secret, they bitch that you're changing rolls because they're retarded. Roll in the open, and they bitch that the roll should've made it, because they're retarded.
Players are retarded no matter what.

>>51660562

If you are unwilling to accept the result of a roll then do not call for a roll in the first place.

This simple principle will make you a better DM.

>>51660841
great. Thanks.

>>51660988
Combat is an event where many rolls are made, regardless of the DM's input on it. Thus, fudging of stats and rolls mid-combat may be needed to bring it in line.

Its called being flexible. The reed that bends, doesn't break.

As an example, i once accidentally used an advanced hit die hyena against the party that they had extremely little chance against. So i nerfed it down to be more appropraite

There are inevitably times when one may need to fudge a roll.

Sometimes, how something feels is more important than what the dice tells you happens. If i call for a roll, and the players fail it, then so be it. But if things are out of line, i will mitigate it behind closed doors so as to keep things fun for both the party and me.

>>51659951
My DM tends to avoid it simply yo make it more difficult for us to estimate the capabilities of enemies. In other words if it rolls a 10 and passes a DC 16 dexterity saving throw we know that it gets at least +6 to dex saving throws.

>>51660988
I love it when people say this.

I never ever roll. Players roll all the dice, their fate are in their own hands. But I don't really play combat-heavy games, and at my table combat is treated like a scene, not a wargame.

When I do have to roll, I flip a coin or draw a card instead. Silently and invisibly.

>>51660663
>All that fancy wood boxes and shit
>penny sleeves on the MtG cards
WHY

File: 1453758524418.jpg (509KB, 887x1262px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 887x1262px

>>51659951
Absolutely not. A DM does not relinquish his authority or control to the doubts of the players.

If you roll in the open for a purpose, you can never again roll in secret for that purpose.

If a player insists I roll an attack or damage in the open, I make them roll it. Henceforth, that player rolls to see if they are hit and how hard with their own dice. No other player need be a victim of uncertainty. Try it and see how long it takes for them to beg you to roll for them.

>>51660562
Fudging a roll either changes the result or doesn't change the result. There are no other options. If it doesn't change the result, why do it? If it does change the result, why roll in the first place?

>>51661791
Because not everything is black and white and a good DM should be able to improvise on the spot to keep the party engaged and happy.

I used to do this so that I could fudge rolls, but since my players either have insane luck or are weirdly good at building characters.

Does he have something to hide?

In general, I advocate rolling in the open unless the PCs wouldn't know the result of the roll, in which case only roll in the open if you can trust your players not to metagame.

>>51661944
(Not sure why my post cut off)
Since then I haven't really needed to make things easier for them.

>>51661791
>If it does change the result, why roll in the first place?

Because sometimes it takes unfortunate rolls to realize that you've screwed up.

>>51659951

I think this video explains the dynamic about the DM Screen very well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO0HMmrZ4xs

>>51659951
We make DMs roll in the open after a number of annoying experiences with DM's having sudden lucky streaks when their pet NPCs start losing fights.

For example, the last guy before we implemented this rule claims he was well-known for making all his combats "dramatic and nailbitingly tense."

This generally resulted in us starting to win every fight because they were actually piss-easy, then suddenly the DM suddenly starts rolling 20s. Like, not even being subtle or mixing results up a bit, he would just start rolling anywhere from 6-10 Nat 20s in a row. We'd get on low health from that because critical hits, then he's suddenly go back to rolling shit, then claiming "See, see, I told you my combats are tense" afterwards.

Then we took that stupid DM screen away one day and suddenly his miracle streaks of 10 Nat 20s in a row mysteriously stopped happening. He eventually ragequit the group because we kept curbstomping his combats because as I said earlier, they were actually piss-easy, and we just tell DMs straight up now we don't allow hidden rolling.

You'd be amazed how many That GMs we've spotted just from that criteria alone.

>>51660663

What are the metal coin things here?

>>51662455
I'm not surprised you get many "That GMs" if your criteria for being one include not letting the players dictate how you run your games.

>>51662726
DM can run the game however he wants.

We've just had too many shit experience with hidden rolls to allow it anymore. Most are ok with it or don't question it, although we've had a number of DM's we've had to ask to leave after we tell them no hidden rolls and they have a literal temper tantrum about it and act like running a game is literally impossible without hiding rolls.

>>51661068

It's not only the DM's decision when yo roll dice.

If combat is something you as a DM simply force your players to do then you need to improve and make sure they have more choices.

No other player but the DM thinks about fusging rolls. This discussion always tacitly assumes that players must accept a rolled result. There is no good reason why this assumption shpild not also apply to the DM. All attempts to rationalize fudging dice are just admissions of one mistake or another on the DM's part, including explicitly your own example.

Again, only roll dice when you are willing to let the result be out pf your hands. This will make you a better DM becausing doing otherwise is just a crutch for messing up in other ways.

>>51664028

sorry for terrible typos

>>51661143
excellent, it is good to love truth and shun error

when a player rolls ten crits in a row that is awesome.

when a tough monster rolls ten crits in a row that is not fun.

i hide my rolls mostly for dramatic effect and rarely actually fudge them. i also run sandbox campaigns and being able to shave a few hp off of a monster every once in a while helps me adjust difficulty on the fly.

don't get my wrong, if my players make bad decisions i have no qualms with them dying. i just think that both wins and losses should be earned

if the monster is doomg "too well" then ask the players to get creative; they can try something that isn't completely up to dice rolling

friends dont let friend fudge

>>51662053
but what will it take to stop screwing up and actually improve

>>51664225
>ask the players to get creative
i generally don't tell my players how to play, i simply reward them for playing well.

it can be frustrating when you feel like there are obvious lateral solutions and the murder hobos just keep spamming attacks. at a certain point you have to keep the game moving or let them die.

>>51659951
Yes.
>but muh session 1 tpk
If you're stupid enough to have tpks happen that easily, then you shouldn't be GMing, let alone rolling in the fudge-zone

File: 1401064047099.jpg (1MB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1200px

>>51659951
The GM should roll however the fuck they want, including not at all.

The players are the ones that need to be accountable.

File: e17c773ead6f5be8c71963bcb606a585[1].jpg (27KB, 500x450px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x450px

>>51659951
Assuming you have a trustworthy GM*, no. Just imagine that the party is sneaking through a corridor and the GM rolls a certain check. If he rolls it behind a screen, you have no idea what's going on. If he rolls in the open, it automatically reveals that you've either been spotted or not. Dramatic irony will cause quite different roleplay. In the first scenario you're constantly on edge, in the second scenario the knowledge that you've either failed or passed a check results in a very different reaction. A party that has been heard/seen will retreat before they even know that they've been compromised for example.

Combat (social or physical) is something that's already out in the open on the other hand. In such a scenario the DM should roll openly for attacks, damage, spells, resistance et cetera.

*I believe there's no reason for a DM to cheat considering roleplaying is cooperative storytelling with neither winners nor losers, but some DMs get a powertrip and love to fudge roles so their OC donut steel looks cool or whatever. That said, I understand a GM's frustration when a planned recurring villain is killed almost instantly because he rolled a 1 on his resistance roll against a save-or-die/suck spell, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

>>51659985
I'm not a fan of DMs who lie, though I can tolerate it (still not a fan, but I can accept it) if the plot demands it. Such as with the aforementioned recurring villain surviving because he has a role to play further down the line (or conversely allowing a player to defeat an enemy despite shitty rolls because it's cool). Still I believe this should be kept to a minimum. The rules are second to its ultimate purpose -fun-, but should never be handwaved altogether. They add an element of stability.

I roll attacks in private, but I roll damage in the open. I will never, under any circumstances allow the players to just beat a boss encounter because I can't roll high enough to hit. It's boring as fuck.

>>51659951

The simple idea of rolling in secret means you're a failure at gaming and probably at life.

>>51664902
If you can't trust a DM to lie to your face and not fuck you over then you probably shouldn't be playing with them in the first place.

>>51664902
Honestly, the only time I fudge rolls is to stop the players from having some shitty thing happen to them like having a character they've been playing for a year get triple-critted or whatever.
That shit isn't fun for anyone.

>>51660068
Best way of GMing

>>51660988
If you are unwilling to accept that the DM is going to lie or withhold information from you then you're better just not playing.

Even Gygax said that DMs only roll because they only like the sound the dice make, and RNG won't give a shit about whether or not the players are enjoying your game.

>>51664070
No, it's great because the people who spout this have never run a proper game in their life or are too insecure to trust their DMs not to fuck them over "petty" shit.

>>51662455
>>51662755
So because of one THAT DM, the entire concept is flawed? That's some funky logic you got there.

>>51664902
>*I believe there's no reason for a DM to cheat considering roleplaying is cooperative storytelling with neither winners nor losers, but some DMs get a powertrip and love to fudge roles so their OC donut steel looks cool or whatever. That said, I understand a GM's frustration when a planned recurring villain is killed almost instantly because he rolled a 1 on his resistance roll against a save-or-die/suck spell, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

I understand your POV, but I'm of the opinion that as the GM its my job to make sure that the session is as fun and satisfying possible to the greatest number of participants. If no one is having fun, no one benefits.

Sometimes this means fudging results so that a character doesn't die unfairly. If a player didn't do anything wrong and is just eating bad luck to the face, that's a shitty way for a character to die. I'm fine with character death, but I would much rather it meant something. If the player makes a risky gamble or gets betrayed by a party member, I won't save them. But if this is a mundane encounter against random skeletons and they are in danger of dying, I might fudge the damage so they survive the attack with 2 hp left and give them the chance to recover instead of killing them dead on the spot. The fact that they FEEL like they almost died, and just barely survived, is generally a better outcome than actually dying to nameless mooks.

On the other hand, sometimes this means giving the enemy a leg up in the fight. If someone is playing a halfway optimized wizard, there are fights where I let his build clear the room and there are fights where I make that not work. I have to. Its not fair to the other players to let them never do anything because The wizard hit level 10 and doesn't need them anymore. The Ranger deserves his chance to shine just as much as the caster, and its my job to make sure he gets it from time to time.

>>51664321

>let them die

legitimate outcome of underestimating danger

>>51664972

incomplete information and fudging rolls are different issues, pls focus

>>51665460

hell, legitimate outcome of /facing/ danger

>>51665033

lol so aaangry but so dumb

the issue is not players insecure about bloodthirsty DM

the issue is insecure DM fudging rolls because he doesnt understand rolling

>>51660310
Rolling in the open makes every roll matter.

It removes any sense of doubt about whether or not the DM is changing their rolls.

It creates an atmosphere where everyone is expected to roll in the open, where everyone can see them, and avoid rolling your dice off the table.

The game is meant to be played like this, the GM should not alter their rolls. It takes away part of the fun of roleplaying. The only reason to roll in secret is the presence of metagamers at the table, who will figure out enemy statistics based on your rolls. But this should generally not be a problem in your group.

>>51665460
yeah but players are people. you can kill them off for egregious mistakes but if they don't actually learn from their mistakes/assumptions you have to either be flexible with their play styles or get new players. killing them off repeatedly will just lead to them quitting.

i personally have a very hard time finding people to play with so i usually compromise. :(

>>51665474
Not telling the players the result of the die is the same thing as not telling the players the stats of the thing that they're fighting.
>>51665533
No, it basically does boil down to insecure players feeling as though the DM doesn't have their best interests at heart and require full transparency so they can say "well, at least I know the DM wasn't fucking me out of a character or anything."

Otherwise, why would it be enough of an issue to complain about since you'd already trust the DM to run a good game?

>>51665557
It also creates a situation where the player goes "oh, okay, that enemy has +X to their roll, so unless he rolls Y+ we're not in any danger."
>The game is meant to be played like this
If it was meant to be played like this then why does the DM screen exist at all?

>>51665578

as acknowldged, rolling behind a screen can be useful for incomplete information (e.g., perception checks); that is the exception

the rule is roll in the open because the result stands - the issue here is the DM fudges dice rolls because he did not want the result to be random in the first place

= different issues

sure some players dont trust the DM for whatever reason - that's not a question of whether the DM should fudge dice

the question of fudging is absolutely clear, it is purely a crutch for not thinking hard enough about what you are doing as a DM

>>51665615

>screen why?

it's a QRS

>>51665575

yes if you can have bad players then you can only have bad games

>>51659951
I like rolling out in the open. I feel it adds tension especially for lethal systems, or really any roll that "really matters". The same applies to the baddies (though naturally if I need something to happen I'll set up circumstances that don't call for dice).
I used to roll in secret for searching and noticing shit, but I don't feel it really added much. My group were never really the "I search 15 times until I get a perfect result because I refuse to believe there isn't a secret in here" type, and there are more elegant ways of dealing with that kind of behavior anyway.

>>51665615
Only a minority of players go out of their way to game the system like that. And even if they do, it hardly affects the game at all. So what if they think triad goon 1 has +6 to hit, and thus you need to roll an 11 on your d20 to hit fighter x? They don't know the result of your rolls before you roll it. You could always be more liberal with situational modifiers, too.

DM screen conceals figurines, DM plans, and other information trackers the DM may have.

>>51665671
>as acknowldged, rolling behind a screen can be useful for incomplete information (e.g., perception checks); that is the exception
So why is it okay for that particular instance but it's not okay for the other? You're still using the screen to obfuscate information that you wouldn't want the player to know about and sometimes it really is better to ignore the RNG if the alternative is combat that's either too easy or too hard.

Granted, you shouldn't use it all the time but doing it sparingly isn't that big of a deal so long as the players are adults about it.

>>51665745

good points

players will either calculate stats or not, it just doesn't matter and surely not so much as to indirectly justify fudging dive

>>51665745
>Only a minority of players go out of their way to game the system like that. And even if they do, it hardly affects the game at all.
I disagree, mainly because once the players know how strong an opponent is, anything that they do from that point forward is based on that piece of knowledge.

That and if you have a rules lawyer in the party, the second he has a definitive number is the moment he'll sperg out because you changed some variable to make it slightly different from what's seen in the MM.
>DM screen conceals figurines, DM plans, and other information trackers the DM may have.
So what's the issue with it also working to conceal rolls?

>>51660378
after a few rounds of fighting something, trained murdersplorers should probably have a rough idea of the capabilities of their opponent. Introducing small variances between identical enemies keeps them from getting too comfortable.

>>51665758

still conflating two issues

fudging a roll is separate from whether players know result

the main question here is actually about hiding rolls in order to fudge them

even rolling a dice "just so the players hear it roll" is a separate issue (because the result of that roll never meant anything in-setting to begin with)

>>51665794

>issue with concealing rolls?

no issue except when concealment is yo enable fudging

>rolling in the open
>low level (but not level 1) party
>random wolf
>just keeps critting
>party keep fluffing their rolls
>wolf gets crit after crit after crit
>3 players down
>one instantly killed
>wolf crits again
>"eyes without life... sundered heads... piles of carcasses... these are pleasing words to me"
Why

>>51665840
You're basically trying to claim that two instances of fudging dice are different even though they're the exact same thing. People like you are why I generally don't trust people who claim they don't fudge dice.
>>51665867
As long as the GM isn't doing it out of spite and is only fudging sparingly throughout any given session, what's the issue here?

Rolled 9 (1d20)

>>51665876
I roll for Bus Clapping.

The only thing I roll in the open are basic combat rolls for enemies that the player characters can see.

>>51665794
No piece of information gathered from an enemy's stats should drastically alter the way the players perceive an enemy.

>DM describes an enemy, doing enemy things. This establishes the enemy's relative power level. A meager goblin, a veteran soldier, an unholy monstrosity that can rip men apart. And so on.

If your players are suprised that a goblin only has +3 to attack, then maybe the DM hasn't described the encounter properly. Likewise when they realise that the boss has +12.

Rules lawyers have no right to complain unless the DM actually makes a mistake.
>DM last round the warden only has +4, now it has +5, you are fudging his stats!
>No, he has a morale boost because their chaplain reached the exit and is escaping, as I described last round. The wardens serve the faith without question, and are fueled by their zealotry.
Alternatively
>Oh right, rules lawyer, I miscalculated my attack. I did not mean to do that, and will amend the mistake. Thank you.

If the players can see the DM's dungeon map, they know where to go, and where the secret rooms are. That is not fun or engaging for 99% of players. The same could be said for campaign notes, or whatever else the DM is hiding.

>>51665900

nope I am distinguishing between letting a roll stand in front of a screen and letting it stand behind a screen - this is the issue of incomplete info

refusing to go with whatever result you rolled is the separate issue of fudging

My DM hide his rolls and I'm convinced he cheats, with him there are 2 kind of monsters, those who hit except on 1, those who won't except on 20.
He doesn't even bother asking our AC most of the time and I know he doesn't have it noted somewhere, wich make armor just an encumbrance.
But what bother me the most is that I'm 100% certain me and my mates should have died numerous times and he changed the results so we didn't, from the moment I became convinced he'll change the dice to make sure we won't die the game has lost all it's thrill to me.

>>51659951
The attack rolls and saving throws of monsters should be rolled in the open. Do as you please for anything else.
If things are going wrong and you need to steer the players away from a TPK to keep the game from getting fucked, do it in some other cool way that isn't just fudging dice. The earth shaking spell cast by the wizard causes a stalagmites to fall which kills additional enemies, maybe a couple of the enemies are getting overconfident and spend a couple turns mocking the players instead of attacking, maybe reinforcements arrive. Or just adjust how much HP the enemies all have on the fly, it's not like the players know what their HP value is.

The only thing rolling in secret does is make the player give you a fucking look every time your super cool boss monster succeeds on a saving throw.

>>51665969
Yet by your very own logic, a player getting killed early on because dumb luck through no fault of their own isn't fun or engaging for 99% of the players either. The rest of the party has to deal with being down a man, the unlucky victim has to waste time building a new character, and the DM now has to figure out some way to reintegrate the new character into the campaign in a way that isn't forced or contrived.

RNG doesn't give a fuck if people are having a good time, which is why the DM is there to sway the game in a favorable way if the alternative would create more problems further down the line.
If you don't want to utilize this then all power to you, I'm just saying that there is a time when fudging is ideal to a given situation.

>>51666056
>>51666050
That honestly sounds like a trust issue between the players and the DM more than a negative against the concept of fudging dice.

I roll in the open for things that affect players directly. If I'm doing hidden rolls it's usually behind the scenes work like a random encounter roll or randomly determining an NPC's demeanor.

>>51666004
*shrug* whatever you say man.

>>51666144
>Being down a man
That's what henchmen are for

>waste time building a character
The rulesets I use don't require more than 2-3 minutes to roll a new character

>integrate into campaign
The party hires him the next time they're in town or he joins up for free to adventure, I don't force convoluted stories into my games like most of/tg/ seems apt to do.

I play a game to play the game, I'm a referee not a gm. If somebody wants a self insert heroes journey they can watch anime or play vidya. If I roll the dice, it's because I want a random number.

>>51666277
>That's what henchmen are for
So then the DM has to keep track of henchmen, in addition everyone and everything else that the party interacts with.
>The rulesets I use don't require more than 2-3 minutes to roll a new character
Congrats but that's still 2-3 minutes that someone is spending on character creation rather than on playing the game. Not to mention, if players are able to get back into the fight that quickly then why exactly would they fear dying?
>The party hires him the next time they're in town or he joins up for free to adventure,
Why would the party hire him though? Also, why would this new character stay with the party once the job is finished and they gave him his payment? Not to mention, why would they trust this random dude who shows up saying that he wants to adventure, presumably in a world where illusion magic and shapeshifting monsters are prevalent?

>>51661791
Many systems are not black and white. I always hide rolls, and I often fudge, but I always use the roll as an indicator, I just play it up or down a bit.

In systems where things like degrees of success and such matters, it's also a lot faster to just at a glance decide, rather than to have a whole table tallying theresults and commenting.

>>51659951
Only if you want to die. If I have to, as a GM, put everything in front of you, then you get no mercy. Every chance to kill you, I will take. Every chance to maim you, I will smile. Every rule that gives you no chance, I will use.

Only have a GM roll in front of you, if you don't want him to feel any pity for you.

>>51666277

>If I roll the dice, it's because I want a random number.

But but but muh characters!

>>51659951

GM should do what he likes.

>>51662483
counters, probably

Any DM who rolls in the open is not to be trusted.
It means that they are insecure, anxious about the players trusting them, and is almost certainly less objective than a DM who hides all.

>>51659951
Hidden, but public knowledge. They should all be made hidden, but if anyone wants to see them they can. I make a lot of fucking rolls as the GM, it speeds up the game is the player's aren't watching and dwelling over every single roll I make.

Also it gives me some smoke and mirror distraction tools. I can make ghost rolls to distract them while i setup other things backstage to keep the game rolling.

I believe that the GM's role is to act as an intermediary between the game and the players, and keeping the gamey mechanics like dicerolling in the background helps the immersion.

>>51659951
nah, they should probably hide it.
The more of the system the players know, the less magic it is.

>>51659951
Roll results give players information they wouldn't normally have, and will as human beans affect their responses; If I want to maintain the stress of a situation, or the fear, or whatever other emotion is relevant, I don't want the players knowing they can relax, or shouldn't be relaxing, or whatever.

Moreover, sometimes I need to fudge rolls in the interest of a good game. Sometimes I roll dummy rolls to make my players nervous. Sometimes there's far more things happening than the players yet know, and the dice could provide too much insight.

>>51659951
I'm the GM, I can do whatever I want.
If I want to roll for something I can.
If I want to make a call I can do that too.
What I don't do is one while pretending to do the other.

>>51665057
Multiple DMs. The one I mentioned was just one of those "last straw" scenarios.

>>51670083
Let me guess, you were playing 3.PF, probably online or with strangers?

>The GM shouldn't fudge rolls because he'll fuck us over!
>The GM should fudge rolls to keep PCs from dying!

What if I don't want the GM fudging for either?

Fudging to save the PCs cheapens their achievements. They'll always wonder if they succeeded through merit or through the benevolence of the GM.

Fudging to fuck over the PCs is just a dick move.

You should only ever roll if there's a chance of success or failure. If you roll, stick with what you got. If only one result is acceptable, just go with that result.

Fudging rolls makes the game less fun.

As for hiding? I GM more than I play. I roll everything openly unless the players shouldn't know the results (or even the action itself) is happening. Perception rolls and the like.

I don't do combat a lot. One time I fucked up the balance enough to need to adjust things. I was new as a GM and didn't fully understand the impact of action economy. I admitted this to the players and made up a BS excuse along the lines of "they see they are more than a match for you, and X of the foes run off to chase other prey." Players were fine with it. We moved on. No fudging needed.

>>51670195
>They'll always wonder if they succeeded through merit or through the benevolence of the GM.
Then they're fucking stupid, because at any point during the game, the GM could just say "fuck it, here's a CR20+ Great Wyrm" and just kill them all after one round of combat. Most (good) GMs won't because winning isn't the point of the game and even if the GM wins, whatever story they were going for is basically up in flames and he also pissed everyone off as well.
>Fudging rolls makes the game less fun.
In your opinion
> "they see they are more than a match for you, and X of the foes run off to chase other prey."
What's the difference between that and fudging the roll?

>>51670295
>at any point during the game, the GM could just say "fuck it, here's a CR20+ Great Wyrm" and just kill them all after one round of combat.
Then the GM is a dick and the players will quit. Or they play clever, run away, and have a new plot hook.

>What's the difference between that and fudging the roll?
One is IC and playing openly and honestly with your players, the other is OOC cheating behind their backs. One maintains immersion and trust, the other destroys both.

The GM is a referee of the rules and interface with the game world. Whatever the excuse, fudging rolls is just a GM getting too big for their britches and developing a god-complex. Players aren't allowed to decide what's easy or hard for themselves anymore; the GM has to be some kind of benevolent god that decides for them.

>>51670400
>Then the GM is a dick and the players will quit. Or they play clever, run away, and have a new plot hook.
The point though is that if the GM wants to win, they're most likely going to win since they're the ones holding all the cards. This is generally why GM vs. Player shit is relegated to horror games or games like Paranoia that don't take itself too seriously.
>2
Yet at the same time, both situations fall down to the players only surviving due to GM fiat, not because of any clever play.
> Whatever the excuse, fudging rolls is just a GM getting too big for their britches and developing a god-complex.
Whoa there famalam, that's a pretty bold statement.
>Players aren't allowed to decide what's easy or hard for themselves anymore; the GM has to be some kind of benevolent god that decides for them.
Since when were the players the ones who set the difficulty? You're the GM, not them.

>>51670400
>One is IC and playing openly and honestly with your players, the other is OOC cheating behind their backs. One maintains immersion and trust, the other destroys both.

I'm sorry, but this is some autism-level bullshit.

>The GM is a referee of the rules and interface with the game world.

He's also the creator. A fallible creator. If you honestly think that they should be 100% sticking to the rules and the scenario as originally outlined, then you are imagining them to be constructing perfect worlds with perfect foresight.

What kind of megalomaniac, god-complex GM goes into a game thinking "I have foreseen everything that will happen in this game, and there will be no opportunity to improve it beyond what I have already imagined"?

File: 1349712314599.gif (21KB, 450x364px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 450x364px

I never flub rolls, but I roll behind the screen when there's no table on which to roll sometimes.

File: TooMuchFudge.png (97KB, 955x510px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 955x510px

>>51659951
>Should the GM roll out in the open?
Mostly? Sure.
Always? No.
Sometimes it can be useful to fudge a roll and for that to work, you need to roll behind the screen more often than you fudge.

Although, threads on /tg/ have actually dissuaded me from fudging as much as I used to.
Take the "Cinematic Battle" example:
>Fighter crits the enemy with a climactic critical strike, pulling off an impressive move and bringing it down to 1hp.
>Bard anticlimactically hits it for 3 damage with a slingshot and it dies.
Now, you could make the argument that it would be more cinematic for the impressive blow to finish the enemy off.
However, I consider that a failure of narration:
>Staggering from the fighter’s blow, the enemy wavers, but bears down on the group.
>The bard quips a clever line and shoots straight and true, striking it between the eyes, with an audible crack, it reels from the strike against its skull and collapses.
Unless there’s something like the enemy happened to be the fighter’s personal sworn nemesis that he vowed to slay himself, I see no reason to fudge.

Fudging rolls is like eating fudge.
Eating only fudge all the time is sickening and disgusting.
Eating fudge with every meal is too much is to be avoided.
Declaring that nobody should ever eat fudge for any reason is categorically stupid.
Sometimes fudge is damn tasty and if you add a little, it can make a person’s dessert amazing even if they don’t know it’s there.
Just don’t go putting it the damn tuna casserole.

>>51671504
Probably one of the most reasonable people ITT. The only thing I disagree with is rolling out in the open but only because it allows players access to information that they shouldn't have access to and if the enemy is only 1HP away, I'd just let them kill it anyways.

Other than that, spot on post.

>>51659951
>Should the OP stop posting his fapbait as if he's trying to actually talk about anything remotely /tg/ related?

Yes.

>>51665876
Go back into your hole, Slough Feg.

>>51662383
Thanks for that, seems like a good channel.

>>51671607
>rolling out in the open but only because it allows players access to information that they shouldn't have access to
Yeah, that's definitely true in a lot of situations.
In practice, I usually roll behind the screen for convenience.
But sometimes, it's more dramatic to roll out where everyone can see the result.

>and if the enemy is only 1HP away, I'd just let them kill it anyways.
It depends.
I once fluffed a bandit brought down to 1 hp as turning to limp away wounded.
The party chose to capture him, heal him, and he ended up being allies with him as an npc contact as he never liked those guys anyway.
None of which was planned for or would have happened if I had just fudged that last hp for a cleaner battle.
Letting the system take the controls a bit more has granted me more freedom, more surprises, and more challenges.

But each to their own.

>>51671792
To each their own.

File: Bobby.jpg (62KB, 558x564px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 558x564px

>all these people upset about dice rolls

occasionally, something unlikely will happen
that is precisely the point

>>51672099
Fudging is just another means of withholding information from the player. Besides, you never want pure RNG in any game that's designed to be beaten through player skill as opposed to luck.

>>51672154
Whether you're trolling or not, reread your post.

Think about it a while. Until you realize what's wrong with it at the very least.

Then rethink your life.

>>51659970
>You should only roll in secret if your players metagame
That's retarded.

>>51672099
And if those unexpected things ruin the game for the players (like a random low-level mob critting a loved character to death instantly), then its nice to have a way of potentially mitigating it.

Open roll for combat and obvious effects, overcoming the odds is part of the fun for combat

If it's got something to do with narrative or non combat events, roll behind screen

Not so you can cheat, but so you can. Fuck with them, like say "everyone roll will" then roll some dice behind your board. Hum and write something down. Say nothing.

Protip- your narrative should never be tied to the outcome of a combat.

Double tip -, this doesn't mean you should railroad and slap the choo-choo tracks on if PCs lose or fail somehow. Always plan for a fail state

>>51661143
>>51660988
I also love when people say what's right/

>>51672185
>a random low-level mob critting a loved character to death instantly
If this is a possibility in your game, you should be playing a game that isn't shit instead.

Or it should be a game built around high death rates and making a new char shouldn't be an issue..

>>51672177
A game that values player skill will always be better than one that's pure RNG. Also, GMs withhold information from the players all the time, unless you just go on and spoiler everything that's going to happen during campaign.

>>51672211
You missed the entire point. Try re-reading your post a few more times.

>>51672185
Without the possibility of loss, there is no enjoyment of victory.

>>51672185
>Goblin crits lvl 2 player, killing them instantly

>"Hold up"

>Roll behind screen. It doesn't matter what, just throw some dice.

>Write something down and bullshit something, like "you feel a strange twisting in the universe, you see - feel the blade pierce your flesh, a killing stroke - but then your vision snaps back to reality and the thrust diverts, sparing your life. You have the ominous feeling you are being watched"

Now players will think it's part of the plot

>>51672206
>If this is a possibility in your game, you should be playing a game that isn't shit instead.
For some, this isn't an option unfortunately.
>Or it should be a game built around high death rates and making a new char shouldn't be an issue..
Usually what happens is that characters die so fast that the player just stops giving a shit about who they're playing.

>>51672218
I was the one who made the point in the first place, I can't read your mind and see what specific part of my post triggered you.

It's probably nonsense anyways.

>>51672219
Yet at the same time, the only reason why the players win is because the GM makes an effort to keep things fair. The GM can, at any moment, decide to throw a dragon against a low level party, which is generally why notions of winning and losing in a tabletop RPG are so laughable.

If you can't trust the GM to give you a good time then it raises the question, why are you playing with them in the first place?

>>51672241
>I can't read your mind
People learn better when they come to a conclusion on their own rather than being told.

You made two assumptions in your initial argument that are fallacious. Can you find which two assumptions are the problem?

>>51670890
>I'm sorry, but this is some autism-level bullshit.
>"I can't refute it so I'll just call it autism"
You're a retard.

>>51672221
This is like the 5th time ITT I think that I've seen someone use heavy-handed GM fiat and not detect the irony in lambasting fudged results while doing the same thing just with less subtlety.

>>51672259
Because if you want to play a game with zero chance involved, there's always chess.

Roleplaying games involve dice, and sometimes unexpected things happen, that's part of the charm.

>>51672261
Why exactly should I waste my time playing 20 questions with you? If you have a problem with what I said then prove me wrong or move along.

I'm not going to help you develop an argument that you can use against me, that's just foolish.

>>51672182
How so?

>>51672286
Yet at the same time, RNG doesn't really give a fuck about whether or not you or your players are having a good time.

>>51672219
But the players don't know that, do they? As far as they're aware that wolf's triple crit got 'soo damn close to killing steven's character lmao'

>>51672293
I'm not going to waste my time presenting an argument to someone who is both remarkably dense and completely lacking in self-awareness.

Good thing we nipped this discussion in the bud, then.

Fudging numbers is completely unrelated to hiding information and you don't have to be 100% RNG to avoid fudging numbers; that is just a completely nonsensical argument. Most player decisions do not involve a dice roll.

I am aware that I contradicted myself by posting the explanation anyway. I won't be responding further because you are an idiot.

>>51659951
If you've got some weird sense of purity, sure.

But the screen/secret rolls creates an air of mystery. The party will never know how the GM rolled, or in some cases why they rolled in the first place, assuming they heard it.

In terms of fudging rolls, it depends on how cinematic you want it to be. Are you roleplaying with game elements or are you playing a game with roleplay elements?

>>51672322
You keep saying that someone might not be having a good time, and that the RNG is the cause of it. In fact, the opposite is true. When everything goes according to plan it's more often boring. Having things go off script, and then roleplaying dealing with those challenges is part of the fun, and part of the realism that immerses the players. It's more enjoyable for the GM when even you're surprised by which way things went.

>>51672330
Oh, the players know. If no character has died at your table in the past year, it's probably because you're not challenging your players and combat is unlikely to provide tension or restraint.

>>51672343
For reference honey, if you want to have an argument, you have to be willing to refute the argument, not rely on your opponent to do your job for you.

Of course, that was even assuming that you had an argument in the first place beyond calling anyone who disagrees with you "retard" or "autistic."

>>51672286
>The only options are never ever fudging and not ever rolling dice

Classic.

>>51672221
Alternatively do the same while Rolling in the open.

>>51672221
>Goblin crits level 2 player, killing them instantly
>"It misses."

You really don't need to bring the hand of creation down for an attack roll, anon.

>>51672358
Players go off the rails all the fucking time without rolling a single die mate. Besides, RNG can, and will, fuck up the campaign depending on what the roll is because RNG doesn't care about everyone else at the table having fun.
>>51672358
>If no character has died at your table in the past year, it's probably because you're not challenging your players and combat is unlikely to provide tension or restraint.
Or it's because the players played smartly and managed to survive encounters by the skin of their teeth.

>>51672358
Oh, they die. We've lost two (I think?) since the campaign started. What doesn't happen is them getting instantly shot down through no fault of their own through some retarded RNG, because like I said earlier that shit isn't fun for anyone.

Some games I roll out in the open, but those have been in a more hardcore player vs gm high lethality style game.

>>51672394
>>51672395
>RNG doesn't care
>retarded RNG

You have it backwards. RNG isn't unfair or stupid. It's exactly as fair and balanced as anything could possibly be. When you fudge the dice, you are actually removing that fairness by creating bias in favor of the players. You are granting them plot armor and removing the challenge. You are in fact undoing the rules that the game is played by, that everyone has agreed to.

You might argue that the rules are wrong if they can destroy the players so easily, in which case you're free to change the rules as much as you wish, it is your game after all, but it should be always be a fair game where everyone plays by the same rules.

>>51659951
As a gm, rolls don't matter at least 75% of the time. I just bring them to the edge of intrigue and then back again and they enjoy it, which is ALL that matters.

>>51672454
The objective of the game, from my perspective, is to have fun. If that means shifting the occasional dice roll (both for and against the players, I should add) then I think that's a worthy sacrifice. I'm not saying its objective truth. I'm not saying you should do it. But that's why I do it.

The games I do go for the old heroic fantasy atmosphere, and the great wizard magnus the impossible getting his face eaten by a lucky wolf in one turn really doesn't gel with that in my view. Like I said, depending on the style of game I may or may not do so.

>>51672454
>RNG isn't unfair or stupid.
Actually, it kinda is. It's the reason why most games nowadays include a way to either manipulate the results (+X to the roll), ways to reroll dice, or ways to add dice to the results to affect the dice curve.

The truth is that in any game that's meant for longevity, the game tries to give the players as many ways to offset rolls (at a cost) as possible, because they can account for what a level 20 character could do but they can't account for the one time a goblin crits a level 20 fighter while the fighter is stuck missing every single roll.

>>51672273
The difference is doing it to maximize the enjoyment of your players who are assumedly your friends, and not to jack off your throbbing GM cock in their faces, anon. The difference is context.

>>51672508
>it is ok for the player to crit goblins, but not for a goblin to crit a player

If you don't like games with crits, remove the rule enabling them, but don't pretend it is a game with crits.

>>51672522
So you're saying that having a player miraculously not die from a goblin because the hand of god came down to say "nuh uh" isn't you jacking off your throbbing GM cock in their faces?

I'll be honest, if my GM pulled this kinda shit then I'd rightly be pissed, because I won't know every single time they fudged a roll in my favor or not but this kinda bullshit insults me as a player and a GM personally.

Because either he planned on killing me so that he could reveal his plotline out of the blue or he's doing in some sad attempt at keeping me in the game when by all accounts, I should be dead.

>>51672533
The goblin isn't designed to survive the encounter and nobody will give a shit if it ends up dead.

On the flipside, someone made that character and had plans on playing them from the start of the campaign until the end and would rather spend time playing than rerolling a new character while the GM tries to fiat a reasonable excuse as to why his character would become integrated into the party.

>>51672556
If the goblin is predetermined to lose, why are you even rolling dice in the first place?

>>51672556
Without the possibility of loss, there is no enjoyment of victory.

>>51659951

No, but that is where the meta comes from, the anticipation and the unspoken workings of the GM's mind come into play.

You should have trust in your GM, or else, you really shouldn't be playing with him as your GM.

>>51672564
>>51672546
>Fudging a roll once in a blue moon means every roll is invalidated and nothing bad should ever happen

>>51672567
>>51672564
Why is always all or nothing with you people?

You realize that moderation is key to all aspects of life right?

>>51672546
>So you're saying that having a player miraculously not die from a goblin because the hand of god came down to say "nuh uh" isn't you jacking off your throbbing GM cock in their faces?
a) He isn't even the poster who mentioned the thing about goblins

b) The guy who mentioned goblins was advocating for "fate point" mechanics and using them as an example of how "dice fudging" can make a game more enjoyable. Not a single word was said about the GM getting involved

c) No, it isn't. Most people get at least somewhat invested on their characters and a party member suddenly dying can be a pain in the ass for everyone involved. The people who argue for Gygaxian GMing tend to ignore that he actively disliked roleplaying

>>51659951
I usually mix them up. In combat I almost always roll in the open. I just think of it as an easy way of telling the players how skilled their opponent actually is, after all a skilled fighter would be able to gauge that on his own.

However I never roll stuff in the open that the PCs don't/can't see,

>>51672556
I get it, I enjoy stories with plot armored characters too. I've read quite a lot of superman over the years. He's pretty much invincible but even if he wasn't, he has the protection of the writers, so he's never going away permanently. The stories are a good read and the fights can be interesting, but I can tell you I know exactly how it will turn out in the end, and because of that no superman comic has ever given me as much enjoyment as a good tabletop campaign.

>>51672589
The only difference between a fate point and fudging dice is the person sitting on which side of the GM screen.
>No, it isn't.
Yes, it is. You're blatantly telling me, a player, that either you planned to kill my character off for the sake of this amazing reveal or you don't want my character to die.

The whole situation could've been resolved using fudging because
>goblin missed
or
>goblin hits for normal damage
is all the player(s) are going to see.

>>51672588
Because the point of random chance is that it's random. If you're going to step in every time you don't like the result, it was NEVER random.

>>51672612
>either you roll in the open or everyone has plot armor.
Seriously, all or nothing is not a good position to be in, they both have their place and nobody is trying to say that you should always fudge dice whenever possible.

Also, you can drop the attitude.

>>51672588
You didn't answer his question. You've explicitly argued that you will save a player from dying versus a goblin, and that the goblin isn't designed to survive.

You only ever roll dice when the outcome is uncertain.

If the outcome is certain, you do not roll.

In your reasoning, there is absolutely no reason to waste people's time acting out combat; the result is a foregone conclusion.

>>51672637
So I guess you hate fate points then? Because those basically serve the same purpose except it's the player who alters the results instead of the GM.

>>51672612
The problem is that you're using comic books as your example. Zeus sums up the whole plot of the Iliad to the audience very early on.

Also, no one is arguing for making characters literally unkillable.

>>51672655
Yes he does, see >>51672636

>>51672657
Either the goblin has the capacity to kill someone or it doesn't. If it does, and you remove it to save a player character's life, you've granted them plot armor and made them unkillable because you wouldn't like the story of how they would die. That is literally how comic books work.

Whichever you need at the time, they both work and they both have benefits. Ideally you would have a group that understands that and trusts your judgement as a DM, and ideally you would have a DM who knows not to abuse hidden rolls.

>>51672651
Of course the goblin wasn't meant to survive, I rolled on a random encounters table and 1d6 goblins was the result for the players inside the forest.

Most creatures that the players fight aren't meant to survive the encounter they were made for and it's silly that you'd think otherwise unless you've just never ran a game before.

The player meanwhile is going to have an effect on the world around them due to their actions within the campaign, you can't just murder a PC because a trash mob got lucky for the same reasons why a story doesn't kill off the main character in a random fight unless the series is built off of high lethality for the cast.

If the PC is going to die, it's because the player was stupid or because they were fighting against something that was meant to kill them but not because of pure RNG.

>>51672588
>Why is always all or nothing with you people?
>You realize that moderation is key to all aspects of life right?
THIS.

Purists who insist that any time a dice is rolled it must be absolutely obeyed for that The Law, are too extreme.
Yes, if you find a possible result of a roll unacceptable you probably shouldn't have rolled. But if you realize this after you rolled because you are human and fallable, then you are not bound by the Gods of Gaming to obey that roll.

Fudgers that would rather just decide the outcome of an important roll instead of following it are too extreme.
Yes, the objective of the game is to have fun, and bad roll might roll ruin the fun. But you are fallable and might just be overestimating how severely that bad roll will affect the game. You are biased, the dice are not. Let go of your urge to control.

>>51672636
>Yes, it is. You're blatantly telling me, a player, that either you planned to kill my character off for the sake of this amazing reveal or you don't want my character to die.
Killing off someone's character with no apparent reason is considered a MASSIVE faux pas by practically everyone on the tabletop community, while some fudging to help characters survive stupid bullshit is considered good because most people and GMs don't like the prospect of RNG suddenly rendering several weeks or event months' worth of character development useless because of a bad roll. It works for some systems and types of game, and just plain doesn't for others.

How is this equivalent to a PLAYER with no direct control over the GM's intent using a fate point, besides?

>>51672698
Actually, if this were a comic book the BBEG would be literally unkillable and the PCs would die and come back after every other year to keep things fresh.

Seriously, every hero in existence has died at least once but how many times have you seen the Joker or Lex Luthor die in the main continuity?

>>51672715
>meant to kill them
One of many reasons fudging should not be allowed.

The GM should not have the power to decide when PCs are to live or die.

The GM cannot be unbiased. The RNG can't not be.

The GM's job is to set up scenarios and circumstances and have them react according to the rules and logic based on the PCs actions. Follow them to their natural conclusions.

If the GM wants the PCs to die, they will die. It's a stupid way to play and the reason the rules exist is to arbitrate it and make it fair rather than entirely on the whim of some powertripping neckbeard.

>>51672698
It's like you're repeating your argument without even bothering to read mine. "Plot armor" is old as human storytelling itself, and ancient greek epics (which on themselves are derived from a much older tradition of orally transmitted epics which most likely goes back into prehistory) were already toying with the concept itself almost 3000 years ago. It's not a comic thing.

>>51665578
>No, it basically does boil down to insecure players feeling as though the DM doesn't have their best interests at heart
Here's the thing: the DM should not have the best interests at heart. His job is not to keep the characters alive, nor is it to make them succeed again and again. DM's role is to be a neutral adjudicator and that's all there is to it.

Let the dice lay as they roll, and let me make my own mistakes and successes.

>>51672734
>most people and GMs
I'd like to see the polls to back up that claim.

Pretty sizable group of people who disagree in this thread alone.

>>51672733
Allowing fudging introduces bias and enforces railroading (The GM stands by his rolls as long as the rolls go as planned. Too high or too low? The GM will change the result).

>>51672763
>One of many reasons fudging should not be allowed.
Oh boy, another purist advocating the masses about BADWRONGFUN. Can't wait to see his totally level-headed response to an option that the GM can freely decide to utilize when appropriate.
>The GM should not have the power to decide when PCs are to live or die.
Not off to a great start.
>The GM cannot be unbiased. The RNG can't not be.
Okay...starting to go jihad.
>The GM's job is to set up scenarios and circumstances and have them react according to the rules and logic based on the PCs actions. Follow them to their natural conclusions.
Completely forgets his own point not even two lines later.
>If the GM wants the PCs to die, they will die. It's a stupid way to play and the reason the rules exist is to arbitrate it and make it fair rather than entirely on the whim of some powertripping neckbeard.
And it all basically boils down to trust issues.

More of the same, get a better group.

>>51672637
>If you're going to step in every time you don't like the result

But nobody is advocating for that.
At least, unless I'm massively misunderstanding the thread, the argument is whether or not it is okay to do so at all, not to arbitrarily decide that way on every single roll.

As far as I'm aware GMs that fudge do so -maybe- once every few sessions, if even that.

>>51672715
The players are playing the game based on it's rules. They use logic and assess challenges based on their understanding of the game and the setting. If you break the rules by changing how probability works in your game, then you are removing the possibility of the players to ever properly understand the game.

>>51672775
>the DM should not have the best interests at heart.
He should since the whole purpose of game is to have fun.

>>51672802
But I have the most fun overcoming challenges with my friends to the best of my ability. Not having someone cheat for me or against me behind a screen.

>>51672794
I'm sorry, I don't actually see anything in your post at all that refutes anything in mine.

I'm a GM by the way. But you're right; it is a trust issue. Fudging dice is a betrayal of your players' trust.

>>51672787
Do you honestly believe the rolls are going to stop a shitty GM from putting you on the railroad? If the GM wants you on the rollroad, you're going on the railroad whether you rolled shit or best possible outcome.

Fudging dice has nothing to do with it.

>>51672787
>Allowing fudging introduces bias and enforces railroading
This is both true and, in small doses, not that bad.

>>51672797
How exactly does me turning a crit into a high roll suddenly change the player's understanding of the game? It's not like I'm throwing in house rules or anything.

>>51672811

wouldn't it be nice if that challenge were something within your control and volition and not "oh well this enemy critted three times looks like you're up the creek now nigger"

>>51672811
How would you know that he's cheating if it's behind a screen?

The GM should only roll to get ideas, generate random events from a table or to help him on an otherwise binary decision.
Otherwise the rolls are only to make the players think that you are following some kind of rules instead of making shit up

>>51672776
Your mentality comes from only ever having played at least moderately high lethality, open-ended "GM vs PC" games and thinking it is the only right way to play, when there are entire systems built to avoid that kind of game.

>>51672815
An otherwise good GM will suddenly become a master railroader just by fudging rolls. It's a shame to stand by this behaviour.

That said, some players like being railroaded. So for those kind of groups, fudging is great.

>>51672821
Random chance is random but well understood. If you're fudging rolls behind the screen nobody can read your mind and know exactly how and when you'll interfere.

>>51672814
No, it's a trust issue because the players don't trust the GM to give them a memorable campaign unless he decides to go full disclosure in the results that he rolled on the die.

Which is weird because at the same time, people don't want the GM to tell them how strong the monsters are or how the campaign is going to end either.

Weird

>>51672811
>Not having someone cheat for me or against me behind a screen.
Can you accept the possibility of a GM using fudging to correct an unintended imbalance in the challenge they are presenting?
Or would you rather play a disappointing challenge as long as it is what was decided before the dice started rolling?

>>51672821
Because you're removing the possibility of defeat. You're changing the difficulty level of the game on a whim.

>>51672835
Wrong, my friend. I've never in my life played a "GM vs PC" game, and I've only ever had a PC die in a game (whether I was running or playing) once in over a decade. All without fudging. Fudging is a crutch and a betrayal of trust.

>>51672819
Well, I disagree with you on the bias end. A bit of railroading can help keep the focus on the core plot, especially if the players are invested in the core plot and their detour is an accident.

>>51672836
>An otherwise good GM will suddenly become a master railroader just by fudging rolls.
The fact that he becomes a railroader though means that he couldn't have been that good of GM in the first place.

If you can't trust a man not to fuck you over the moment they gain power then you really can't trust them with anything.

>>51672850
The player controls a character and faces a challenge. This doesn't happen in a void where the player is helpless. They should be able to assess the challenge and respond correctly.

If you are making something stronger or weaker behind the scenes, the player can NEVER correctly assess the difficulty of whatever challenge they face, and so never respond in the proper manner.

>>51672841
By that same token, nobody will know whether I've fudged a roll unless they go out of their way to peek behind the screen.

It's like you said, they can't read my mind and the only one who knows what I rolled is me.

>ITT: Religious arguments about slightly different flavors of the same damn thing

>>51672852
You're, as a human being capable of thought, using your own judgement as the one person in a position of power within the RPG session to change the results of a roll because a character dying for no reason may not fit the tone of your campaign or not mesh well with your players, who you presumably know to a decent extent. This is very different from literally saying NO YOU ARE LITERALLY UNABLE TO DIE LOL

>>51672852
I'm not removing the possibility of defeat, I'm removing the chance that combat will become boring or unfair due to factors that no human being could've foreseen before it happened.

If people play stupidly or are fighting against someone who matters, all bets are off but I'm not going to let some trash mob kill someone because they rolled absolute shit all night while I couldn't stop rolling crits.

>>51672886
>I'm not going to let some trash mob kill someone

If it's predetermined, then why are you even rolling dice in the first place?

>>51672867
To be fair, the players shouldn't necessarily know whether or not something is in their weight class.

Maybe that goblin horde is free XP, maybe that goblin horde has a sorcerer who knows how to cast baleful polymorph.

>>51672867
>The player can NEVER correctly assess the difficulty of whatever challenge they face

Er... how? How would a player be able to assess given how dice rolls are in the first place?
Like I'm not the guy you replied to, but I don't see how a player can tell the difference between, given the running example, a Goblin that had its attack roll lowered and a Goblin that rolled a crappy attack roll?

There's arguments to be made against fudging, but player awareness is pretty damn moot considering they literally can't know.

I feel like this is one of those things that DnD has brainwashed people into believing is necessary.

I don't play or run DnD and I've never had this bizarre issue with

>player dies instantly due to unforeseen crit(s)

Most games just don't have that much swing to their results.

>>51672855
> I've never in my life played a "GM vs PC" game
You've been fanatically arguing for them the whole fucking thread and calling everything else a "betrayal of trust"
>. Fudging is a crutch
I don't play RPGs to show off my knowledge of the mechanics and how well I can cheese them to increase my character's survivability. I don't even play particularly crunchy systems.

>>51672897
It has already been said multiple times throughout this thread mate.

>>51672897
Death is a predetermined condition in this case.That is, to break it down, a monster of a certain caliber can deliver damage, debilitate, distract, and so forth, but cannot deliver a killing blow. Nonetheless, you roll to see whether or not it's something that may set up for another creature to hit, kill, or whatever. You roll because the non-death effects are still important.

A monster of a higher caliber could deliver a killing blow, however.

Admittedly I personally wouldn't run by these rules, but that's essentially the mindset for 'don't let trash kill players'

>>51672897
Because the aim of a random encounter is to maim, not kill.

>>51672867
>If you are making something stronger or weaker behind the scenes, the player can NEVER correctly assess the difficulty of whatever challenge they face, and so never respond in the proper manner.
The player "assesses" the challenge based on how you present the challenge.
They cannot directly observe the game world because they are not in the world.
You are fallable.
If you thought the challenge would be easy, presented it as easy, the player assessed it as easy, and the dice say the PC is fucked, the the player *did* respond in the proper manner and if the dice are followed, they still get fucked because you are fallable and are unwilling to disobey the dice.
The same goes for when you present the big battle of the session as a huge challenge, the players expends all their resources to survive it, and it ends up being a waste of a cakewalk because you are fallable.

>>51672922
>You've been fanatically arguing for them the whole fucking thread
No, I haven't.

Playing the rolls that are made without fudging doesn't make things GM vs PC.

That doesn't even make sense.

I'm not even sure how you're contorting your brain to make such perverse "logic" function for you.

>>51672907
Because if a GM makes it so goblins can't crit by fudging the dice, and goblins which can't crit are incapable of killing the player, then the player understands that goblins are not something to be feared in combat.

>>51672939
To be fair, if goblins were meant to be feared then they wouldn't be worth a fraction of a Challenge Rating.

They're trash that's meant to give XP for when the PC's start fighting actual threats, nothing more and nothing less.

>>51672918
Far as I'm aware it's only a problem at very, very low levels, where systems like DnD have math where PCs are pretty damn weak.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you could get that incredibly unlikely 'max damage crit' scenarios where it'd be something like 8d4 damage and you managed to roll all 4s and a natural 20.

It also depends on the edition/houserule. Some say to roll damage dice again, while others say to just double the values rolled from the first dice.
Rolling dice a second time for crits seems a fair compromise for the higher level stuff, but at low level sometimes the double dice isn't necessary to screw over a player.
Which is definitely a major flaw in the system.

>>51672922
>You've been fanatically arguing for them the whole fucking thread and calling everything else a "betrayal of trust"
>>51672835
>Your mentality comes from only ever having played at least moderately high lethality, open-ended "GM vs PC" games and thinking it is the only right way to play, when there are entire systems built to avoid that kind of game.
Yeah, I am a light touch fudger and disagree with the purist in the thread, but you are way off base here.

>>51672936
Your opposal to fudging, in your own words, comes from you enjoying "overcoming challenges with my friends to the best of my ability". Encounters don't come from thin air.

>>51672979
This may come as a shock to you, friend, but "Anonymous" isn't a username. Not everybody on 4chan that disagrees with you is the same person.

I roll attacks in the open, that's it. Sometimes the players die to a skeleton critting them, that's just the way it goes, they want attacks in the open and I give it to them: no mercy.

A lot of the time however I'm rolling for random roll tables/rolling perception for the players against NPC rolls etc. and in general I throw a lot of dice around. Doing all of the "enginework" in front of the screen is just distracting to the players and will kill their immersion.

>>51672802
Shouldn't it be obvious that the GM fudging rolls makes the game unfun for me?

>>51672939
I feel like you're misunderstanding his point, then. (Or I'm misunderstanding his point)-

The whole 'goblin crit instant death' scenario seems to be one where it feels anticlimatic and unexciting for a character to inexplicably die in that scenario. For example, they've fought 5 goblins already and were doing just fine, but this goblin suddenly hit major damage on a fighter or something. Not that Goblins can never crit or never kill a character, although I think a lot of people stand by the latter.

It's supposed to be a case-by-case sort of thing, not a hard and fast rule.

>>51673005
Well how would you know that the GM is fudging rolls in the first place? Also, you can always just leave if it's that much of a deal breaker for you.

>>51672965
>>51672918
I've seen it.
I played a game with a level three wizard with 4 hp.
GM gave him an OP ring of regeneration that basically kept him from dying.
Most fights ended with him KO'd regenerating up to 1 hp.

But yeah, it's rare.
Never plan a system around an exception.
Fudging shouldn't be banned from a possibility, but if you need to do it all the time or even every session, you're doing something wrong.
But, people are fallable.

>>51672990
Okay, so tell me why you specifically are opposed to fudging so I can tell you the same thing in different words, because both you and that guy are pushing arguments similar enough that I couldn't tell you apart.

>>51672829
>wouldn't it be nice if that challenge were something within your control
But it is within the players' control. Whether they want to explore the Valley of Giants at level 1 or level 15 is up to them to choose, and the GM's job is to oblige them. Doing that at level 1 is probably pretty dumb decision, but that's how it goes.
> "oh well this enemy critted three times looks like you're up the creek now nigger"
Enemy critting three times in a row is very unlikely.

>>51665557
So you think playing a rpg is same as playing a game against your players? Thats nice.

When my group plays rpg, we play it together. I make the story, and I make it flow and continue if needed. Im not one of the players, Im the man who used many hours to write the story and gets not to play it as an adventurer.

Thats why I roll in secret and "lie" all the time. Its called Dungeon Mastering, running the game and story.

>>51673033
>Enemy critting three times in a row is very unlikely

Then me fudging a roll for a player is very unlikely.

File: LifeIsFullOfSurprises.jpg (243KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 600x600px

>>51672992
>A sensible opinion and approach to rolling in the open.
What are you doing here?

>>51673033
>Enemy critting three times in a row is very unlikely.
And yet, it does happen every so often.
>Whether they want to explore the Valley of Giants at level 1 or level 15 is up to them to choose, and the GM's job is to oblige them.
You're assuming that every single area is going to have easily defined level barriers like a shitty MMO. Yet at same time, having an area that the player knows is clearly level 15 does more to break the immersion then the odd bout of fudging done sparingly throughout the campaign.

>>51672850
>correct an unintended imbalance
No. You seem to be arguing that characters should face only moderate challenges over their entire career. I disagree on that, some encounters will be against weak others against strong opposition, and whether that is intentional or unintended is irrelevant. You react accordingly and roll with the punches you know?

>Not rolling to see if you fudge a roll every time you roll

There, philosophically argue over that infinite process you shitlords.

>>51673018
1. Fudging lessens the sense of accomplishment when players succeed and lessens the sense of risk by lessening failure. This weakens the impact of the campaign as a whole.

2. The GM is meant to be an unbiased arbitrator of the rules. Breaking them brings bias into the equation, which is bad for a number of reasons. Players want things to be fair; if you save one but not another, you're inviting unneeded fights. The opposite is also true. It can also tempt the GM into abusing this power.

3. It is a betrayal of trust; the rulebook provides the expectations of the game. If you break those expectations, you are breaking trust unless you are forthright about it. Being forthright about it makes #1 and #2 far worse issues.

4. There are much better ways of accomplishing anything you'd need to fudge rolls for that avoid the other issues. Examples have already been brought up earlier in the thread.

I've probably brought up a few others in this thread, but I meant to be in bed two hours ago.

>>51673033
>But it is within the players' control.
Please address
>>51672935
>The player "assesses" the challenge based on how you present the challenge.
I am honestly curious what your response is.

>>51673075
>having an area that the player knows is clearly level 15

Gee, I wonder if the monsters that are the size of ten men and carry clubs twice my size might be a bit of a challenge at level one. Hmm. Let me think about this a while.

>>51672923
It has been asked multiple times, but not answered even once. Why go through the motions if the end result of a random encounter is a foregone conclusion? It's just busywork at that point.

The GM shouldn't be making rolls in the first place, ala Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World.

>>51673078
>You seem to be arguing that characters should face only moderate challenges over their entire career.
I can understand how you came to that conclusion.
I explained it better here >>51672935

>>51673100
It has already been answered multiple times, you just won't accept the answer because it goes against your "all-or-nothing" narrative.

>>51673096
There are plenty of large creatures that can be beaten before level 6 anon, being big doesn't mean being strong.

>>51673083
>1. Fudging lessens the sense of accomplishment when players succeed and lessens the sense of risk by lessening failure.
This is mostly about combat (given this argument was started by an scenario of sudden death in combat, in most systems failing other types of roll is much less immediately lethal by definition though even then I've heard of a few where you can "kill" someone in ways other than physical with the same effects), which is not as prominent in many systems.

About social skills and such, many systems are made to specify rolls are for things you can POSSIBLY fail at when taking the player's actual roleplaying in mind, though making a brilliant argument when your character is an hermit who hasn't contacted civilization in decades or something of the sort could have roleplaying issues of its own.
>2. The GM is meant to be an unbiased arbitrator of the rules
If that is the agreement you had with your players and the system is made with that in mind.

>3. It is a betrayal of trust; the rulebook provides the expectations of the game. If you break those expectations, you are breaking trust unless you are forthright about it. Being forthright about it makes #1 and #2 far worse issues.
Unless the rulebook tells the GM fudging is fine if it enhances a campaign, which most (including DnD last time I checked) do.

I like using an RNG app for true silent rolling.

>>51673012
I'm just pointing out that "purpose of game is to have fun" is not an universal argument against my view on how the game should be run. The heavier fudging gets the easier it is to notice, and I avoid tables playing in that style. Leaving a game that has been otherwise fun is always a bummer of course, and that's why I wish GMs didn't fudge in general and speak against the practice.

>>51673075
>And yet, it does happen every so often.
Would you argue then that very unlikely things should never happen in RPGs?

I run a Fate and Doom point system as a house rule.

Players can gain a (very) limited number of Fate points that let them re-roll something. For each Fate point the party has at one time, I get a Doom point that I can use to re-roll something.

>>51673093
basically
>>51673096

>>51661238
I shouldn't have fucked that snake...

>>51673128
Then I must have missed the answer. Could you please point to it?

>>51673142
Exactly my point. At level 1 it would result in a TPK, at level 6 it would be a moderate challenge, and at level 15 very easy. I fail to see what's the problem?

>>51673154
>I'm just pointing out that "purpose of game is to have fun" is not an universal argument against my view on how the game should be run.
It is when you're ultimately the only one at the table who has a problem with it and whose bitching is enough to affect the flow of the game.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head and telling you to accept fudging and nobody is advocating the use of fudging rolls for every possible roll that the GM makes. Maybe if you come back with something that's better than a strawman then we could actually reach an agreement or something.

Until then, you need to grow out of this "all-or-nothing" bullshit.

Sorry

>>51673168
Because when it does happen, it can ruin the entire night for everyone involved through no fault of anyone at the table.

I mean, it's technically unlikely that a cube of frozen piss from an airplane is going to land on your car just before you have to take your wife to the hospital to deliver your child but you can't tell me that if such a thing happened that it wouldn't throw a spanner in the works.

>>51673201
>It is when you're ultimately the only one at the table who has a problem with it
Which is why I seek tables with like-minded players, naturally. Surely it does not come as a surprise to you that more than one person in the hobby dislikes the practice of fudging dice?

>>51673193
No. Figure it out for yourself.

>>51673177
Which is why I specifically said that you failed to present the challenge accurately.
The giant valley is a crap example.
A group of hobgoblins wielding the powerful magic items you intended to be treasure is better.

>>51673218
I forget the exact term for the fallacy that you're using but it basically boils down to "appealing to popularity."

Lots of garbage finds an audience, telling me that there's more than one person who suffers from your particular strain of autism doesn't surprise me, just like it doesn't surprise me that people still play 3.PF or that people still have an issue with alignments.

>>51673215
I take that as a 'yes' to my question. I dislike the notion that there is only a small number of acceptable, moderately likely outcomes that can happen in the game, and would not enjoy playing in such a campaign very much. YMMV, naturally.

>>51673224
Then we are in agreement that my question has not been satisfactorily met and answered.

>>51673252
We're not in agreement, I'm just not going to spoonfeed you when you have access to the same thread and ctrl+f

Lazy cunt.

>>51673247
> I dislike the notion that there is only a small number of acceptable, moderately likely outcomes that can happen in the game, and would not enjoy playing in such a campaign very much.
You say this as if most games don't boil down to success or failure.

>>51673240
Anon, you'll find that a manchild incapable of dealing with failure in game is much, much more autism than GM not fudging.

>>51673275
This is what, the 10th time it's come back to the "If you fudge you always fudge" argument?

>>51673236
Out of curiosity why? I don't honestly see why latter is better than former. In fact hobgoblins wielding powerful magic items sounds like it would be a much more tougher challenge than it sounds on the surface, because the players would be unpleasantly surprised by the strong magics.

>>51673275
No, the dude going about how no GM, under any circumstance, should ever fudge rolls, even though the players will never know, and even if the alternative would cause more problems in the long run than negating a crit or altering the results by one or two degrees.

To say nothing on how, as >>51673287 has pointed out, this is like the 10th time ITT that you go for an "all-or-nothing" approach that basically boils down to "EITHER YOU ROLL IN THE OPEN ALL THE TIME OR NOTHING FUCKING MATTERS!!!!!!"

It's pretty tiring but then again, it's not like you had a decent argument in the first place, no matter how many times you've repeated yourself or agreed with people who already agree with you.

>>51673287
That's actually a different anon, but yes I just cannot think of any example where fudging dice would have made the game experience a better one for me. Maybe I can handle my character failing better than you would I guess?

>>51673303
Yes, it is a matter of fundamental difference in seeing how role-playing games should be run.

>>51673304
I guess this is the part where you try to talk down to everyone while atop your high horse even though your argument has already been refuted?

Because there are plenty of examples ITT that showcase instances where fudging dice is preferable to the alternative.

I do whatever I want at the time. I'm half-screened by just a laptop and am loaning all my dice to most of the people at the table, so I can reach over, pick up a die wherever and then also roll it wherever I feel like with no suspicion. It means they trust the rolls they don't see, because it never looks like I'm intentionally hiding results even on the rare times I am, and I can share the misery of good/bad streaks of NPCs with the table when I don't care if the party has an emergency against mooks or will need to take alternate paths I specifically made for when shit goes wrong.

>>51673304
I mean since we're confusing other anons, I personally have only ever fudged to a player's detriment, never to their benefit.

I can count on my hand the number of times I've fudged a roll, all of them were combat rolls where a powerful monster was just pawing at the air.

But hey if you don't like it, don't do it, no big deal. As long as you aren't a prick about it.

>>51673314
>should
It boils down to you believing that your style of play is objectively right and anything else is BADWRONGFUN that needs to be eradicated for the good of the greater ttRPG community.

Nobody ITT has told you why rolling in the open is stupid and should be avoided at all times but here you going on about how GMs who fudge make it so nothing in the campaign matters anymore.

Oh, but let me guess, that wasn't actually you spouting all that nonsense, it was just an anon that you agree with, am I right?

>>51673319
No-one has refuted my point that the GM fudging makes the game less fun for me, and in the examples shown I would have preferred the GM not fudging and accepting the alternative instead.

See I'm a big boy; I can handle a goblin critting my character occasionally. You don't have to like that, or even accept that, but there is little you can do to change that (beyond being mad on the internet, of course, that is your prerogative).

>>51673335
Actually it's the other side thinking their style of play is objectively right and my fun is BADWRONGFUN, just because I don't like fudging. It's pretty crazy when you think about it.

>>51673289
>hobgoblins wielding powerful magic items sounds like it would be a much more tougher challenge than it sounds on the surface, because the players would be unpleasantly surprised by the strong magics.
If you didn't realize how dangerous the items were and intended and portrayed the encounter as "just some hobgoblins" then the players would not be able to "assess" the encounter accurately and therefore you are accidentally taking control of the situation from the players.
It's not a perfect example, which is why I didn't provide one at first.

File: contempt.jpg (22KB, 500x388px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x388px

>>51672182
t. metagamer

>>51673355
>No-one has refuted my point that the GM fudging makes the game less fun for me, and in the examples shown I would have preferred the GM not fudging and accepting the alternative instead.
Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion but realize that it's only YOUR opinion here.

I'm going to fudge whenever I feel it is appropriate and nobody is going to care because they trust me as a GM and they won't know the results anyways. If you don't like it then you know where the door is.
>>51673366
Do you make it a habit to roleplay the victim when your stupidity lands you into trouble? Because nobody ITT said that you should always fudge dice at all times here.

>>51673375
Now I see what you meant, that is an example of GM accidentally creating tougher encounter than intended. Sure, those things happen but it's okay - it would be polite for the GM to tell after the game that he made a mistake, but that's not a reason to retcon what happened during it. It's the nature of the game after all.

>>51673391
>Because nobody ITT said that you should always fudge dice at all times here.
Seeing how I've been called both stupid and autist for saying that the GM shouldn't fudge even sometimes then yeah, I'm the victim here. If you resort to name calling it means you didn't have an argument in the first place.

>>51673433
>"Oh no, someone on 4chan called me names, oh the humanity."
Have you forgotten where you are? Because the fact that people have been civil with you thus far is a blessing that many people don't see on this site.

Also, when you post shit like this >>51673304 >>51673275 and >>51673247 then people are going to be less likely to call you out on your bullshit, your stupidity, your autism, and your attitude.

Hell, your argument basically only works if the GM goes out of their way to fudge dice for every single roll, rather than doing so sparingly as many anons (myself included) have advocated since the beginning.

The argument is sound and reasonable, it's just that you can't accept anything less than than total transparency.
>inb4 those posts weren't me.

>>51673422
>that's not a reason to retcon what happened during it
It is not impossible that it sometimes is a valid reason.
"Fudging is *always* a bad thing to do" is wrong.

>>51672488
>If having fun means shifting the occasional dice roll (both for and against the players) then I think that's a worthy sacrifice
What you think is a worthy sacrifice is biased and there is no system in place to support the shifting, so any shifting should only be done when absolutely necessary to reduce instances of using it poorly and with undue bias.
Being too comfortable with fudging can lead to fudging too much.
Fudging too much is wrong because when you fudge, you aren't actually running the game, you are going around it.

If you have an issue with either one of these, there is something wrong with you.
Fudging is surgery on the game.
Surgery is to be avoided if unnecessary, but not ruled out entirely.

>>51673604
No matter how many times you repeat yourself, it's never going to be true. A more apt description of "surgery on the game" would be someone using house rules btw.

File: Lessons.jpg (133KB, 564x1374px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 564x1374px

>>51673475
>your argument basically only works if the GM goes out of their way to fudge dice for every single roll
Again, I am a light touch fudger and disagree with the purist in the thread, but you are way off base here.

>>51673366
>it's the other side thinking their style of play is objectively right and my fun is BADWRONGFUN, just because I don't like fudging.
It's more that you are stating your opinion which includes an absolute: "Never Fudge."
This is easy to point out as objectively wrong.
The other side includes some that are stating "Fudge is fine."
This is easy to point out as clearly dangerous.

"Clearly dangerous" is more fuzzy and subjective than "objectively wrong", but neither is position that's well supported.

It's like one person saying that you should never give a little girl a sword and another saying it's fine.
Generally, you shouldn't. But generally not doesn't mean never.

>>51673637
>No matter how many times you repeat yourself, it's never going to be true
Fortunately, it's true independently of being repeated.
I just foolishly hope that if I keep pointing out the truth and wisdom of moderation with clever analogies, one might click.
In the end, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.

>>51673698
>Fortunately, it's true independently of being repeated.
If it was true then it wouldn't need to be repeated in the first place, you don't need to be told the sky is blue twice, it's pretty self-evident.

Then again, this is the difference between stating a fact and spouting an opinion.

>>51665745
>don't change your dice rolls to accomplish a desired affect.
>add or subtract random situational bonus to accomplish a desired affect.
Ok....

>>51673714
>you don't need to be told the sky is blue twice, it's pretty self-evident.

>The sky is blue.
>No, it's not.
>Yes, the sky is blue.
>No, it's not. Not always.
>The sky is currently blue.
>I think the sky is grey.
>The sky is blue.
>No matter how many times you repeat yourself, it's never going to be true.
>Fortunately, it's true independently of being repeated.
>If it was true then it wouldn't need to be repeated in the first place
No matter how many time you lick the windows, I will still tell you to stop licking the windows.

Unless I get bored or the thread falls off the board.

>>51673744
It's not about reality, anon.
It's about how he frames reality in his head.
Fiat after the fact? Fine.
Liberal use of distorting the system? Fine.
Ignoring a randomly generated number? BLASPHEMY! THE DIE HATH BEEN CAST! SO MOTE IT BE!

Religions are weird man.

File: 1475860055087.jpg (141KB, 500x362px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 500x362px

>>51673753
>My opinion is as much a fact as the sky being blue.
This is what you sound like right now, stop being pedantic and get over yourself.

>>51673744
Situational modifiers to keep your players guessing.

>>51673816
Which is somehow different from fudging dice...

>>51673796
>>My opinion is as much a fact as the sky being blue.

>that's not a reason to retcon what happened during it
"It is not impossible that sometimes 'the GM accidentally creating a tougher encounter than intended' is a valid reason to ignore the result of the dice." is a fact.
Care to disprove that fact?

"Fudging too much is running the game wrong because when you fudge, you aren't actually running the game, you are going around it." is a fact.
Care to disprove that fact?

Also, those facts don't contradict each other either.

>stop being pedantic and get over yourself.
Stop being wrong and get over yourself.

File: 1475898487327.jpg (205KB, 357x400px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 357x400px

>>51673888
This is literally you right now. Also, you seem to have a gross misunderstanding of a fact and an opinion.

>>51673888
>"My personal opinion is an absolute fact!"
Wew lad

>>51673915
Your skill at refuting a fact with a valid argument is severely lacking.
Also, you seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what likes, facts, and opinions are.

>>51673962
see
>>51673968

File: 1485973414084.jpg (10KB, 480x271px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x271px

>>51673968
>>51673980
As is your ability to ignore any argument that doesn't agree with you while pawning off any moronic comment you made ITT as being from somewhere else.

The fact of the matter is that you're so delusional, you believe that your opinion is fact, when in actuality, it's still just an opinion that isn't true or false because it's a fucking opinion.

Have one last (you) for the road because I'm through with your bullshit.

>>51673683
>This is easy to point out as objectively wrong.
No, it is a matter of preferences and completely subjective, thus it is impossible to prove objectively wrong. Examples have been presented as bad consequences that happen if you don't sometimes fudge are not bad in my view; 'bad" and "fun" are subjective experiences after all.

>>51661238
I prefer to roll against myself tbqh with you phamm. Fate in own hands and all that.

>>51674001
>As is your ability to ignore any argument that doesn't agree with you while pawning off any moronic comment you made ITT as being from somewhere else
Literally not that anon that did that.
Which is more than a little funny.

>The fact[opinion(heh)] of the matter is that you're so delusional, you believe that your opinion is fact, when in actuality, it's still just an opinion that isn't true or false because it's a fucking opinion.
Asserting that something is not impossible is not an opinion, it is an assertion.
Asserting that going around a game is running the game wrong is not an opinion, it is an assertion.

Challenge the assertion with an argument if you think it is bullshit.
That's what I did with the bullshit I replied to.

(See how I didn't say "your bullshit"? That's because I don't know for certain that you are that anon)

>>51674058
I can challenge your assertion simply by pointing out that it's just an opinion. You can make arguments only against facts, not opinions.

>>51674034
Granted.
"I never like fudging." is an opinion.
"One should never fudge." is an assertion of what should be done.
It's been said both ways depending on the post, but the purist has been vocal that he considers his assertion just an opinion.
He's free to like what he likes.
But asserting what should be done changes it a bit.

>>51674093
Oh come on, let's be reasonable here. The other side saying 'sometimes GM should fudge and that's what should be done' is an equivalent assertion.

>>51674071
>just an opinion. You can make arguments only against facts, not opinions.
It is an assertion.
see
>>51674093

>>51673422
>that's not a reason to retcon what happened during it
Technically, this it line I was replying to.

"That's not a reason." is an assertion.
Everything can be called "just your opinion".
But if you start stating "this is x" or "that is y", you are making assertions.

Don't cry "It's just my opinion!" when your assertion is refuted.
That's a little bitch move.
Don't be a little bitch.

I'm out of time and this will probably autosage, but I will check back and reply if able.

>>51674105
I tried to point out how both sides were wrong often.

>>51674129
It is impossible to refute assertions, only facts can be refuted.

Hiding perception rolls etc gives more options but I don't see a reason to hide combat rolls. A character should have an idea of how effective things are anyway.

If you don't want level 2 wolf to instantly kill a pc that'd been invested in due to rng just say "The Wolf bites his neck and knocks him down, and is about to rip out his throat"

Then let the round of combat flow and give the party a chance to deal with it. Turn based combat doesn't have to be adhered to in a rigid order of X swings. Y swings. etc.

The players know what happened and if they want to say no we want to let the dice stand I'll make a new character then they have that option, or they have the chance to prevent it if it will be less enjoyable

>>51674255
Alternatively if you're playing games like D&D where low levels are a deathtrap due to shitty balance, have the players start at a higher level. They won't loose anything interesting and you get more options to throw at them without them instantly dying due to probability.

Good news everyone!
I thought of one more analogy!

In the United States, it is illegal to drive across double solid white lines dividing the road.
Crossing these lines is like fudging.

If you have the urge to fudge, it's because something has gone wrong.
In this analogy, that thing is sliding on some ice into the oncoming lane.
The only way back is to cross the double solid line.
The purist argues that you shouldn't do that. Afterall, you can drive backwards, pull over and call for a tow truck, or just drive forward and hope the line changes before you get into a head-on collision. But you shouldn't go over the line, ever.

The fudgers argue that it's fine to cross that line.

It is possible that crossing that line should be done, but it can be dangerous and should mostly be avoided.

>>51674423
>If you have the urge to fudge, it's because something has gone wrong.

Or because it's fun. Half the fun of a joyride is breaking as many laws as you can.
I also don't understand the whole "fudge only to save the players" business. Sometimes, you need to fudge just to get a particular point across.

Big scary monster? He won't be scary if he has a ton of bad luck and just dies. At least let him get a free hit so that the players understand the scene you were trying to build.

Being just a referee for a board game is dumb.

>>51674157
>It is impossible to refute assertions, only facts can be refuted.
Heh
It is my assertion that this fact is just your opinion.

I also assert that I refuted yo momma last night.

>>51674607
>If you have the urge to fudge, it's because something has gone wrong.
What's wrong?
Perhaps the players need saving, perhaps a particular point hasn't gotten across to the players, perhaps the big scary monster isn't scary enough, or perhaps you just aren't having enough fun.
Savvy?

>>51674708
>or perhaps you just aren't having enough fun.

What if you are having fun, you just want a different kind of fun? Nothing is wrong, you're just changing things because there's nothing wrong in doing so.

>>51674708
You really are just talking about railroading.

You're not allowing the players to loose since that's not how it's supposed to go. You're not allowing them to stumble. You don't think that they are afraid of the monster because you didn't make it scary enough so you decide that they have to live/die regardless of what the dice says.

No wonder none of you fucks has a game. "If your GM is trustworthy" "absolutely not"

Fuck I would never GM for you fags.

File: 21549151-Asphalt-road-with-white-double-solid-line-Stock-Photo.jpg (288KB, 866x1300px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 866x1300px

>>51674745
>What if you are having fun, you just want a different kind of fun?
Then "what's wrong" is that you want to have a different kind of fun and currently aren't.
I'm not sure why you keep pushing this.
The point of mentioning that "something's gone wrong" was just to establish that fudging is a reaction.
The comment was not intended as a deep well of contemplative introspection.

>>51674997
>You really are just talking about railroading.
Well, I was just responding to anon's line of questioning.
Even if acting on all that would be railroading, which you have a strong case for, I was just discussing the urge to fudge. The urge to railroad, if you like.
The urge is infinitely preferable to the action in the case of railroading.

>>51675357
>The point of mentioning that "something's gone wrong" was just to establish that fudging is a reaction.

It doesn't have to be. You can decide to fudge even before you roll, with the intention to ignore the results.

>>51675357
>Well, I was just responding to anon's line of questioning.
Allright that clears it up a bit.

>>51675437
Then you are not fudging the roll, you are just using them to make sound

ITT: More reasons why playing with /tg/, especially the autistics, are a bad idea.

Y'all niggas will argue over anything.

>>51675671
It's not like anyone's really serious though.

Even the guy who's all gung-ho "I would kill my GM if I discovered him cheating on me" would probably just think "yeah, it's not actually a big deal" if it happened.

>>51675518
Perhaps what was wrong was a lack of the sound of dice rolling?

>>51675671
>Y'all niggas will argue over anything.
No we won't.

>>51676004
If your dice don't make a sound when you roll them. Can you fudge them?

>>51676054
>If your dice don't make a sound when you roll them. Can you fudge them?
If you like.
Actually, if your dice don't make a sound when you roll them, you might be rolling them in the fudge, or other soft table snack or dessert topping.

>>51676018
>No we won't.
Of course we will! What you seriously thought that we'd agree on anything?

>>51660451
I've had this DM. If you're going to hide the dice, hide the dice. Showing the dice sometimes only validates player concerns.

No, however if the GM is rolling privately I think he should at least let the PCs know that.

Roll20 really needs a semi-private roll function.