Fudging is Lying

[General Reign]

The brink... of your whim, because you are deciding whether to let them live or die based on drama and convenience rather than the rules. I guess you can call wondering whether your PC is important enough to the current 'story' for the GM to secretly preserve him a form of 'suspense', although not the kind I would ever want to have while playing an RPG.

No, the brink as in they're down to 1 hit point (AD&D 2E has rules for going to -10 before death) or 1 sanity point and the feeling of dread overcomes the player. All within the rules. Do you want to know where I learned how to use drama and fear?

It was Call of Cthulhu 1st Edition in the 1990s. The goal of the game is to scare your players and slowly have them experience the insanity that their character does.

Which makes for a better story to tell; Bob is fighting some elves and he lucks out with a critical failure that results in him dying a horrible death in his quest to help free some princess right after he leaves the tavern at the beginning or Bob has a critical failure that causes him to go down to 1 hit point then surviving the encounter to continue on with the grand quest right after he leaves the tavern at the beginning?

It's the latter. Notice that this is just at the end of 1 encounter. He has many more to go. What if I roll a random encounter and he's still got 1 hit point left? His options are to fight, parlay, or flee. Fighting is idiotic on the part of the player, so that leaves two options: parlay or flee.

If he's dead then the adventure is over and the game breaks up. Good luck in forming a new group in the next year.

You said they're not invincible, so what's the cutoff? At what point do you let the 'protagonist' die when the dice say he should? Is it up to your sense of plausibility? Why even bother with rules at that point?

It depends upon numerous factors. For one it's the story and if they're integral to the plot. It won't do you much good to invest the other players into a story that isn't centered on them, so if the main character dies the story ends. That player then has to sit out for a number of sessions until you can arrange to bring in his new character that doesn't break the suspension of disbelief. If you describe the area where the party is at as being this desolate wilderness with nobody around and you have a brand new character show up out of the blue that breaks that immersion for the rest of the group.

The best time to let a character die is at the apex of the story. However, if they do die before then and they have a pool of characters then your job as a GM is to make that death as memorable as you can.

You seem to ignore the rules that say that you can fudge the dice. Why are you ignoring the rules for your fiat?

Yes, yes, very scary, except not because now we know that if it strikes your fancy, none of that will mean anything. If the GM fudges, it doesn't matter whether the encounter is 7 giant spiders or 200 pit fiends: it will be exactly as deadly, or not, as he pleases.

I already proven to you that I let characters die due to bad rolls. In fact, my entire campaign log is there for you to read. Why don't you actually deal with the facts of how I run instead of making up scenarios to fit your fantasies on how I run. Oh right, it's easier to build strawmen and argue against the rules when you are fiat going against them.

You can't say that I'm ignoring the rules when said rules state that I should fudge the rolls to keep the party alive for my mistakes in planning or for the story. I've run well over 50 different game systems. They've all pretty much said the same thing when it comes to this subject. Are you seriously trying to tell me that they were all wrong and you are right?

The only one arguing for the ignoring of the rules is you. I posted up the AD&D 2E rules. You posted up the AD&D 1E rules from the creator of RPGs himself that said you should fudge the dice. I believe your hubris has gotten the better of you.

Go ahead and create more strawmen about how I run my game. I invited you to see it firsthand, but you refused. I wonder why that is.

Hey if you ever run a Call of Cthulhu game let me know. I also do not think you should be getting uppity about this as much as you are since it is actually personal preference. I am sure you are both real good GM's guys. Haha.

[MadPreacher]

The rules should be regarded almost as sacred.

Thanks for speaking up about my GM abilities I do appreciate it. I show how bad or good my rolls are with y'all so we all get a laugh.

Every ruleset I've every played/run says that fudging the dice is fine. The trick is to do it without letting the players know. With me rolling in the open it's very, very difficult to fudge a roll.

[JarlFrank]

Ok, sure, why not. @The_Mask, @Kalarion, @JarlFrank: are you ok with your GM secretly manipulating the stats of your enemies on a whim?

No, but @MadPreacher doesn't fudge the dice, at least not that I know of. I think he may have "fudged" our old Star Wars game once by reducing the amount of enemy reinforcements from the number he had originally planned, but that's not dice roll fudging that's adjusting encounter difficulty on the fly.

Fudging is not required if the DM and the players are on the same page. Don't treat your characters with too much attachment, understand that they can die, and you will have fun in a honest RAW game.

[WhiteShark]

That wasn't the question you were encouraged to ask.

It's the question pertinent to this thread.

But because its answer is consequential to what JD actually said you should ask, I'll answer you first: no, but that's silly. No one is ok with secretly manipulative behavior, even if it could be justified.

Then why are you ok with his doing exactly that?

PS: JD has never, to my knowledge, "secretly manipulated" play. He has manipulated play, but always openly. I know you didn't specifically accuse him of doing it, but that's the tone set by your question.

He's admitted to it in this very thread, though whether he's done so in your campaign specifically I know not.

I do fudge when it's appropriate. I just outlined when I do and that's usually when it's the main protagonist.

He fudges to save the 'protagonist'.

For one it's the story and if they're integral to the plot. It won't do you much good to invest the other players into a story that isn't centered on them, so if the main character dies the story ends. That player then has to sit out for a number of sessions until you can arrange to bring in his new character that doesn't break the suspension of disbelief. If you describe the area where the party is at as being this desolate wilderness with nobody around and you have a brand new character show up out of the blue that breaks that immersion for the rest of the group.

He fudges to save characters who would die when there's no convenient way to introduce a replacement.

The best time to let a character die is at the apex of the story. However, if they do die before then and they have a pool of characters then your job as a GM is to make that death as memorable as you can.

This one isn't as clear, but it sounds like he fudges to make character deaths more dramatic.

You learn quite a bit on how to run games like how to use fudges and not let your players know that you did. For example, in AD&D your players don't need to know the AC of the monster they're facing. They roll and tell you the result. You have to determine if they hit or not. They also don't need to know any of the other statistics of the monsters either.

My players can tell you that I don't hide my rolls. In fact, the area where I sit in TTS is completely open for inspection, including the monsters. I trust my players to not look at the monster stats. If you'd like to verify this then you are welcome to watch a stream of us playing on Saturday.

He manipulates stats in the background rather than the roll itself so that he can claim to 'roll openly' without any of the impartiality that should imply.

The question, as Whiteshark has already stated, is one of trust. Do I trust the GM to exercise his sovereign powers properly? The trust is fundamental, not rules adherence as such. I concede that, especially in the case of playing under a new/unknown GM, trust is most easily established and increased through fair and consistent play. I further concede that the easiest (and usually the best) way to have fair and consistent play is through adherence to whatever ruleset you happen to be playing under. I do not concede that this means the rules should never be broken/fudged. Unbreakable rules are reserved for perfection, and there's only one source of that.

I will say that my sentiment on the matter is strongly in agreement with Whiteshark. The rules should be regarded almost as sacred. I'm built that way, and I happen to believe that in this specific matter I am fortunately very closely in alignment with The Way Things Should Be (TM). But again, unbreakable rules are the realm of perfection. Exceptions exist for a reason.

Overriding the rules and fudging are two different concepts. The number one reason to override the rules is when the rules can't properly represent the fiction. This happens not infrequently because, as you say, no ruleset is perfect. Fudging is always done for some 'story' reason, and this is what erodes trust in the GM, because it changes the activity from one wherein the players interact with the world under a known and stable set of rules to one where the GM's sense of drama and story convenience determines outcomes.

Finally, fudging is not automatically equal to lying. The one is often used in service to the other, but they're not the same.

If it's not lying, why can't it be admitted? Why does it destroy the trust of the players? If I were a player and discovered that my GM was secretly altering monster stats in the middle of combat, I would feel deceived. I would perceive that the GM had lied when he said we were going to play a game because the actual activity was play-acting his story.

[WhiteShark]

No, but @MadPreacher doesn't fudge the dice, at least not that I know of. I think he may have "fudged" our old Star Wars game once by reducing the amount of enemy reinforcements from the number he had originally planned, but that's not dice roll fudging that's adjusting encounter difficulty on the fly.

Fudging is not required if the DM and the players are on the same page. Don't treat your characters with too much attachment, understand that they can die, and you will have fun in a honest RAW game.

He's explained in this thread that he fudges via altering the stats of monsters already in play rather than the dice. See my response to Kalarion above for the relevant bits.

[MadPreacher]

He's explained in this thread that he fudges via altering the stats of monsters already in play rather than the dice. See my response to Kalarion above for the relevant bits.

I actually didn't say that I altered the stats of the monsters. You claimed that I did. I posted up the AD&D 2E DMG that says to do that. You are accusing me of something that I don't do.

I did say that I alter the dice rolls and you would never even know that I did. I suggest you take the time to reread what I wrote to fully understand things.

[MadPreacher]

He's admitted to it in this very thread, though whether he's done so in your campaign specifically I know not.

I didn't admit to anything. I pointed out that is how you do it. There is a difference. No, I never manipulated the stats of the monster nor have I fudged any dice rolls in my current game. In fact, when I do rather well or poorly on the rolls I show my players. My side of the table does not have any fog to hide what I do. My players can view my section of the table at all times, so I'd be careful with the accusations here.



View from JarlFrank's place at the table. Notice no fog and the ability for the players to move their camera over to where I sit at the head of the table.

He fudges to save the 'protagonist'.

Nope, that didn't happen. I posted up the logs showing that the group dies or loses their characters. I mean you have it in your head that I do these things when in reality I didn't actually do them. For the record, I have killed characters in the past due to bad rolls.

This one isn't as clear, but it sounds like he fudges to make character deaths more dramatic.

Nope, I don't fudge rolls to make the deaths more dramatic. This is you being dramatic like a woman and getting all emotional.

Overriding the rules and fudging are two different concepts.

Except for the fact that fudging is part of the rules. You're having a hard time grasping that. I don't give a fuck about your opinion of what you think the rules should be. The rules state that you can fudge to ensure that the game is fair and fun.

[MadPreacher]

Compliments of @JarlFrank from running the current campaign. Oh he's been gaming with me since 2015.

[JarlFrank]

@MadPreacher has done more story-focused campaigns before (like our Star Wars campaign) but even there characters weren't immortal. If the "main character" dies that just means the story changes. Maybe the survivors go for revenge, or have to go into hiding.

I've been playing with him long enough that I know he's not a weak DM who requires artificial fudging to enforce his style of play. He knows how to adapt and our games are always played RAW.

[Tweed]

If fudging the dice roll will result in someone dying in a funny way, then you should always do it.

[Acrux]

@WhiteShark, you keep mentioning the DMing using fudging because he wants to "tell his story", but I think most of us around here don't DM with set stories in mind most of the time.

Here's a real, practical example of fudging:

In one of our games, the players had been trying to stop a local warlord who had greater ambitions in the area. They were planning on disrupting what they could, so they needed to know some possible next moves.

This was going to be sort of a heist mission where they were going to try and steal some documents from the fortress, and the players were hyped about this session and had been talking about out-of-game almost every day. The characters walk in and try to handle things diplomatically. A couple of bad rolls and the people inside go from neutral to hostile and combat starts. Not their ideal situation, but they expected it as a possibility. In the (I think) 8 rounds of combat of the very first encounter, the enemies critically hit 5 times! One of those would have killed the only character who could disarm traps (and their intelligence told them there were going to be a lot of traps where these documents were kept). So I had a decision to make: Kill this character or change the critical hit to a normal one.

In my head, I had to quickly think about outcomes. If that character was dead, the players had a couple of options:
1) retreat, but now the enemies knew they were being invaded and would reinforce this position, making trying this again pretty much impossible.
2) Keep going with the loss. It would have been a slog of non-proficient characters trying to disarm traps and fight at the same time, and frankly would have been a boring slog - with one player having to sit it out! (And remember, they'd been looking forward to this encounter and had spent the past couple of sessions planning for it.)
3) Change the encounters in the fortress to remove all or most of the traps. But you say this would be fudging too.

In the end, they made their way through the tower and found a document that had some clues they were looking for. The mage was able to get a sending off to their guild about what they found (aka they could continue the plot line with new characters) before they were TPKed.

If that same situation had happened later as they were in the fortress (not at the very beginning) I don't think "fudging" would have even crossed my mind.

That ended up becoming a very memorable session for them. It could have been memorable for other, worse reasons.

[MadPreacher]

@WhiteShark, you keep mentioning the DMing using fudging because he wants to "tell his story", but I think most of us around here don't DM with set stories in mind most of the time.

Here's a real, practical example of fudging:

In one of our games, the players had been trying to stop a local warlord who had greater ambitions in the area. They were planning on disrupting what they could, so they needed to know some possible next moves.

This was going to be sort of a heist mission where they were going to try and steal some documents from the fortress, and the players were hyped about this session and had been talking about out-of-game almost every day. The characters walk in and try to handle things diplomatically. A couple of bad rolls and the people inside go from neutral to hostile and combat starts. Not their ideal situation, but they expected it as a possibility. In the (I think) 8 rounds of combat of the very first encounter, the enemies critically hit 5 times! One of those would have killed the only character who could disarm traps (and their intelligence told them there were going to be a lot of traps where these documents were kept). So I had a decision to make: Kill this character or change the critical hit to a normal one.

In my head, I had to quickly think about outcomes. If that character was dead, the players had a couple of options:
1) retreat, but now the enemies knew they were being invaded and would reinforce this position, making trying this again pretty much impossible.
2) Keep going with the loss. It would have been a slog of non-proficient characters trying to disarm traps and fight at the same time, and frankly would have been a boring slog - with one player having to sit it out! (And remember, they'd been looking forward to this encounter and had spent the past couple of sessions planning for it.)

In the end, they made their way through the tower and found a document that had some clues they were looking for. The mage was able to get a sending off to their guild about what they found (aka they could continue the plot line with new characters) before they were TPKed.

If that same situation had happened later as they were in the fortress (not at the very beginning) I don't think "fudging" would have even crossed my mind.

That ended up becoming a very memorable session for them. It could have been memorable for other, worse reasons.

He's under the impression in his ivory tower that the DM is the only one with a story. He ignores the fact that the players have a big say in how that story goes. All the DM does is set the stage and leave it to the players to decide how they want to tackle the obstacle. The players are the story not the DM.

It's not going to be fun in my games of bi-monthly sessions where a player will die and have to sit out for a month or longer in real time before they can play. But sitting in an ivory tower you don't think about concerns like that. Your players are immaterial since the focus is entirely on the DM/AM/GM.

If you had a party going through a wilderness, like it happens in my game, and the party is x days away from their settlement it's going to be impossible to get that replacement character to the rest of the party. The new character wouldn't know where to look and having separated party members for an extended length of time is boring for the players not involved.

In my game, our sessions run about 4 hours long. That's due to the real world time constraints of the players. So I made it to where the players have a pool of characters with one being the main and the rest being henchmen. If a character dies the player chooses a henchman has his new main.

It's how Saint Gary and company did it to begin with.

[WhiteShark]

@WhiteShark, you keep mentioning the DMing using fudging because he wants to "tell his story", but I think most of us around here don't DM with set stories in mind most of the time.

I brought it up because 'story' was mentioned as an important reason to fudge several times by @MadPreacher and @Atlantico previously; I also contend that, in essence, it is the reason behind all fudging: the GM wanting events to go a particular way because it conforms to the image he has in his head.

Regarding your example, I get why you did it, but do you think your players would have been ok with that had they known? I wouldn't have. Let the dice fall where they may. Victories lose their savor if catastrophic defeat isn't a possibility. As a GM I've made the same sort of decision in the past, but later I realized that it was a trap. You trade the very purpose of the game, the integrity of the fiction, and the trust of the players for the prevention of momentary displeasure.

In the end, who knows how it would really have gone? Perhaps your party would have chosen a course you didn't expect, or met with unexpected success despite the lack of a thief; or again, perhaps things would have gone as badly as you expected, but the bitterness of defeat would have driven them on to a still greater vengeance. Maybe, in the short term, it would have just sucked; that's the tradeoff when playing a RPG. Now we'll never know because you, like I myself have previously done, chose to dictate the outcome instead of playing the game.

@MadPreacher, if you're going to debate me, please reread the OP. I already addressed your latest ramble there.

[Acrux]

I fully understand that it's not what would have been fun for you. But part of being a DM is knowing your players. I know they would have been bitterly disappointed with a no-win situation in this particular instance. You're right, they could have done something very surprising, but I had to make a quick decision. But, there's still the fact that one player would have literally been sitting it out if they'd gone on.

[MadPreacher]

I'm an idiot and can't really argue against what you to say, so I'm going to run and hide behind my bullshit autistic scree that has no basis in reality or what you've said.

It's hilarious that you can't even reply to what I've said. All you can do is point to your idiotic first post. Your first post doesn't cover anything I've said. Maybe when you come out of your fucking ivory tower Zoomer and reply to what I actually posted then I'll take you seriously. As it stands, you are retard.

[WhiteShark]

I fully understand that it's not what would have been fun for you. But part of being a DM is knowing your players. I know they would have been bitterly disappointed with a no-win situation in this particular instance. You're right, they could have done something very surprising, but I had to make a quick decision.

Here's the thing: are your players aware that they're not playing an RPG? or do they think they organically pulled through by the skin of their teeth? I mean you no personal disrespect, but I am compelled to reference the final point from the OP:

R: If your players like knowingly LARPing your novel, more power to you. It's still lying if you pretend that's not what you're doing, though.

Have you ever played a video game that subtly lowered the difficulty every time you lost? When you win, you didn't win, for the game lowered itself to you. The victory is hollow: it was a lie. Have you ever read a funny anecdote only to later discover that it was pure fiction? No matter how skillfully and entertainingly written, when the facts comes out, it loses all charm: it was a lie.

But, there's still the fact that one player would have literally been sitting it out if they'd gone on.

Even in the case where there's no followers/hirelings to play and no way to introduce a new PC quickly, I've never found this to be a big deal. A lot of gamers genuinely like making new PCs. In the absolute worst case scenario the characterless player can take a break, read a book, play a game, whatever; that's what I and my friends would do.

[MadPreacher]

I'm a moron that have to make strawmen and ignore people along with what they've said.

When are you going to get around to actually discuss what I said moron? Did I hurt your Zoomer vagina so bad that you can't even say you were sorry for lying about what I said and do? I guess not.

[Acrux]

Here's the thing: are your players aware that they're not playing an RPG?

Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? You make a lot of assumptions about "DM driven novels" and such that are simply incorrect. I think I'm going to bow out of this conversation.

[Atlantico]

I brought it up because 'story' was mentioned as an important reason to fudge several times by @MadPreacher and @Atlantico previously; I also contend that, in essence, it is the reason behind all fudging: the GM wanting events to go a particular way because it conforms to the image he has in his head.

What you want is a human abacus

[MadPreacher]

Here's the thing: are your players aware that they're not playing an RPG?

Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? You make a lot of assumptions about "DM driven novels" and such that are simply incorrect. I think I'm going to bow out of this conversation.

You can't debate with someone when their entire schtick is one big strawman and refusing to actually debate your points. @WhiteShark is reminding me an awfully lot like SDG at the moment.

[General Reign]

Never compare someone like WhiteShark to SDG. You simply do not understand what you are comparing him to. SDG is the guy asking for people to play Diablo 4 with him. He cannot read much less GM.

[J1M]

@WhiteShark do you see a difference between a DM fudging a roll versus lowering (or raising) the HP of an enemy during a fight?

As one example - what if a fight has been going for a while and an enemy has 2 HP left after being attacked. Is it cheating/lying for the DM to just declare that enemy dead (i.e. the player effectively does 2 more damage than was rolled)?

Also, what about a DM hand-waving the end of a fight if the players have basically defeated all of the enemies except for a couple of stragglers?

What about giving a player "inspiration" or "hero points" to re-roll?

It is fine to do time compression during combat. Just as it is during travel. It should be done in a way that doesn't rob players of feeling a sense of accomplishment. I would also recommend that such an approach still appropriately taxes the party's resources. (4e example: "The party defeats the remaining wounded goblins. The party sustains some minor injuries. Subtract one healing surge each.")

As with all house rules and expectations at the table, (including luck/inspiration), this should be made clear to players at a session zero.

[General Reign]

I just wanna add that fudge is chocolate and has nothing to do with lying.

[J1M]

I find it humorous that your points are contradicted by Saint Gary directly plus telling people to play games where death isn't an option.

If you or your players are too scared of character death to let it happen when the dice say it should, why play a game in which that's a not-insignificant possibility? You can't laugh at people who play games where dying is off the table while simultaneously breaking the rules of the game you do play to prevent character death.

My players aren't afraid of dying and we're playing AD&D 2E properly. I don't go out of my way to kill characters and I expect them to think about any situation they find themselves in. You can read the campaign log to see that they have a selection of three general choices that they use. They are: parlay, combat, or run away. They can come up with a fourth option like calling Daddy Malignost the greater god.

The use of fudging depends upon two major factors.

1: The character is the main protagonist for a special character arc.
2: The area of where the character dies.

In the first case, if the main protagonist dies before the final resolution of the game there is no further story to do for that character. The story has zero impact for the rest of the group. The party can get revenge and finish up the story if they so choose.

In the second case, if a character dies in the middle of an area that is far from civilization you will have a player sitting out of the game for the next few sessions. In my case, that's 2 weeks for every session. That's 2 sessions a month usually. That's not right to the player to force them onto the sidelines.

There is no way to overcome the first one. Main character dies and the story ends for him. Player creates a new character at the same power level as before the gets introduced as normal.

The way to overcome the second case is by having a pool of characters for every player. One of them is the main and the rest function as hirelings/henchmen that are all related to the main. If the main dies then a henchman is the new main character. It works great for my current campaign.

Gandalf died in the middle. Story turned out okay.

[MadPreacher]

Gandalf died in the middle. Story turned out okay.

Gandalf was a henchman as were the rest of the fellowship. Only Frodo and Sam were the main characters.

[General Reign]

Gandalf fucking came back though with superpowers.

[WhiteShark]

Gandalf fucking came back though with superpowers.

Resurrection is pretty common in a lot of RPG systems, too.

[General Reign]

Gandalf fucking came back though with superpowers.

Resurrection is pretty common in a lot of RPG systems, too.

Sure, but you rarely get such an upgrade by dying.

[WhiteShark]

Gandalf fucking came back though with superpowers.

Resurrection is pretty common in a lot of RPG systems, too.

Sure, but you rarely get such an upgrade by dying.

He just hadn't had a chance to spend his banked XP yet. Waiting for the res was a good time for him to finally level up.

[MadPreacher]

I did a bad thing today according to @WhiteShark. I fudged at the very end of the session by having the fire raging in the grease spell that was cast in the entangled corrupted spitting snakes. I said that they were cooked alive because we were out of time.

@Kalarion, @The_Mask, and@JarlFrank can all express their views on my fudging the game in their favor since we were out of time.