Grunker vs Zombra: Is fudging rolls in PnP acceptable?

[Grunker]

forcing the session to halt for the night while a new character is rolled up

you didn't really read any of my posts did you

 

[Ulminati]

Why not just give them hero points? :/

I really, really don't understand why it has to be that hard.

So if I formalize the fudging it is ok with you?

 

[Grunker]

Why not just give them hero points? :/

I really, really don't understand why it has to be that hard.

So if I formalize the fudging it is ok with you?

YES. That's the whole fucking point. That there is no human bias changing fate for convenience, that rules are not made up on the go. That play is dictated by an arbitrary environment and not simply by the will of whatever shit the GM pulls in the moment.

Hero points are a mechanic to eliminate perceived adverse effects of randomization - fudging is like a referee halting the game and make the call that one of the teams should get a free penalty because they're getting too far behind the other team.

forcing the session to halt for the night while a new character is rolled up

you didn't really read any of my posts did you

That wasn't a reply to you so I don't see the relevance? For what it's worth, I agree that having some kind of fate point or limited re-roll system in place.

Just to be clear: there are TONS of ways to do this, not just a fate point system.

 

[Ulminati]

Ok grunker. Now we're making progress.

If we assume I cannot be trusted to be fair when fudging, who's to say I can when I am designing the encounters during preparation? Is there a committee I must run my 1d4+2 Orc raiders past to ensure they meet approval?

 

[Grunker]

Ok grunker. Now we're making progress.

If we assume I cannot be trusted to be fair when fudging, who's to say I can when I am designing the encounters during preparation? Is there a committee I must run my 1d4+2 Orc raiders past to ensure they meet approval?

It's got nothing to do with fair. I seem to have stated this till I'm blue in the face: it's not about social norms, it's about quality. If you design a poor encounter, you design a poor encounter. If you design it well, you design it well. Fudging is always an adverse effect, because it is in effect puncturing consistensy for the benefit of convenience.

Using words like 'fair' or 'acceptabe' indicates that this is some sort of question of breaking the rules of the Big Book of Unwritten Roleplaying Norms. Such shit is retarded. It's like if you claim that watching Sex & the City is bad because the cinema snobs don't like it. No. It's bad because it's poorly written and shallow.

Just to be clear: there are TONS of ways to do this, not just a fate point system.

Sure, I agree. One of those TONS of ways to do is fudging dice.

No, you seem to be unable to read. All other examples are formalized and neutral. Once decided upon, they just work the way they work.

Fudging is bullshit, because it means that the course of a crucial moment is up to the gamemaster and not the game world.

FOR THE 110th TIME: IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT, IT'S FINE, BUT THEN PLAY SYSTEMLESS. If all rules are is an obstruction of your enjoyment, eschew them.

 

[Grunker]

I disagree that fudging is always the result of poor design

Cool, so you also agree that formalized solutions are better than "the GM just makes shit up"?

Narrative consistency, tone consistency, even consistency in how much fun they are having.

Yes. And all these can be achieved by groups who want this by other means than using a complex set of gamist rules that they have to make concessions to every step of the way.

 

[Ulminati]

We can't all be blessed with infallible omniscient GM powers like yourself. Sometimes, something that seems good on paper turns out bad "in the wild". Then you have 2 options: Do a spot of live debugging or let people have a shitty experience because you made a mistake and your suffering must please the God of strict rule adherence.

So no. We don't agree that formalized rules are always best. We also don't agree that the alternative to 100% strict no deviation rules is full-on anarchy with nothing in between

 

[Grunker]

We can't all be blessed with infallible omniscient GM powers like yourself. [...] God of strict rules adherence.

This is pointless. I've stated countless times how insanely easy anti-randomization elements are to implement. I've mentioned examples of easy-to-use mechanics that provide clarity and consistency without leaving everything up to the whim of the game master. The strawman that you have to be some sort of a divine being to avoid fudging is getting tiresome. So is the constant claim that I am somehow a RAW-enforcer when almost every single one of my posts in this thread makes mention of how my groups constantly warp and bend the rules to suit our needs. It's just that we do it together, before playing, not when I feel like it's time for an ass-pull.

If you wish to discuss my actual arguments, you are welcome. I'm not going to reply to further idiocy such as the above.

 

[Ulminati]

Oh good. So we also both agree that the opposing party is an idiot. Unless you're running a prepublished adventure, everything is already up to the whim of the GM. He decides if a store has a potion of healing. He decides if there is a town in the direction players are walking. He decides what monsters the players meet.

 

[nikolokolus]

Why not just give them hero points? :/

I really, really don't understand why it has to be that hard.

So if I formalize the fudging it is ok with you?

There's a word for this, it's called a house rule. And as long as all of this is hashed out between the players and the GM beforehand or at the time a situation comes up. I can think of few situations where this would create bad feelings at a table.

 

[Grunker]

I am perfectly able to read.

This your post straight after having claimed that fudging is in the same category of tools to reduce adverse effects of randomization as formalized rules. It is clearly not.

One means that there is no clear world structure and that in principle the GM has the power to do whatever he damn well feels like, while the other is an arbitrary judge that provides structure.

With fudging, there is removal of player interaction and meaningful world reciprocity. Such is not the cases with formalized tools.

I've said it before but many people don't view

I don't care how people "view" things, because I am: a) not a relativist and b) not one of the idiots trying to impose some kind of social codification of what is acceptable to do and not do within the context of a role-playing game.

I am purely interested in a discussion of quality. Fudging is objectively a compromise of quality, and it is trying to solve a problem that can be solved with tools NOT compromising on quality.

But literally every single point that I have made in my last 10 posts is one that I have beaten to death in at least one post prior. So I'll the same the same to you as to Ulm: if you wish to reply to one of prior points with something new, I will respond. Otherwise, thanks for the talk.

 

[Ulminati]

Why not just give them hero points? :/

I really, really don't understand why it has to be that hard.

So if I formalize the fudging it is ok with you?

There's a word for this, it's called a house rule. And as long as all of this is hashed out between the players and the GM beforehand or at the time a situation comes up. I can think of few situations where this would create bad feelings at a table.

We hash it out at the start of every campaign. It usually goes:

Me: "Would you prefer I roll the dice openly with no fudging, or behind the screen and fudging if I deem it will result in a better experience?"
The players: "How often will you fudge?"
Me: "Same as always. Probably once every full adventure or thereabouts"
The players: "Roll behind the screen. We've followed you this far and it's been good"

And then the house rule is made that the GM will fudge the dice if the alternative is bringing the adventure to a screeching halt.

I'm with Darkpatriot in this. There is a huge grey area between "follow the rules 100% all the time" and "utter anarchy". As a GM I already alter the adventure ahead of time to account for the players I'm GMing for and their characters abilities. Often, that is enough. Sometimes, I make an error and then I alter the adventure on the fly. The goal is exactly the same, the only thing that differs is the timing. We have a house rule to handle randomization. It's called occasional fudge and all the players asked for it. Grunker said he was fine with formalized fudging. He even went on to suggest there were several ways to alter the system to deal with randomization issues. this is how we altered the system. It has worked for us for the last 12 years. But our formalization is not good enough for him I guess.

His arguments seem to boil down to:
Systems that allow the players to change the outcome of a dice roll: Good!
GM changing the outcome of a dice roll: Bad!

Which I find absurd and worthy of continued mocking.

I am purely interested in a discussion of quality. Fudging is objectively a compromise of quality, and it is trying to solve a problem that can be solved with tools NOT compromising on quality.

This is only a quality if what you're looking for is to run a simulation of dice rolls. People play RPGs for different reasons. Some want a combat game or simulation. Some people want to tell a story and use the rules as a shared point of reference. In the latter case, the dice sometimes get in the way of the story the players are trying to tell. Strict adherence to the dice in this case is not a positive quality. Removing all the rules in this case is also not an optimal solution, because the players are using them as a shared point of reference 99% of the time.

 

[Ulminati]

Anyway Grunker - since you're already going to ignore the rest of this thread. The premise going into this is stated in the title: "Is fudging rolls in PnP acceptable?"

And we've reached this conclusion:

So if I formalize the fudging it is ok with you?

YES. That's the whole fucking point.

Everything else is just window dressing. We both agree that altering the outcome of the dice is acceptable. We just don't agree on the semantics of how to alter it.

 

[Lhynn]

If fudging is formalized it is no longer fudging...

 

[Grunker]

nono lhynn the difference between the player spending a resource to change an outcome and the gm secretly altering the rules on the fly is purely semantic

 

[Ulminati]

So if I limit myself to, say, x GM fudges every adventure and rigorusly track them it's a spendable resource and OK?

Good to know. Should I announce to the players that I'm spending a Fudge-o-matic point? I mean, I let my players use their edge/artha without annouincing it in the other campaigns, so it's a bit of a grey area.

 

[Lhynn]

Yeah, just tell them that they fucking suck and you have to fix it.

 

[Ulminati]

Lhynn. You fucking suck and I have to fix you. Now bend over while I grab the latex gloves and chocolate fudge.

 

[Night Goat]

Makes me want to laugh at you and NG for saying that its unfair to be underleveled in 3.5 D&D when its more unfair not to pick the right class or build it appropriately.

There's a difference between someone choosing to play a gimp character and someone who has to do it. If the player is one of those special snowflakes who think playing a weak character = good roleplaying, they can get fucked.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

^ heard many gms make such claim, never met one that wasn't dead easy to see through

mostly because unprepared games suck

preparation is probably the most important thing in GMing

Suppose I'm not interested in doing any of the things you prepared and instead want to do something else, how fast I'm getting zapped by lightning

 

[Delterius]

I think this is a good time to turn into the first thread for the Fudger's Anonymous Association.

My name is Delterius and I haven't fudged a die in seven years.

Last time I fudged, I was doing so out of compassion. I felt that the younglings I rounded up for a session of roleplaying were still learning the ropes, that they could benefit from a bit of mercy. By God how could I have not seen the truth then? They were so happy, that's what. The villain had fled and their characters alive, triumphant. Their little faces gleaming with such joy. Little did I know that in breaking the game I instilled in their hearts the rotten seed of cheap gratification. And as the gnarled roots of this thrice cursed strain took hold of their hearts, they turned away from tradition. They veered closer and closer to the darkness, until itself Oblivion consumed all of their minds.

There's still hope. I am using D:OS's multiplayer features to walk them by, step by step, back into the sweet embrace of world without fudged rolls or quest compasses. Soon, they'll fully functional roleplayers once again, cheesing their way through most series we love.

 

[Lhynn]

Makes me want to laugh at you and NG for saying that its unfair to be underleveled in 3.5 D&D when its more unfair not to pick the right class or build it appropriately.

There's a difference between someone choosing to play a gimp character and someone who has to do it. If the player is one of those special snowflakes who think playing a weak character = good roleplaying, they can get fucked.

ikr, those idiots better spend hours surfing online and optimize their builds or they deserve to be shit.
On the other hand the dude that doesnt clear his schedjule to play with his friends deserves to be as strong, or stronger than the other players that make sacrifices to get together.
I should reward the efforts of those that spend their time out of the table and avoid by any means rewarding those that spend their time at the table.
...I dont even know why i bother

 

[Grunker]

Suppose I'm not interested in doing any of the things you prepared and instead want to do something else, how fast I'm getting zapped by lightning

You seem to be under two wrong impressions:

1) that preparation means predestined content.

2) that all games sandboxes.

Neither are true. Even if, in the most hilariously hypothetical example, I was preparing for a complete, no-plot-at-all sandbox game, it would still demand preparation. In fact, such a game would probably demand much more preparation as I would need creible resources to draw from to craft an interesting experience solely from the whims of the player.

I doubt many people who advocate for unprepared GMs have actually played in a diverse selection of games.

(Unless I failed to detect your sarcasm in which case I'm a retard. You won't be getting struck by lightning but depending on the type of game we agreed to play, I would consider it immature if you started dismantling the game on purpose, and I probably would never play with you again.)

 

[tuluse]

Suppose I'm not interested in doing any of the things you prepared and instead want to do something else, how fast I'm getting zapped by lightning

Why do you want me to dm for you if you don't want to take part in anything I make?

 

[Alex]

No, you know who really hates fun? People who think that no fun can arise from failure.

"Uh-oh" and "shit, what now?" are the coolest moments you can get in PnP.

What about "Death to the Emperor!"?

Edit: Wait, it was something like "Demon back on Terra." right? Sometimes I feel bad about killing off that character. I mean, he only got to go through a single session.

Ok grunker. Now we're making progress.

If we assume I cannot be trusted to be fair when fudging, who's to say I can when I am designing the encounters during preparation? Is there a committee I must run my 1d4+2 Orc raiders past to ensure they meet approval?

I think the point is that if you are "fudging", you aren't being fair by definition. I mean, if there is a 2/3 chance of success, and you decide it is too big a chance of failure after the player failed, it is pretty clear you just don't want him to fail...