>mfw DMs covertly break the rules of the game by fudging rolls

>>52116351
Sometimes a good adventure is better for it.

>>52116488
In what way?

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

97KB, 955x510px

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.

Because it's not about winning or losing. It isn't a competitive game where I'm aiming for some kind of victory over anyone else.

It's about creating a compelling, engaging experience for me and my group to enjoy. Exactly what kind of experience people want varies massively from group to group. It's purely based on personal taste and preference.

Knowing my players, as a GM I will take any action I think will improve the experience overall, and I am fully within my rights to do so. The rules are a support structure to help me create a fun experience, not shackles that restrict me from doing what I think best.

>>52116507
You've just given a good example of how NOT fudging can be really good, and then said "but it's good sometimes" without giving an example. Mind saying when it's good?
>>52116518
>Because it's not about winning or losing.
D&D is a game to be won or lost.
>It isn't a competitive game where I'm aiming for some kind of victory over anyone else.
This, I agree with. The players are aiming for collective victory and you're aiming to give them a challenge that they may or may not succeed at overcoming.

If you genuinely think there's nothing wrong with it, why don't you tell your player next time you fudge a dice to make things more exciting, and see if they still find that moment as exciting and tell stories about it like they would if the exact same result came up on the dice.

If only one result is acceptable, just don't roll in the first place.

>>52116600

>D&D is a game to be won or lost.

Why? Individual encounters or engagements within the game might be, but the game as a whole isn't. You 'win' if everyone is having fun, you 'lose' if people aren't having fun.

>If you genuinely think there's nothing wrong with it, why don't you tell your player next time you fudge a dice to make things more exciting, and see if they still find that moment as exciting and tell stories about it like they would if the exact same result came up on the dice.

Why would I waste time doing that when combat is already slow and mechanically involved? It's not about truth or lies, it's about not ruining the pace.

>>52116629
>Why? Individual encounters or engagements within the game might be, but the game as a whole isn't. You 'win' if everyone is having fun, you 'lose' if people aren't having fun.
I get what you're saying to an extent, but I think there are two levels on which you can win or lose. You're right that if nobody's having a good time, then you're failing. But at the same time, it's a game where you're presented with challenges to be overcome. If you think there's a very low chance of a certain thing happening because of the rules but the DM thinks it would be cool so there's really a 100% chance of that happening, that's unfair in terms of your ability to know what to do in the game.
>Why would I waste time doing that when combat is already slow and mechanically involved? It's not about truth or lies, it's about not ruining the pace.
So why not tell them after the session, then? Just say, "oh, by the way, according to the dice you would have died, but I decided to keep you alive."

In fact, if you fudge EVER then the dice are really just suggestions. Which means if a player character dies, it isn't because of the game mechanics but because you, as the DM, decided to take that player's character away.

I don't fudge and I don't think anyone else should either.

File: unnamed.png (58KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1280x800px

>>52116730

>>52116702

Those two objectives are very different, one IC, one OOC. OOC, the only thing that matters is everyone enjoying themselves. The goals of the player characters is purely an IC concern. How they go about their goals, the difficulties they face on the path is what creates the fun. It doesn't matter OOC if the players win or lose as long as it creates interesting scenarios to explore.

And I have had that kind of conversation with players before, we rotate GMing so we talk about how much you should fudge. In general we agree that the occasional roll is fine but if you're doing it too much you need to rethink things a bit, whether in terms of when you ask for rolls or general encounter design.

As for player character death, we tend to play very character focused games with the sort of metagame resources/mechanics that ensure characters tend to only really die at plot important moments.

>>52116600
>Mind saying when it's good?
Well, if the enemy happened to be the firghter's sworn nemesis that he vowed to slay himself and at the end of a tremendous battle, the enemy's defenses are weakened and the fighter recklessly charges forward to deliver the killing blow, but the speedy archer wins initiative and his readied arrow flies, hits, and takes the enemy's last hp before the fighter can reach his nemesis.
Then you might fudge that the arrow just strikes his sword arm, or something.

Also, there was the time a very good squad did everything right, but just all rolled low to detect the snipers and the snipers all had critical successes.
I could have begun the session by informing them all that unseen snipers had killed all their characters, their mission failed, and everyone had to stop and reroll.
Instead, I had an NPC stupidly break formation and get headshot.
The TPK would've been fair and sucked, but have been accepted.
But it would have been less fun and would've wasted time and killed the flow of the session.
These are non-zero factors to consider.

>D&D is a game to be won or lost.
What are the "win conditions" of a session of D&D again?
Of a campaign?

>>52116767
>i would appreciate fudging to prevent kill steals of important characters
i think such a kill steal would actually help story building. from RP PoV, wouldn't it create tension between the archer and the fighter?

Because we all had a lot of fun in the end.

>Those two objectives are very different, one IC, one OOC. OOC, the only thing that matters is everyone enjoying themselves. The goals of the player characters is purely an IC concern.
Purely? Are you telling me players OOC are 100% indifferent to whether the PCs succeed or fail at their mission, in literally all cases?

>How they go about their goals, the difficulties they face on the path is what creates the fun.
Right. Difficulties that the players, acting as the characters, are attempting to overcome.

>It doesn't matter OOC if the players win or lose as long as it creates interesting scenarios to explore.
Being dead or incapacitated isn't exactly an interesting scenario.
>As for player character death, we tend to play very character focused games with the sort of metagame resources/mechanics that ensure characters tend to only really die at plot important moments.
Then why the hell are you playing D&D and not something designed specifically with that in mind?

>>52116767
>Well, if the enemy happened to be the firghter's sworn nemesis that he vowed to slay himself and at the end of a tremendous battle, the enemy's defenses are weakened and the fighter recklessly charges forward to deliver the killing blow, but the speedy archer wins initiative and his readied arrow flies, hits, and takes the enemy's last hp before the fighter can reach his nemesis.
I actually think the fighter having to deal with this having happened would be far more interesting than yet another "the valiant hero kills his sworn foe" story.
>Also, there was the time a very good squad did everything right, but just all rolled low to detect the snipers and the snipers all had critical successes.
This is actually one case where I can see your point. I still think there's probably a way things could have been planned so that a TPK without the players having any say wouldn't have been possible in the first place, though.
>What are the "win conditions" of a session of D&D again?
Not dying. Getting away with some amount of treasure. Players do set the goals and attempt to achieve them. Winning = achieving your goals and not dying.

>>52116824

When did I ever say I was playing D&D? Although the OP used that as a picture and said GM, it's a pretty universally applicable statement. And we still do play D&D from time to time, it's a flawed but fun game.

And it might just be different attitudes. Of course people are invested in their characters success or failure, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy losing. When you're reading a book, you empathise with and root for the protagonist, but the story doesn't stop being interesting just because they lose and things take a downturn. For the player characters it might be an awful, terrible situation, but my group tends to get really excited in those moments, planning and figuring out how they're going to break through the despair and get back on track.

Also, on the >Being dead or incapacitated isn't exactly an interesting scenario.

I entirely agree, which is why I tend to fudge away from those when it'd be boring or inappropriate.

>>52116803
That's one way of looking at it, but depending on your group it could do the opposite, that's kind of the point of the argument, that it's all case by case. If you're confident that your group would be cool with progressing a story that way, go for it. It just might also happen that other players might not enjoy doing things that way.

Because we like fun

>>52116900
its important people should deal with the cons of their actions. a good dm doesn't protect them from it. people who sommun an avalance on a mountain deserve to get a chance to be buried in it so next time they would think twice.

>>52116351
Oh, I'm another whiny ass player that won't get off my ass to DM but I'll bitch about the person who actually puts time in for me to have an enjoyable experience.

Bitch, please....

>>52116735
>>>52116833
>>>52116863

>>52116836
But that's the problem, your group's goals might be to get treasure, which is fine and admittedly appropriate for a more rules centric approach. However, there are a lot of groups that use the mechanics to act out narrative more than to actually "conquer" the system. So, for them it might be better to fudge to get proper satisfaction using the system

>>52116959

It's basically the same bullshit you see in many different flavours on /tg/. People assuming their personal preference for something is actually objectively superior for some random reason.

Roleplaying games are more art than science, and a lot of it is knowing who you're playing with and how to best create a fun experience with the people in your group.

>>52116926
That's true if that's why you're playing the game. I think there's a lot of satisfying mechanics in ttrpgs so I understand how having that very grounded approach to decision making can be fun, but other groups might be using the system for a different, less consequence focused purpose. Think of it more of a mechanical reinforcement for a somewhat planned narrative.

>>52116936
I'm not DMing now but I ran a game every week for almost a year ending about six months ago, and I intend to start again probably in early summer when shit in my life settles down again.

Nice try, though.
>>52116959
I honestly think a different system would be better, then.

Though I don't mean 3.5-style "overcoming the system" either. I'm talking about a game where you're attempting to create a consistent world where players' decisions have probabilistic outcomes (which may or may not be entirely transparent to them, sure) such that over time they can learn what is and isn't a good idea in a way that allows them to think in-character about problems and roleplay as someone who has stake in, and can succeed or fail at, doing something challenging and dangerous.

>>52116702
>In fact, if you fudge EVER then the dice are really just suggestions. Which means if a player character dies, it isn't because of the game mechanics but because you, as the DM, decided to take that player's character away.
THIS.

OP, find something actually objectionable and complain about it on another board. Like how the American education system is broken.

>>52117060

Why would the dice ever be anything more than a suggestion?

>>52117019
>some people play rpg because they can't bother playing such games on the PC/PS/XBOX/WII
why, they don't know good games?

I have over ten years of DMing experience across half a dozen systems, and I don't fudge.

But I don't pretend I know or understand the ultimate truth about whether it helps or not so well that I'd discourage someone else from fudging.

I do think it's reasonably safe to say that it's best to keep it to a minimum.

>>52117094
There's not really any videogame that allows you the sheer creative freedom that D&D gives you.

>>52117060
>>52116702
agreed. once you start, who knows where youll stop.
do you know what differs tbrg from normal children 'lets pretend'? RULES. the understanding you can't just do everything.

>>52117079
Because the dice are there to keep you honest; to help you distance yourself from your subjectivity in a way that makes it easier to represent a world that feels alive, not planned.

>>52116836
>I actually think the fighter having to deal with this having happened would be far more interesting
I agree completely. However, notice that the fighter failing to do this doesn't bring a campaign to a screeching halt.

Having a party wipe on a bunch of mooks because of rolls is shitty, and ultimately, yes, the players are just gonna have to deal with it, but it doesnt stop it from sucking. Unless they all have setting appropriate characters already lined up in case of death, this will quickly stop things as everyone stops playing for a bit.
Losing to a BBEG/nemesis in a climactic finale can lead to new storytelling opportunities where everyone can enjoy the new outcome, regardless of what had to happen. Youre right, not everyone has to succeed, but there are times when its appropriate for them to do so.

>>52117079
If you make a commitment to actually consistently follow through with what the rules (yes, including house rules) dictate should happen in response to a roll, then anything that happens is a consequence of choosing to actually follow the rules to which everyone has agreed.

If you don't, then the rolls are literally a waste of time and you should just decide what happens, maybe rolling if you're having trouble deciding something but otherwise just making declarations based on personal preference.

In the former case, an enemy rolls really well on an attack and a PC dies: "Damn, that sucks."

In the latter, an enemy rolls really well on an attack and a PC dies: "Wait, why did you decide my character died this time but save Steve's character before?"

>>52117115
whats the point in creative freedom for people who don't like their actions to have consequances? if all you are doing is gaining skils and killing monsters, why should i bother coming up with a campaign?

>>52117132

But that's only relevant for a certain style of GMing. Some groups don't care about that, so fudging is clearly something that varies from group to group.

If you're fudging rolls to make something seem more like a story, all you're doing is forcing something inherently chaotic and interesting to conform to clichés that everyone has seen a hundred thousand times already.

What's more interesting?
- "Wait, what just happened!?"
- "Oh, it's another one of these."

>>52117140
>losing to mooks
thats GREAT story. have the mooks upgraded to midbosses at later points of the adventure.

if the players have any brain, they would run away anyway.

>>52117175
see the last line of >>52116600

>If only one result is acceptable, just don't roll in the first place.

>>52116600
>D&D is a game to be won or lost.
No it's not. There are not end conditions, no objectives, no goals, no direction, no board, no final square.

>>52117194

I generally agree, but sometimes rolling will give you a good idea. Why should you be locked out of it? It's like flipping a coin. As soon as you flip it, you realise which result you actually wanted in the first place.

>>52117187

Nobody has said 'To make it more like a story'. It's about making it more fun for the group of people you're playing with, which inherently relies on understanding what they enjoy.

>>52116600
>you genuinely think there's nothing wrong with it, why don't you tell your player next time you fudge a dice to make things more exciting,

I actually do this.
It worked fine. Turns out, not all people are you.

>>52117222
if they don't have fun from the challange, just forgo dice and let everyone do what they wish.

>>52117229

This is the fundamental thing that almost anyone who makes 'objective' statements about roleplaying games fails to understand. It's kinda sad, really.

>>52117244

But that doesn't logically follow at all.

>>52116498
Because most enjoy succeeding.

>>52117257
why not? why CAN'T everyone do what they want if doing what they want is what fun for them in playing dnds? have everyone do what they want and thats it.

its like kids playing pretend, but hey, as long as people are having fun. its not like the possibility of losing could add fun to the game.

>>52117211
>There are not end conditions
Party wipe. Want to play again?
>no objectives, no goals, no direction
So when you play, the DM doesn't come up with objectives for the players, nor do the players decide to pursue specific objectives themselves, but instead it's just eternal, aimless wandering?
>no board, no final square.
I mean, you can do battle maps, but I accept this without seeing how it's relevant.
>>52117229
>I actually do this.
Did you take it to its logical conclusion? "I just basically decide what happens. We're playing pretend and I'm God, so don't worry about dice or stats anymore. Tell me what you want to do and I'll decide whether you succeed based on my own whims. I know you made your character to be better at certain things than others, and that there are rules for simulating that, but I genuinely don't care."
>>52117265
If there's no challenge, success is just having a thing. Making a sandwich and ending up with one is succeeding, and you have something more tangible than some treasure written on a character sheet or the DM saying "your character succeeded," too.

With no real chance of failure, it isn't even success.

>>52116803
>from RP PoV, wouldn't it create tension between the archer and the fighter?
It absolutely would, but nobody (in my hypothetical situation) wanted that and the fighter definitely wanted another outcome.
It is letting the initiative die roll dictate that the ending that the player worked hard for, and roleplayed towards, and was anticipating, gets denied because of random chance and with the only benefit being an adherence to RAW.

>i think such a kill steal would actually help story building.
>>52116836
>I actually think the fighter having to deal with this having happened would be far more interesting than yet another "the valiant hero kills his sworn foe" story.
And that is a valid opinion.
But the fighter player’s opinion is the one that matters here.
Denying a player from achieving their hard won character goal because you feel something else would be more interesting is actually worse than obeying the quiet whispering commands of the initiative dice.
Well, that’s my opinion, anyway.

>>52116836
> I still think there's probably a way things could have been planned so that a TPK without the players having any say wouldn't have been possible in the first place, though.
Oh, 100%. I totally agree.
If a GM is fudging, it is because they made some error somewhere.
But fudging is the “in the moment” correction of that error.
Sometimes, the error could be left and everyone could see what comes of the consequences.
Sometimes, the error could ruin everyone’s fun and the only reason not to fudge to correct it is an autistic adherence to RAW or GM notes.

When I pitted a Golem against the party, I didn’t anticipate the whole party getting knocked unconscious except the rogue, but it was a possibility I could have accounted for.
As a result, the rogue could barely damage the golem and the golem could almost never hit the rogue.
After everyone watching us roll dice uselessly at each other for several minutes, I fudged the golem hitting the wall, knocking a rock loose, giving the rogue the idea to repeat that until a rock slide took out the Golem when it really shouldn’t have.
And then fun followed.
Fudging wasn’t the only option or solution, but it got everyone back playing and having fun sooner.
Again, time usage and flow of the session are non-zero factors to consider.

>>52117277

I more meant that your initial statement felt like a non-sequitur. I don't see how it relates to the discussion at large. Fudging the occasional roll for the enjoyment of the group doesn't mean that the group doesn't enjoy challenge. It's a nonsensical statement.

>>52117278

>Did you take it to its logical conclusion? "I just basically decide what happens. We're playing pretend and I'm God, so don't worry about dice or stats anymore. Tell me what you want to do and I'll decide whether you succeed based on my own whims. I know you made your character to be better at certain things than others, and that there are rules for simulating that, but I genuinely don't care."

Not him, but that is an utterly illogical conclusion that entirely misses the point.

>>52117292
>random chance
It's actually probabilistic, not random. The fighter's player knows he has a chance of succeeding or failing at his goal, and has accepted that by choosing to play a game and not just write a story about it.
>>52117304
>If a GM is fudging, it is because they made some error somewhere.
I'm actually okay with fudging very rarely to fix an error you made, as long as it leads to considering what made it necessary and making a real effort to fix it.
>>52117317
>the dice don't actually matter; I decide what happens
>an utterly illogical conclusion when someone disregards the dice and just decides what happens
Okay.

>>52117337

Yes? Because it's taking the statement completely out of context and entirely ignoring intent.

'I will occasionally ignore the result of a diceroll if I judge that doing so will improve the game'.

This does not in any way lead to your rather bizarre statement.

>>52117292
> nobody (in my hypothetical situation) wanted that
than why did the archer attack? i know they can't see the enemy hp but can't you describe how te BBEG is nearly dead on low HP?

>>52117306
why some rolls and not all rolls? aen't dice a waste of time if they are marely suggestions?
if you understand the importance of failure, you will understand the fun in critical failures as well.

I'm such a great GM that my players can't tell if I'm fudging or not.

>>52117278
1) You are going to die.
2) There is no way it doesn't happen.
3) You are more likely to suffer than to enjoy the rest of your life.
Thus, the logical conclusion should be "I must kill myself".
Yet barely anyone does.
Why?
>>52117337
>It's actually probabilistic, not random. The fighter's player knows he has a chance of succeeding or failing at his goal, and has accepted that by choosing to play a game and not just write a story about it.

DC to hit this ancient golem is 40.
It's immune to critical hits.
The fighter chose to attack.
He literally has no chance.

>>52117370
>why some rolls and not all rolls? aen't dice a waste of time if they are marely suggestions?

Why are you here?
Is this conversation vital?
If not, why are you here, isn't this a waste of time?

>>52116351
Because they like winning occasionally.

>>52117370

see

>>52117366

>>52117366
>'I will occasionally ignore the result of a diceroll if I judge that doing so will improve the game'.
But that means that in actuality, every time you choose to follow the result of a roll, you are actively choosing to do so because of a variety of factors. In the end, every single thing that happens in the game is just your decision. The dice may be there to inspire those decisions, but they carry no actual weight.
>>52117404
>The fighter chose to attack.
>He literally has no chance.
Should have run away, then, huh?
>>52117414
So design things ahead of time such that success and failure are both possibilities.

Rolled 113 (1d666)

>>52116702
>In fact, if you fudge EVER then the dice are really just suggestions.
>>52117131
>agreed. once you start, who knows where youll stop.
>It's impossible to add a little fudge to something without degenerating to disgustingly covering everything with fudge, even the tuna casserole!
Cautious moderation people.
Fudging is a correction.

Let's try another analogy:
If you are covering your paper in white-out, you'd obviously be better off starting over.
It's obviously best if you never need to use it at all.
But declaring that nobody should ever use it ever is ignoring a number of perfectly valid uses.

In general, if it occurs to a GM to fudge, their response should be: "Do I really *need* to?"
It should not be, "Aw yeah!"
Nor should it be, "Purge me from these unclean thoughts oh Dice Gods!"
Rolling to purge.

>>52117151
Again, you're projecting your goals onto other people's campaigns. Other players and even DM's might have a better time fudging. It seems like you're having trouble wrapping your mind around the idea that people might like something else than you. Nobody is asking you specifically to fudge, or write campaigns based around fudging, and many people that aren't on your side of the debate have even admitted that not fudging totally has merit with the right group.

>>52117434

>But that means that in actuality, every time you choose to follow the result of a roll, you are actively choosing to do so because of a variety of factors. In the end, every single thing that happens in the game is just your decision. The dice may be there to inspire those decisions, but they carry no actual weight.

Yes? That's called 'Being the GM'.

File: thumb_war.png (22KB, 278x383px)

22KB, 278x383px

>>52117404
I'm here because its fun.
what about you using dice? are you having fun, even if the results are less than optimal?

if you understand the importance of failure, you will understand the fun in critical failures as well.

>>52117421
see

>>52116702
>>52117060
>>52117131

>>52117452
>Being the DM means the game has no actual rules at all

>>52117487

Yes? Just like every RPG book GMs section tells you. You have guidelines that support you in running a fun game. In a well designed system, those guidelines will be effective and useful a lot of the time, and not get in the way when they're not needed. That's the role they should play, and it's an effective and useful one.

>>52117509
A game without rules isn't a game at all. And in D&D, they exist to be the "physics" of the game world, with which players can interact.

The DM is there to portray NPCs, to apply the rules consistently, and to fill in the gaps in them as consistently as possible when players do awesome creative things.

>>52117487
The GM has final say - not the rules.

>>52117487
The rules are literally there to just be a mechanical representation of what you're doing in game, to see them as anything close to some inherent value is just odd. The advantage to having a DM is that they work as a mediator between cold calculation and free-form storytelling, and I think that part of that is knowing when to borrow from pieces of both.

>>52117542
The handbooks of many games start out saying essentially the exact opposite of what you just said

>>52117458
>I'm here because its fun.
>what about you using dice? are you having fun, even if the results are less than optimal?
>if you understand the importance of failure, you will understand the fun in critical failures as well.
I do.
But I take it as my duty to place fun before the rolls.
Granted, being mauled to death because you went into a bear's cave is fun.

Me having accounted for everyone showing up and not adjusting the number of foes and leaving the party surrounded by goblins was, thanks to two fudged dice, a fun struggle in which the bard and artificer ended like a pair of bloody rags instead of dead/saved by obvious deus ex machina.
>>52117434
>Should have run away, then, huh?
The golem may have 30ft speed, or 90ft.
It may even have just a damn cannon.
He just doesn't know.
The inner workings are for the DM's eyes only.
Be it quantum ogres, all roads leading to rome, or just knowing how hard do you need to look at a carpet to know how many vampires passed.
The player believes he has a chance. It may be true, it may be not. Who knows.

Personally, I "fix" values in combat.
If a foe is too strong/weak for what it 'should' be, I fix it just once.
As far as the players knew, that goblin always had that AC+1 amulet beneath his rags.

>>52116926
>its important people should deal with the consequences of their actions
I agree with this.
I also think that most times that GMs fudge, they could have easily just dealt with the consequences of the situation instead.
I also think that it is occasionally perfectly fine to fudge.

>>52117404
>DC to hit this ancient golem
First of all, it's impressive that you can type that out without realizing it's an extremely contrived example without much merit. That situation isn't going to occur very often during gameplay, and most games (for example 5th edition D&D) are designed in a way that makes that situation practically never happen.

But even then, it doesn't matter. Because the stats and the mechanics of the gameplay are representing something that's actually happening in the fiction of the game: The golem has a high AC and immunity to crits like that because it's practically indestructible and most weapons could never hope to pierce the magically-reinforced solid granite it's made out of.

And just like in any fantasy story where someone comes upon something like that, the correct response is to get the absolute fuck out of dodge.

It presents no issue with gameplay, no issue with storytelling, and no issue with player decision making unless the golem also deals like infinite infinities damage.
In fact, realizing you must retreat is a very difficult and interesting decision for many players; if somewhat demoralizing.

>>52117449
>complains that others doing a slippery slope
>doing it himself
instead of giving an example why slippery slope in general is bad, explain why its wrong in THIS case.

as was said, anything that happens in the game is no longer the results of rules, luck, your campaign and the players decisions but solely your fault for allowing/not allowing breech of rules to protect the players from their own actions, luck, and the horrible unfair rules.

>>52117451
>projecting your goals
first off, calm down. we are trying to have a civilised discussion here, no need to get offended just because everyone here thinks your approach is wrong.
second, if you don't like the freedom in tbrpgs, why not just play video games? you still haven't answered that question.

>>52117570
>The handbooks of many games start out saying essentially the exact opposite of what you just said
This thread has been specifically about D&D from the very beginning. So let's stick to that.

I'm sure some editions do say the exact opposite of what I said. Probably primarily the WotC editions. I haven't played 4e, but 3.5 doesn't even seem to HAVE any internally consistent design philosophy, and 5e is a streamlined 3.5.

Nonetheless, D&D has, from its inception, been about crawling into holes with scary-ass monsters to steal their shit. Other stuff was added, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse.

Trying to shoehorn everything into some story in your own head (whether you've written it down ahead of time or are making it up as you go) removes player agency.

If I kick open the door, it's because I want to face the consequences of kicking open the door. If I choose to stand and fight instead of running away, I want to face the consequences of that. I don't want the DM to render player skill and luck irrelevant.
>>52117657
>if somewhat demoralizing
In most cases, retreat doesn't even have to be demoralizing. Assuming a less extreme instance than the ancient golem, it usually leads to, "Okay, let's get some supplies from town and brainstorm how we're going to get past this owlbear/bandit camp/ogre/whatever." It leads to increased creativity rather than hoping the monsters don't count as big enough bosses for the DM to decide a player death is "dramatically appropriate."

>>52117610
>being mauled to death because you went into a bear's cave is fun.
in case you ware being sarcastic, stupid actions that nets the acter painfull results ARE fun. thats what roleplaying is about. if you don't like the roleplaying part of rp and decided to alter it, don't call it rp anymore.
there is a difference between fdging roles and changing scenerios on the last minute (but before those scenerios are excuted)

>fudged dice
you mean, spot checks? well, those things happen. its part of the game. critical failures are also fun, because they are rare enough to not be a serious problem.

File: 1489083921541-v.gif (3MB, 300x247px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x247px

>>52117660
You're a bad troll breh, you went str8 to 10 in that post. Tbh if I had to guess you might actually hold the same opinion as me and are literally just looking for a rise for the keks so imma go to bed.
>gif is me reading your post

>>52117714
Just so you know, you've been arguing with multiple people in this thread. I'm OP, and I'm not >>52117660

>>52117337
>>random chance
>It's actually probabilistic, not random. The fighter's player knows he has a chance of succeeding or failing at his goal, and has accepted that by choosing to play a game and not just write a story about it.
And why does that mean that it is preferable to enable an unforeseen outcome that literally nobody involved wants and actively want something else?

You want to know why, if everyone wanted the fighter to kill him, did they bother rolling initiative
Because the players didn't know for certain the enemy was one blow away from death, it was habit, it didn't occur to the archer that he might accidentally kill steal, the GM goofed, and any other reasons.
Shit happens.
To keep the shit happening from shitting on your game, you make corrections.
It is not unreasonable to do so.
It is unreasonable to insist that it is never okay to do what is best for the exact situation in your personal game.

>>52117370
>than why did the archer attack? i know they can't see the enemy hp but can't you describe how te BBEG is nearly dead on low HP?
Missed this.
See
>>52117735
>Because the players didn't know for certain the enemy was one blow away from death, it was habit, it didn't occur to the archer that he might accidentally kill steal, the GM goofed, and any other reasons.

>>52117735
Okay, but you're no longer playing a game, then. There are no rules. You're just hanging out and telling stories while rolling funny dice around.

Since you aren't playing a game, it doesn't belong on /tg/.

>>52116351
Are you claiming that all DMs do this all the time?

I fudge things very rarely, only ever when it looks like something is about to seriously affect someone's enjoyment of the game (so far I've done it ... twice?).

I also know some DMs who never do it.

>>52117767
No. I'm saying it's shitty when DMs do it.

>>52117610
The fact that you CAN be mauled to death because you made a bad decision is EXACTLY what makes the game fun. It makes your choices matter.

And there's really no excuse, when stealth (esp. with expertise) is as good as it is, and longbows have like 600ft range. Just have a single stealther scout the fucking cave carefully, and if something goes wrong they can run back out (at enormous speed if they're level 2 rogue) and the party can pepper them with various kinds of ranged attacks until they get within range.

What's the bear gonna do; fire a musket at you?

Every situation can be approached with a strategic mindset. If the game negates that it's a bad game. If the DM negates that, it's a bad DM.

>>52116351
>Dice Rolls
>Probability + Luck
>Merit
Right, and you win Russian Roulette through "Merit" too.

Also, as a player, I would hate figuring out who the BBEG is super early because that means we fight and win or lose earlier than expected, so either we go in unprepared or we win and the campaign's over.

>>52117714
your post indicates you are tired of coming up with arguments. well, me too. good night.

>>52117742
>the archer never heard of critical hits
if he sees the enemy is low on hp, instead doing damaging actions he needs to focus on other actions like:
llook around if enemy mooks are coming or if the enemy as another card up is sleeve (or a second form after being defeated)
sand out a net to ensnare the bbeg or use any other move that will make it easier for him to be killed
watch the fighter back to make sure the fighter can focus on the bbeg
tend to wounded party members
etc...
he couldn't know, yes, but why risk it?

>>52117789
>probability is exactly the same as luck and it is impossible to be better or worse at making decisions based on probability
This is why you have a 50/50 chance at coming out on top in Vegas and there are no professional poker players, right?

>>52117810
Right, and I can count cards on a d20.

>>52117710
It wasn't sarcasm.
A party got half wiped because they decided to hunt a dire bear.
They weren't ready.
Not even close.
The lessons learned were
>Do some research.
>Listen to tne NPCs
>Hopping on your horses and getting out really fast may be the best idea.

I also wanted to reply to the dude saying how unlikely it was for an ancient golem lile that to be encountered at a low level that it doesn't matter.

In the interest of choice, the PCs went into some ruins that should have been left for way later, instead of saying that all roads lead to the place I wanted them to go, making the golem's first attack miss showed them that getting the hell out was the best idea.

They though they had a chance at killing a walking rust hill.

I could have made the ancient rust bucket sound more menacing next time, and I will, but the threat being known is what unleashes the full power of the Dire Bear or Ancient Golem or whatever the players need a hint to realize the pointlessness of their struggle.

There's nothing wrong with the DM using arbitration to change the outcome of a roll for the sake of the story or 'fun' of the session.

Claiming that overriding the dice once means that you might as well never use dice is like saying that overriding or changing a rule once means that you might as well never use rules.

Rules in a tabletop RPG are only as good as they are useful for whatever you are trying to achieve, and the same applies to dice rolls.

Then there's the 'gotcha' command - "Tell your players you fudge dice!" Of course at the core of this argument is that the DM is 'cheating'. This is impossible, as a DM cannot cheat. Furthermore, not every player is seeking a game of risk management and probability manipulation for enjoyment to the detriment of everything else. Especially in a role-playing game, where the dice are meant to represent speciality and differences in characters. The random dice mechanics are substitutes for what cannot be simulated at a table, they are not the end all be all of D&D. A more unsatisifying game for the sake of arbitrary principles with no merit beyond preference is asinine. I have told my players that I occasionally change dice results behind the screen, which is true - and this did nothing negative to their enjoyment of the game - because of course it wouldn't. They understand that implicate nature of a DM as the arbiter of the rules and outcomes, and they have a preference for this style over alternatives. Obviously, this is normal. This isn't really relevant to my argument, but I know getting this out of the way will shut up trolls who won't add anything to the discussion.

Rather than trying to degrade or invalidate how other people enjoy the hobby, try reflecting instead on how one's own preferences and desires are not something you can project on everyone else.

>>52117818
It's actually possible to be better or worse at poker without counting cards, but that's a whole different thing.

You can know that you have good or bad odds of success, though, assuming the game's rules are going to be followed. If the DM is prone to arbitrarily decide they don't matter, though, then you have no basis on which to make decisions.

>>52117840
>A party got half wiped because they decided to hunt a dire bear.
well, tough luck
learning from experainces rather than being discouraged by them, you have good players in your group.

>>52117775

I know.

>>52117840

>>52117844
>There's nothing wrong with the DM using arbitration to change the outcome of a roll for the sake of the story
If I wanted to be fed a story with specific outcomes in mind, I'd read a book. I want to CREATE a story.
>Claiming that overriding the dice once means that you might as well never use dice is like saying that overriding or changing a rule once means that you might as well never use rules.
Right. They're both accurate.
>Then there's the 'gotcha' command - "Tell your players you fudge dice!" Of course at the core of this argument is that the DM is 'cheating'. This is impossible, as a DM cannot cheat.
The DM can cheat the players out of actually having agency in the game.
>Furthermore, not every player is seeking a game of risk management and probability manipulation for enjoyment to the detriment of everything else.
I'll ignore "to the detriment of everything else" because I don't think it does hurt everything else. But if you aren't interested in risk management, D&D probably isn't for you.
>Especially in a role-playing game, where the dice are meant to represent speciality and differences in characters.
Except when you ignore them. And there's also that whole "role playing" thing that's in the name. That can come in handy for representing differences in characters.
>The random dice mechanics are substitutes for what cannot be simulated at a table, they are not the end all be all of D&D.
They allow for players to predict what is likely to happen without being certain of what WILL happen. Fudging dice rolls takes away the ability to make decisions in-character, since the DM will be deciding success or failure based on out-of-character concerns like "the narrative." That is, it is bad for roleplaying.

>>52117845
You can't know you're chances without the DC of a task, and even then you also aren't sure of what either outcome will lose/gain your character either, that's two avenues of information that are unavailable to any non meta gaming individual.

Also I would say that giving things purposely low dc's and cr's is mechanically similar to fudging rolls but still follows your dogma, so I feel like your distinction on what constitutes "legitimate gaming" is arbitrary.

>>52117660
>doing it himself
Where did I slippery slope?
I cited extreme examples to illustrate that moderation is important.
Am I missing something? Legitimately asking.

>instead of giving an example why slippery slope in general is bad, explain why its wrong in THIS case.
There are a number of reasonable examples of fudging in this thread.
It is possible to fudge in any of these highly specific and not average play situations and not apply the same level of fudging to average play.
If I fudge to ensure the fighter kills his nemesis, the rogue stops the golem, or the snipers don’t end the session before it starts, then it does not immediately follow that I will start fudging whenever I think my idea of what should happen is more interesting.

>anything that happens in the game is no longer the results of rules, luck, your campaign and the players decisions but solely your fault for allowing/not allowing breech of rules to protect the players from their own actions, luck, and the horrible unfair rules.
That was an obtusely written sentence. Just saying.
If you are asserting that fudging transforms the game from being the results of rules, luck, the GM’s campaign, and the players’ decisions and instead turns the game into GM fiat, subjecting the players to or protecting them from their own actions, luck, and the rules as the GM see fit?
Well, then you are saying that no matter how large pan, can, or vat of white paint you have, the second a drop of black paint falls into it, it becomes grey.
And you’re not wrong.
But actively calling white paint “grey” because there is a pure shade of paint that is whiter makes you look like an extremist, autistic jackass.
>That’s not white! IT’S EGGSHELL!

There’re reasonable people in this thread who only paint with pure white paint & still acknowledge that other shades of white exist before you get grey, & if other GMs want to call them white, even if they’re not pure, that’s fine.
Those guys are cool.

>all these people insisting that fudging is good for roleplaying and if you hate fudging you're some kind of crunch-obsessed powergamer

If I have a general idea that the rules make it so that certain types of choices tend to be safer than others, and the world is designed to reflect a system with those kinds of rules, then I can make decisions entirely from the perspective of my character, including strategies, what kinds of goals are feasible, and so on.

Meanwhile, if the DM is willing to do things like save my character because my death wouldn't be "thematic" enough, or kill my character because he personally thinks a decision I made was stupid, and so on, then I have out-of-character incentives to make certain decisions, which makes it harder for me to be immersed in my character.

>>52117754
>Okay, but you're no longer playing a game, then. There are no rules. You're just hanging out and telling stories while rolling funny dice around.
>Since you aren't playing a game, it doesn't belong on /tg/.
See
>>52117930
>Well, then you are saying that no matter how large pan, can, or vat of white paint you have, the second a drop of black paint falls into it, it becomes grey.
>And you’re not wrong.
>But actively calling white paint “grey” because there is a pure shade of paint that is whiter makes you look like an extremist, autistic jackass.

>>52117930
>i'm not tired of coming up with arguments
gfy, but i am.
/bye

>>52116351
My job as a DM isn't to make the game realistic, it's to make the game dramatic and satisfying

>>52117939
There's the problem boyo, nobody is insisting it is essential, or that you need to do it. In fact people have specifically said the opposite. We're just saying that if it's your groove, and in some seldom instances, it has the possibility to improve a session.

>>52117803
>he couldn't know, yes, but why risk it?
He goofed.
And clearly everyone's fun should be ruined because of it because doing anything else would exerting unfair, unreasonable control over the game.
You would be enslaving the game.
You would become the game's Master.
Who has ever heard of such a thing!

>>52117973
If the rules are good enough and you present interesting challenges, the game will be dramatic and satisfying. Which frees you up to make the game realistic too. Or internally consistent, anyway.

>>52117939
I never fudge to save players, I fudge to make sure events proceed in a fun manner rather than a bullshit manner. If my stupid little idiot minion rolls 5 20's in a row I'm going to fudge those, if the players suddenly break out a 200 damage nova I didn't realize they could do I'm going to increase the boss' health to compensate because folding like a cheap table isn't satisfying.

ITT: People who play OSR vs. people who play 3.PF.

>>52117959
The neat thing about coming from a reasonable position is that coming up with "arguments" is easy.
You just say it how it is.
Good night, anon.

>>52117989
I'm not omniscient, sometimes I forget skills or abilities my players have. Sometimes I just roll poorly. I have had players express disappointment when my big bad rolled under 5 every time for the entire final encounter. He went down like a bitch and it was entirely unsatisfying. It was fair and aboveboard, but it sucked. No one enjoyed that fight.

>>52117278
>Did you take it to its logical conclusion? "I just basically decide what happens. We're playing pretend and I'm God, so don't worry about dice or stats anymore. Tell me what you want to do and I'll decide whether you succeed based on my own whims. I know you made your character to be better at certain things than others, and that there are rules for simulating that, but I genuinely don't care."
No. Why would I do that? The logical conclusion of most things isn't the farthest and most extreme example of something. If it was then our species would have bombed itself into the dark ages way back in the 1960's and neither of us would be having this conversation.
In the rare case that I fudge I let the players know, generally because they seem to think something was lame and anticlimactic or boring and I agreed with them, so we fudge it.

I guess the next logical step in your argument is that then it doesn't belong in /tg/ if I'm following your thought process here, but if that is indeed your POV I guess you can leave and make your own board somewhere else or something?
Because if I am GMing something and my group has fun and I have fun and everyone is entertained then mission accomplished.

Maybe you just take this shit way too seriously. Did you get into an argument with your GM or players recently or something?

>all the pro-fudgers act like D&D is primarily about combat
No wonder you have to fudge. Your players just fight everything so you can't put stuff that's too strong for them in the dungeon, leaving you with perfectly "balanced" encounters where the dice mean that it could easily become too hard or too easy.

>>52118039
Actually, dice fudging only happens in my group during non-combat stuff in most cases, and even then only if we just don't have time to come up with an alternative for failure other then "you fail and nothing happens and nothing moves forward in the game, plot or otherwise".

We're all grown-ass adults and we're playing on a serious time crunch most days what with real life demands and all, so sometimes some streamlining is in order.

>>52118011
>adding a sting instead of letting it end in natural note
it really is easy coming upw with arguments when coming from reasonable position. this is why you started going to the ad-hominem route before me.
coming up with insults is much easier than coming up with arguments.

>>52118071
This is the first argument in favor of fudging I've seen in this entire thread that I liked.

Besides "do it if you notice you personally fucked up somewhere, then try to fix it later so you hopefully don't have to fudge again."

>>52118039
>all the pro-fudgers
It's hilarious how you're such an asshat that you think they all have the same opinions like some political party or "agenda" working against you.
Wait, scratch that.
Even political parties argue sometimes.

>>52118039
>>all the pro-fudgers act like D&D is primarily about combat
Because the main reason to fudge is to correct a serious and immediate unexpected problem.
Most of those involve combat as non-combat errors are more easily dealt with organically and aren't demanding of an immediate fudging solution.
Unless we're counting all GM improvisation as fudging now.

Why has no one pointed out the painfully fucking obvious that sometimes when a DM fudges the numbers, it's because he made the encounter too hard or too easy and it's his fault so he's trying to fix it?

Being a DM can be fucking difficult, especially if you're less experienced, and it's easy to throw too much or too little shit at your party unless you know them well. Even the most carefully prepared DM's will run into this situation, and as it says in every good DM/GM guide ever written and many times by the man Gygax himself, the game is about having fun first. Don't be a fucking fag and think you have to stick to the numbers because the unbalanced encounter you made is for some reason bound to those numbers.

>>52118087
All the ones in this thread seem obsessed with combat. Besides the first response to the post you're quoting. Has nothing to do with everyone in the world who fudges dice rolls.
>>52118090
Right, but if players are free to run away and sneak around, and you aren't treating D&D dungeons like some Zelda dungeon where you solve a few riddles and fight a sequence of monsters to get the treasures, then "balance" goes out the window as an issue.
>>52118101
Let players learn to run away and to fight dirty. That'll make it way easier on you.

I do think fudging makes sense when you messed up, but I would advise looking at where you messed up later so you can improve.

>>52118086
I'm not trying to argue in favor of it, actually.
Like, it makes absolutely zero difference to me weather you fudge or you don't. You aren't in my group, and there's a likely chance you aren't in my city or even my region of the country I live in.
You are perfectly capable of living your own life and enjoying your separate things from me without it impacting my life in even the smallest and most insignificant way possible, so why should I really attempt to pointlessly "sway" you to my side of things?

Why does there need to be a "side" at all for that matter? It's a highly pointless and arbitrary distinction from where I'm standing, a way to artificially draw lines between "them" and "us" because, I dunno, you really want to have an argument about something I guess.
>>52118087
Be polite, there's no cause to be rude.

>>52118082
>coming up with insults is much easier than coming up with arguments.
My point was that I'm not "coming up" with anything.
I'm responding to an unreasonable position with clear statements of how things are.
If, by insult, you are referring to the comment stating that saying extremist, autistic, and jackass things makes you look like an extremist, autistic jackass, I think you are reading too much into it.
Tall people look taller than short people.

>>52116600

>the way other people play an open-ended game is WROOOOOONG

If the goal of the game I'm running is to tell an interesting story with the players I fudge rolls where they would ruin the fun. I don't fudge rolls if I think we can make the new result work though.

If I'm playing a game of tactical and strategic challenges to be solved, then I don't fudge rolls.

Now, D&D is better suited to the latter, but that doesn't mean playing it narratively is wrong.

>>52116351
Nobody wins or loses in a roleplaying game, least of all the goddamn players. Go back to league.

>>52118101
>Why has no one pointed out the painfully fucking obvious that sometimes when a DM fudges the numbers, it's because he made the encounter too hard or too easy and it's his fault so he's trying to fix it?
>>52118086
>This is the first argument in favor of fudging I've seen in this entire thread that I liked
Both of these concepts have appeared earlier in the thread, but perhaps not said as clearly.

>>52118152
>that doesn't mean playing it narratively is wrong.
I don't mean to say that playing it in that way is wrong so much as that there's no real reason to choose D&D for that.

I mean, shit, if I have a choice I mostly play OSR, and purely narrativist games like Misspent Youth.

File: 1298744278824.png (161KB, 458x354px)

161KB, 458x354px

I can very easily make a good argument for fudging dice.

A month ago, I ran D&D 5e for a few players who had never played D&D before. One of the players was playing a wizard with no CON modifier, which meant that he had 6 HP total at the start of the game. The game started with their escorted caravan getting ambushed by two orcs, a CR 1 encounter.

One of the Orcs threw his javelin at the wizard during the very first round of combat and scored a critical hit. The orc javelin does 1d6+3 piercing damage, and rolling a critical hit means that damage is rolled twice. The dice rolled a 6 and a 4, which dealt a total of 13 damage after the +3 was added.

The damage rules in D&D 5e state that if a single attack brings you down to equal or below your max hit points in negatives, you are killed instantly without a saving throw.

Because I made every roll in the open, the wizard died six minutes into the game, having had a single in-character conversation and the only dice that ever hit the table having been to roll initiative.

That player left the table and has not been interested in playing D&D ever since. By all accounts, there is no player should consider what happened to the player fair or fun, but I was powerless to stop it because of my agreement to roll everything in the open. I roll behind a screen now, and everyone who was at that table the night I scared off the new guy trusts me to make the right call on interpreting the results of those rolls.

>>52118166
>Nobody wins or loses in a roleplaying game, least of all the goddamn players. Go back to league.
There used to be literal D&D tournaments.

Also, D&D was invented as a supplement for a wargame, in which players took on the roles of would-be adventurers crawling through holes full of monsters in hopes of finding riches. Players would make tactical decisions on behalf of their characters, and win or lose in the struggles against the monsters. The DM would play as the monsters and attempt to give the players a challenge at which they could succeed or fail.

>>52118117
>"balance" goes out the window as an issue.
I don't disagree.
Balance is a possible reason to fudge, but not necessarily related to fudging

>>52118212
That's a flaw in the game, anon.

File: WFRP player with extensive mutations accepts a quest.jpg (17KB, 599x337px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 599x337px

In this thread, the same goddamn autistic guy who hates people who fudge rolls for any reason argues (badly, often with strawmen and hyperbole masquerading as facts or arguments) with a bunch of rational people who see the value of fudging rolls sometimes for the good of everyone having fun, the ENTIRE point of D&D and other tabletop games since the nineties.

For the third fucking day in a row.

>>52118117
I saw a few posts kind of mentioning it but that's really the only reason I ever fudge any numbers. AD&D is damn hard to balance, too, with fucking poison and traps killing people instantly but a bandit has 6 hp and is a punk bitch.

DM'ing can be scary, especially if you're worried about running your players off because they think the game is just too hard or not for them.

>>52118227
So, you're suggestion to him is that instead of fudging to overcome the occasional flaw in the game, he should instead play a game that is utterly flawless?
Which of the many utterly flawless games would you suggest?

>>52118227

WHICH IS WHY PEOPLE FUDGE ROLLS.

HOLY FUCK. WHAT DO YOU NOT GET ABOUT THAT. THE RULES ARE NOT PERFECT, AND THAT'S WHY WE PLAY WITH GMS INSTEAD OF PLAYING NEVERWINTER NIGHTS ALL DAY.

>>52116767
I honestly think you rob your players of RP moments by doing this.
If the fighter wanted to fight the enemy alone, he would have made it clear beforehand.
If he doesn't mind help, there's no reason he should deal the finishing blow. Even if it's a sworn enemy, perhaps he can now bond with /trust the archer more. And they become the best buds.

In my experience, fudging is only acceptable if you've made a mistake. The DC for climbing this was too high, and all the players failed. Perhaps I misjudged their abilities. This guy rolled a 12 on his dice, and has +4. That's still pretty good, I'll lower the DC to 15, so he passes.

>>52118231
OP here. This is the first time I've talked about fudging dice at ALL in months. I am also not the only one ITT arguing against fudging.

Obviously I can't stop other people from doing it, and I'm not trying to FORCE anyone not to.

I just think that it's generally only a good idea if you as the DM messed up and are trying to slap a band-aid on it (and plan to figure out what went wrong later), or if things screeched to a halt because something is based on dice rolls that maybe shouldn't be.

I also think it becomes less necessary if you pick a system that's as suitable as possible for the kind of game you want to run.

>>52118231
Should we refer to him as the EternallyFudgeTriggeredAnon?

I honestly think he just likes to argue and therefore chooses an unreasonable position and goes to work, badly.

>>52118275
see
>>52118264

>>52118264
Poster below yours here.
I apologize.
I'm tired and should have pointed out that the whole reason I engaged the thread was that you didn't seem like you were baiting and seemed a decent fellow.

File: 1476889357456.jpg (152KB, 1597x1110px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1597x1110px

>>52118016

>I have had players express disappointment when my big bad rolled under 5 every time for the entire final encounter.

Well you should have just picked a perfect game system that keeps that from happening. You honestly shouldn't have been such a fool and seen that run of anti-climactic bad luck happen, or explained it away as your underwhelmed and bored characters stood over his corpse as the BB's sudden onset of cerebral palsy. Poor form.

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 for a turn or 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.

>>52118319
This is an extremely strawman-y argument, just saying.

>>52118319
I see your point.
So you should only fudge when something has gone totally wrong, like your encounter is impossible to realistically beat.

>>52116351
>DMs covertly break the rules of the game by fudging rolls
>why dont you let your players win and lose on their own merit
>rolls
>own merit

You've seriously confused how these things work, anon.

>>52118342

While some of it is a little strawmanny, he has a valid point, and that's that it's never a good idea to be utterly inflexible in any situation.

>>52118345

Not always when things go "wrong", but then there's a large potential for something to go "right". If a figurative fireworks show everyone will remember and talk about for years to come depends on one roll, with the players having earned it with no other interference on your part? Fudge it. Crossing your arms and sitting there saying "well the dice said it can't happen" is silly.

>>52118227
>>52118212
This is not a flaw in the game, nor an excuse to fudge dice.

This is simply what it means to start the game from 1st level.
You're meant to create a new character and keep going until someone makes it. Gives you perspective. Tells the players that the DM (if the DM isn't shit) won't do takebacksies to save you if you fuck up.

If you don't have time for it, then don't start at level 1.

>>52118394

>The DM doesn't give a shit if you're having fun or not and is a massively autistic rules lawyer

What fun.

>>52118389
Don't have the players roll for stuff like that. If you feel they have earned it, don't make them roll for it.

Otherwise you're just handing out legendary actions as candy, and it will take away the meaning of those that do happen organically.
The fighter one shot the dragon through sheer luck? Make a cool description on how he beat the dragon swiftly. That stuff will go down in history.

The rogue broke into the heavenly garden without being discovered by the watchdogs? You bet that's going down in history.

If they fail? Well then the adventure takes another turn. The group has to fight the dragon, or the rogue has to narrowly escape the watchdogs.

If you keep handing this stuff out, you're robbing your group of valuable and organic play experiences.

>>52117890
Role playing is possible without any game mechanics.
And games are possible without any role-playing.

Why is it then, that when these two concepts are joined, one must totally dominate the other, as a principle?

There are no valid reasons beyond personal preference to treat the rules to any role-playing game as anything other than supplementary material to aid in the creation of interesting role-playing. Ultimately, a player's agency is not robbed of the game unless the DM literally chooses to ignore all rules every time. If a DM chooses to have the rules dictate the outcome, than that player's decisions and agency influenced the game. It did not magically evaporate because the DM decided a goblin did not crit the level 1 Wizard when the campaign started a year ago. This sounds like hyperbole but that is exactly the implication of a 100% or 0% argument that is being presented. Even further, a story created completely with adherence to the rules is not an inherently better story than one created with some level of alteration to a game mechanics, or even total alternation to all game mechanics. You may feel it is more satisfying as a player that there were no guarantees - but that has nothing to do with how other groups wish to play their D&D. If a group of players feel unsatisfied and unable to role-play effectively, either because they feel cheated by a DM that fudged dice rolls, or a DM that let the dice fall where they may and resulted in what the players felt was a boring slog which achieved nothing - then that was a bad session.

This includes house rules, homebrews, and virtually kinds of calls made when events transpire that a rulebook could not possibly have accounted for. Again, dice mechanics are just a type of rule, and if other rules can be changed or altered - than all rules should be capable of such alteration.

>>52116351
>winning or losing in an interactive story

>>52118453

I'm not talking about plot pieces that are going to be cool to defeat or conquer regardless, I'm talking about random flashes of brilliance that you didn't plan.

>>52118531
What you're describing sounds like something that doesn't require a roll to begin with.

File: tigertigertigertigertiger.jpg (367KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1024x1024px

Setup to the DND experience is important, try to understand in some situations:

My friends and I work our asses off all week, then in a last investment of our business suits all go out to a nice restaurant with our ladies along to drink and laugh and stuff ourselves. We are damn well happy to get to the weekend and it's beginning wonderfully.

We proceed back to my friends house to eat junkfood, listen to music, and play Dungeons and Dragons while we jump in jeans/pajamas whatever the fuck we brought along to be extra cozy. At this point people are laughing silly, to the point it's best to sit on the floor.

I am DMing most the time and while they are PLENTY fine with a sincere wipe - it's not what they love to do on a Friday night or weekend. These people love danger but they love their characters and they just want to have fun. They want risky fun.

I have found it's much more fun to create oddly wacky items or circumstances that are not kill-related. Why not give a player temporary amnesia for touching an ancient relic? Why not give a player a bonus level in Paladin for doing something with some strange other item? Why not have an Elven symbol of fertility or some shit switch someones gender?

THOSE are things that get the whole room laughing, and everyone wants to keep playing. These people come for fun and they want the risk to be there, but most the time I find it's better to provide an alternative strange consequence to death, that everyone can get a kick out of.

TLDR When people are full of snacks, drunk, and playing at 2:00am they just want to have fun. They are tired, it's the weekend, and deal with shit all week up until now. That's why I fudge rolls sometimes or keep some npc alive just a little longer to help them get to more fun.

>>52116351
if a power tripping fantasy where nobody loses is fun, so be it
if a hopeless shaggy-dog campaign where all your efforts are nothing is fun so be it
as long as your players have fun it doesnt matter how much or how little you mess with the dice
if your players compain too much about messing with the dice, dont mess with em

>>52118545

It often does. Sometimes that single (figurative) fuse-lighting action lies behind a skill check, and that single skill check is what I think should sometimes be fudged for the good of everyone. Obviously everyone is going to start questioning it if your PCs constantly live a charmed life, but sometimes something funny or clever or incredible begins to happen, and they string together a half dozen skill checks to build to a climax and then... phut, someone rolls a 2. Not low enough for an equally hilarious or spectacular critical fail (which would also be great!), not high enough to pass an otherwise routine skill check. There's often no "try again next turn", and there's just a sigh of disappointment from everyone and they have to spend the rest of the encounter expending spells and attacks as usual.

THAT is why I think roll fudging should be in a GM's toolkit.

>>52117487
no, it means the dm is the final arbiter of the rules, and applies or disregards them as needed to create a fun game.

>>52118602
How do you fudge a dice rolled by the player? Do you just tell him that the 2 is a success?

And I'm not exactly sure what you're describing anymore. Can you give me a concrete example?

>>52118571

>Why not have an Elven symbol of fertility or some shit switch someones gender?

Off topic, but why would it do that instead of like... making someone, even a man, instantly pregnant? And don't cry "because that's weird fetish material", because genderswapping is in that pool too.

>>52117704
AD&D dmg published 1979
pg 110
heading: conducting the game
sub heading: rolling the dice

first paragraph: You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur.

>>52118683

Sorry, I play WFRP, and there are things called Opposed Skill checks, they seem to crop up a lot more in my games than anything comparable did in D&D when I played that. To make the example I gave make sense, if a played rolled a 2 in the ultimate moment in which he was taking an opposed skill check, I as the GM could feign that his opponent had also rolled poorly and they would simply roll again (though some situations require a stalemate).

Anyway, for a concrete example... many months ago when I was GMing a campaign with a number of months ago that had a party of players who were pirates; a mage, an engineer, an ogre soldier and a priest, picking over the wreck of a ship and eventually coming into combat with the remains of the ship's crew. The captain of their crew also happened to be an ogre, and at some point toward the end of the battle, the ogre (we'll call him Lornk), got into a fight over a 12 pound cannon the captain had wheeled over on deck to deal with the intruders. This wasn't meant to be a BBEG by any means, this was just essentially a random encounter stapled to a randomly occurring loot run. At any rate, the captain was almost dead from the combined firepower of the party, with all of his men dead, when he and Lornk began fighting over the cannon, taking Strength tests to attempt to wrest it out of the hands of the other and flip the shooty-end at the other while the fuse burned down. They wrestled for... five or six rounds, and eventually the captain ended up pinned against the wall of his cabin by the cannon's barrel, with Lornk losing a single Strength test that would have resulted in the cannon being flipped back toward him with him being shot. Now, he would have been seriously injured if it had gone off (a cannon is a lot of damage, even to an ogre), but they had a priest on hand, Lornk was at near full wounds (30ish, which is ASTRONOMICAL in WFRP terms) -

cont

>>52118685
Because that wouldn't be his fetish, anon

>>52118825

- due to being largely removed from the fight during the cannon-wrestling match and plenty of medical supplies; it was essentially assured that he wouldn't die from the shot. The captain, by comparison, was almost dead from being repeatedly banged against the wall by the barrel of the cannon by Lornk, a breeze would have taken him out at this point. And so, rather than face the anti-climax of the moment, which had built up for over a half hour through the agency and efforts of my players, I let the cannon shoot the captain out the back of his cabin, leaving an ogre shaped hole, and ended the encounter on a high note instead of killing it at the last moment. There have been other less spectacular examples, but this one sticks out in my mind the most.

>>52118788
>expecting people to listen

dont you know? people want a video game where there is no DM to overrule the RNG for the sake of fun

>>52118788

I don't think we're arguing about the rules as printed, but the spirit and situation in which you should or shouldn't be using that power.

>>52116351
>>52116730
>>52116702
>>52117132
>>52117142
>>52117542
>>52117754
>>52118086
>>52118213
>>52118394
>>52118683
please refer to >>52118788

>>52118890
well the dmg says you can and gives a reason, but most people here are screaming about "not even once". it has been a published rule for 38 plus years. unfortunately i no longer posses a original D&D dmg to check for earlier print dates.
the fundamental point however is that fudging dice rolls is in fact RAW, and always has been, and therefor any argument against it as violating the rules is silly.

>>52119142

It's a balancing act. I've been arguing staunchly for being allowed to fudge, but I also believe that you shouldn't do it so often that your players begin to feel throwing the dice is a formality. Maybe once or twice in a session, if at all.

>>52116351

I don't do either of those things when I GM but I wouldn't really be mad at a GM who did. As long as I don't notice, I don't care. I guess I wouldn't like it if they were doing it badly, but there are plenty of things you can do badly and I don't think there's anything special about this particular brand of it.

>>52117265
Eh, victories are more meaningful when defeats happen. It is why games, books, and movies where the bad guy wins are often popular. What matters more is that the players feel like they earned their place. I would rather fight hard and lose but realize that it was because of actual choices I make (as opposed to "LOL that old lady was really the villain with an absurdly high disguise check the whole time") than win but feel like the DM was going easy on us.

Finished up a campaign a month or so ago and I didn't really feel that interested, it felt obvious that the DM was going easy on us when things got too difficult despite the fact that one of the most popular sessions involved a near TPK where the only two survivors had to run away.

>>52119164
i completely agree, just because you can do something does not mean that you should. but if you need to, then by all means do so.

i was just trying to point out that the games creators have from the beginning addressed the issue of "fudging" dice, and written a rule for it.

>>52118885
half of all people are of below average intelligence. yes, i was aware.

>>52116351
Depends from the style I choose for the campaign, if story > exploration, then I fudge (but I try to balance re-fudging for the monsters time to time) while if exploration > story, whatever happens, happens. Th latter is the classical approach I guess.

A GM should never go into a game expecting to fudge. You should never rely on it or use it as a crutch. However, I see no reason to dismiss such a potent tool from your arsenal.

The argument that if you ignore the dice or a rule once they cease to have value are ridiculous. If a tool does its job 99% of the time and the occasional failure is easily rectified, what sense does it make to abandon the tool?

What value is there to accept the failure rate, either? Why not just make those small adjustments to ensure everything works fine?

I'm entirely okay with fudging, but I don't do so often. Every couple of sessions I might look at a dice result and decide things would work better if it was different. My players know this, I'm not exactly secretive about it, but they trust me to use my judgement to make the experience better for all concerned.

This isn't 'You have to fudge', mind. It's all about what works well for your group.

>>52117060
You say that as if the DM isn't ultimately the one who decides if you die anyways. Like, that goblin could've easily stabbed your unconscious body to death but it didn't because the DM thought that the goblin would attack the other guy who is a few feet away.

>>52118227
>>52118394
We have GM's because the game isn't perfect and humans are capable of recognizing when exceptions to the rules must be exercised.

1st level is where most newbies start because people think "oh, we're new, so level 1 is obviously where we're supposed to start" even though most people recommend starting at level 3-5 just because the first two levels are such a slog.

Rather than trying to convince newbies why level 3-5 is optimal (and risking turning people off due to cognitive dissonance), it's easier just to get past those first few levels as quickly as possible while focusing on getting the players as immersed into the game as possible.

Some people might enjoy games where you die over and over again until you reach the relative safe zone of level 3-5 but without prior warning, you risk turning off many new players who aren't used to player death yet.

>>52119194
Os course but a roleplaying game has to be fun. It doesnt mean that you have to keep your players between pillows and teddybears. But that you have to cut out cheap deads because dice or unnecesary still time because the players doesnt know what to do.

I mean sometimes your player just had a 12h work shift, and he was so kind to come to your game.
Or rules arent deadly but can have cheap dead sometimes, for the players you are gonna low the blow to be knock out or very fucked instead of instantly vaporiced, and the same for villains.

The last part is not because to be cheap, but to maintain the fun a little bit more.

>>52118825
>>52118857

With a lucky shot, the ogre could have died to the cannon. It'd be fair to give the captain a strength penalty because he was so wounded.

I think I'd have pointed the cannon downwards, and have it deliver a final blow to the ship or crash the two fighters down into the deck.

>>52119096
Your point being?

Daily reminder that if you have to fudge a roll, you didn't balance the situation correctly.

>autism speaks the thread

Stop caring how strangers play make belive

>>52116351
But I do. You won't believe me, though, because of your neuroses caused by bad parenting.

I try not to fudge as much as possible. I mainly fudge if there was a plot hole to fill. Like maybe i described the main villian as having only one hand but then make a two handed bad guy as the main villian. >Maybe he was in disguise? >Maybe he was framed?
>Maybe your dm is bullshiting you so the game doesn't fall apart

>>52123524
>Your point being?
Apparently too complicated of a concept for you to understand, like deodorant.
Good luck out there champ!

>>52123677
Daily reminder that nobody gives a shit how you play, every experienced GM fudges at least once in a blue moon, and everyone ITT is being trolled by the same autistic.

>>52125062

I think it's just the weird OSR idea that the GM should be some impartial referee, which doesn't seem to exist outside that specific flavour of game.

>>52125084
Not even there.

>>52116351
How is rolling well a merit?

>>52116351
>having a designated BBEG
>not letting the players pick and choose which side they take in the plot and creating a prominent member of the opposing faction(s) as an antagonist

>>52116351

My main job is to tell a good story, make sure everyone had fun and hide the train tracks. PCs die but the party almost never fails.

I don't ever do the second point though. I just roll with the punches if they do that.

>>52118524
>interactive story
Funny, I thought they were called role playing GAMES. Not role playing campfire storytime.

>>52125205
Risk management is a merit. Over time, playing well will result in better consequences than playing badly.

>all these people acting like MUH STORY is the most important thing in a D&D campaign
No wonder they want to just decide what happens. The wrong rolls could result in something happening that ISN'T the players trying not to notice the DM beating off under the table while he reads them the outline of his fantasy novel he'll never write.

>>52125447
>>all these people acting like MUH STORY is the most important thing in a D&D campaign
It certainly isn't the gameplay.

When all the PCs die, the fun stops. Just have them be captured or something and see how they work themselves out of it.

>>52125727

In character focused games I'd tend to agree, but even then character death isn't something to avoid entirely, but to use sparingly. I've had times when a player and I agree it's appropriate for their character to die at that moment, usually with some sort of final last act of awesome that helps drive the plot forwards or otherwise resolving their personal story.

>>52125447
Playing a tabletop game without story is like playing a video game without gameplay, it's certainly possible to do but you're missing the entire point of the medium in the process.

Play fucking Nethack if you want an RPG where you can die because the RNG decided to spawn a gorgan in your path before you had a means to properly kill it. For the rest of us who understand how the medium is meant to be played, we'll keep doing what we're doing.

But of course, once this thread 404's, we'll likely see a variant of the OP in a few hours anyways so who gives a shit?

>>52125447
How're your games going, Frank? How's Knarf Bloodreaper doing?

>>52125779

Well, be careful there. If a group is having fun they're playing the game right, you know? You might have personal preferences or ideas about the strength of the medium, but the whole idea of personal preference and opinion goes both ways. You can't refute someones faux-objective statement about the right way to roleplay with a faux-objective statement of your own, that's pure hypocrisy.

>>52116507
Stories made with roleplaying games are not books, not movies, not TV-series nor plays. They are roleplaying games and they should not try to follow or emulate the storytelling of those other mediums.

The weird, random and sometimes anticlimatic successes and failures that you get in rpgs thanks to the die are part of their unique charm.

>>52125814
Every tabletop RPG story worth telling will always relate to something memorable that happened during the narrative that stuck with the player long after the campaign was over, for better or for worse.

In fact, the worse types of campaigns will always be the ones that don't focus on a narrative simply because if there's no narrative, there's no context and if there's no context then...why the fuck is the party doing what they're doing in the first place?

It's also why sandbox campaigns are generally shitty but that's a rant for another day.

>>52126094
>The weird, random and sometimes anticlimatic successes and failures that you get in rpgs thanks to the die are part of their unique charm.
I dunno about you, but a lot of those "weird, random, and sometimes anticlimactic" successes and failures end up ending the campaign on an unsatisfactory note.

Like you gear up to take on the BBEG, someone that you've been itching to take out since the very start of the campaign, you assail his fortress, take out his generals, climb the stairs to the final confrontation...and he ends up dying in like five turns because everyone piled on him and he never rolled anything higher than a 10 for the entire night, turning what should've been a satisfactory final battle into a random encounter with a named antagonist.

>>52125581
The gameplay is fine in the editions of D&D that are actually good.
>>52125779
Story should emerge from the players' decisions and interaction with the world around them, not from the DM planning ahead of time everything the party WILL do whether they like it or not.
>>52126130
>Every tabletop RPG story worth telling will always relate to something memorable that happened during the narrative that stuck with the player for long after the campaign was over, for better or for worse.
Sure, but the narrative comes from the players' actions, not the DM shoving awful fanfiction down their throats.
>>52126176
So make him way stronger than the players to begin with and force them to strategize, instead of creating a "balanced encounter" where a couple shitty rolls can make or break it.

>>52126176
>you assail his fortress, take out his generals, climb the stairs to the final confrontation
If this isn't already an epic finalle at that point you have already fucked up as a GM.

>>52116730

I DO fudge rolls and I respect that you don't.

>>52126130
>>52126176
>>52126211
>>52126223

>Well, be careful there. If a group is having fun they're playing the game right, you know? You might have personal preferences or ideas about the strength of the medium, but the whole idea of personal preference and opinion goes both ways. You can't refute someones faux-objective statement about the right way to roleplay with a faux-objective statement of your own, that's pure hypocrisy.

>>52126211
>Story should emerge from the players' decisions and interaction with the world around them, not from the DM planning ahead of time everything the party WILL do whether they like it or not.
>Sure, but the narrative comes from the players' actions, not the DM shoving awful fanfiction down their throats.
Nobody even implied that kind of narrative besides you. Even when the player's actions are being focused upon, the GM still has to provide context so they know what their options are in the grand scheme of the campaign's setting.
>So make him way stronger than the players to begin with and force them to strategize, instead of creating a "balanced encounter" where a couple shitty rolls can make or break it.
It's not going to matter how strong you make the BBEG if the dice never allow him to take advantage of his powers.

>>52126223
Everything besides the last ten minutes of game was great, which only made the anticlimactic dick slapping that much harder to swallow.

>>52126265
Tell me of one time where you had fun playing in a tabletop RPG that didn't have any narrative context to speak of.

>>52126326

Oh, I completely agree with you, for me the idea of RPGs as collaborative storytelling reigns supreme. I'm just not arrogant enough to assume that my personal preferred way of playing it is the only way, or that people who espouse different preferences are somehow inferior for doing so.

I totally understand fudging dice if you, as the DM, made a mistake and are trying to adjust things. Because in that situation, you're trying to present a surmountable but difficult challenge to the players.

I also understand if players are failing to get information that would progress the story, just giving it to them rather than spending hours on wandering around asking different people the same questions.

In all other situations, it seems like a bandage for a lack of creativity or improvisational skills.
>>52126310
>"He went down way more easily than expected. Maybe you got lucky. Maybe his power was more political in nature than brute strength. Regardless, he's dropped to his knees. 'Please,' he says. 'Have mercy.'"
Now you give the players an opportunity to take the risky choice and try to redeem him, or deliver a badass one liner and end the pathetic bastard, and their troubles, once and for all.

Think outside the dice, man.

>>52126342
But if you admit that it's a hobby dependent on the narrative then why would you say that there's a preference involved?

If you're playing devil's advocate for the sake of playing devil's advocate, you're kinda missing the point of the hobby in favor of starting a pointless argument.

If you can provide me with an example where the players were capable of having fun in spite of there being no real reason for why they did anything that they did during campaign, then I'll secede the argument and say that it does come down to preference but until then, I'm going to stick to my position that narrative in a tabletop RPG is key.

>>52126363
>Maybe you got lucky.
Obviously we did, but it's not going to make the "fight" any less of a letdown.
>Maybe his power was more political in nature than brute strength
But then why did he confront us in the first place? You don't start a chess game with your king front and center.
>Now you give the players an opportunity to take the risky choice and try to redeem him, or deliver a badass one liner and end the pathetic bastard, and their troubles, once and for all.
Again, that's not going to make the preceding fight any less of a letdown.

You can say "think outside the dice, man" but if we didn't use dice to resolve issues then it'd literally be freeform and their victory would come down to GM fiat rather than through any part of the PC's.

>>52126387

The very fact that people are okay with, or even prefer, mindless meatgrinder dungeon crawls. Those are a thing that happen, and something a lot of people enjoy. I don't really understand it, but I can't deny their existence.

Some people enjoy the moment to moment challenge of managing resources and making their way through a dungeon, even though they have no real reason to be there beyond the vague notion of treasure, regardless of whether the character they're playing has any need or plans for it.

I'm probably describing it badly because I don't understand it myself, but they exist.

>>52126449
>The very fact that people are okay with, or even prefer, mindless meatgrinder dungeon crawls.
Even in meatgrinder dungeon crawls, there's still a reason why adventurers would bother to risk their lives going to someplace like the tomb of elemental evil, even if their motivations boil down to getting treasure.

I'm talking about a campaign where the players are in a campaign but they have no reason to do anything within the campaign. They get dumped in the middle of a field, given no context, and told that they can literally go anywhere they want but are given no details on the setting.

I'm running a game for only one player and I fudge rolls, but only when they're going to die if I don't. I don't want the fun to end for either of us.

I fudge a lot in the game that I'm running with RPG newbies because I want them to learn how to play gradually rather than just trying to beat it into them with TPKs.

My other group I don't fudge much at all, and when I do it's usually in favor of the players because it's lame to have the monsters pass seven consecutive spell saves.