DM is running a
campaign with a long story arc (say, a group is going to Mordor to destroy a
magical ring). One of the problems to overcome is for the group to discover
where Morder is, because it is only a rumored land far to the North.
The DM plans the
campaign and decides that one evil NPC knows where there is a map to Mordor.
The group tracks down this guy and confronts him. The NPC, however, is going to
try and resist and plans on actually trying to get away. But, if he cannot get
away and takes a certain amount of damage he would surrender and reveal the
information.
They all meet and
the NPC starts to talk, trying to buy time so he can escape. But, the group
wants nothing to do with this and right off the bat the PCs attack, before even
speaking to the guy. They win initiative and the two fighters both roll
critical hits, both roll near maximum damage and right away the NPC is at just
above half his hit points. The mage then launches a lightning bolt and rolls 5s
and 6s on all his dice. The NPC fails his saving throw and is suddenly at -15
hit points.
Well, the
information was not written down and was to be relayed orally. So, the DM
ignores the damage and puts the gut at 1 hit point and has him fall down to his
knees and he then blurps out the information.
The next round the
DM wins initiative and has the guy get up and feebly try to attack one of the
fighters. The fighters roll their attacks, the DM rules they both hit (even
though on actually missed, but adds in a +4 to hit because the guy is so weak)
and he says the guy falls down dead. He then forestalls the cleric and the
priest and says that they did not lose the spells they had been planning to
cast.
Now, setting aside
that the DM could have set up the situation a lot better, how is his fudging in
this situation bad? The end result was still the same, the group managed to
defeat their opponent (and the DM actually did have a possible escape plan set
up but never got the chance to use it), it was just extended by one round.
No one took any
"extra" damage from the extra round. Neither of the spell casters
used up any additional spells during the "extra" round. And they got
the information that they would have gained by defeating him.
Use your reasoning
to prove that fudging is wrong.
And by proving
that fudging is wrong, I mean just the actual fudging part. The set up of the
scenario, which can be chalked up to mistakes by the DM, is not fudging. That
is bad/poor/inexperienced DMing.
As for the actions
of the Players, that, too, has nothing to do with the fudging. It was just a
quirk of the dice.
And, Yes, the DM
should have had the information written down and then the group could have
found it on his dead body or if they searched him when he was captured, but the
DM messed up. The entire encounter could have been set up better, but it was
not. And the DM did not realize this until the guy dropped dead. So, he fudged
the dice.
By doing so he did
not have to come up with another scenario (and possibly a new NPC) to reveal
the information that the group was searching for. He salvaged what ended up
being bad planning made worse by lucky dice rolling.
Again, how is his
fudging bad? (And remember to only talk about the fudging!)
It is really quite
simple, not sure why you cannot see it. The reason I asked that you not address
the situation is because that is not the issue.
The issue is you
claim that fudging the dice is wrong. If you address the point that it is bad
for the DM to have the rest of the campaign hinge upon this one piece of
information, that has nothing to do with fudging being bad. It has to do with
the DM making a bad decision.
If you address the
point that the information could only be given orally, that has nothing to do
with fudging being bad. It has to do with the DM making a bad decision.
While those bad
decisions by the DM led to the DM fudging the dice those bad decisions have nothing
to do with whether or not fudging is bad.
You can say,
"With my vast knowledge of the stories in Appendix N I would have handled
it this way," but that again addresses the issue of the DM making a bad
decision. It does not address the issue of why fudging is bad.
You can say,
"If the DM had done this and this and that then there would be no need for
him to fudge." While that is true it again only addressed the DM making
bad decisions. It has nothing to do with why fudging is bad.
That is why I
asked that you not reference the situation, because the situation, while it led
to the DM having to fudge the dice, has absolutely no bearing on whether or not
fudging is inherently bad.
So.
That’s a lot of reading to get through before I respond, I know. But bear with me.
When done right,
though, the Players never know that the dice were fudged, so they did in fact
succeed. Or rather, they have the perception of having succeeded and for a game
like D&D that is pretty much the same thing.
And how can it be a net loss in fun if the group is unaware of the
fudging?
As for looking them in and telling them that you never fudge a die
roll, do not tell them that. My Players know that on occasion I may fudge a die
roll or two to enhance the game and make it more fun for them. And you know
what? They still somehow manage to enjoy playing the game. In fact, they enjoy
it so much that they keep coming back to sit down "at the table" and
let me be the Dungeon Master for their game. Do they know when I occasionally
fudge the dice? I do not know, because it almost never comes up. But, I do not
believe so. On occasion they have asked me if a particular situation involved
me fudging the dice and every single time I have been able to truthfully look
them in the eye and say, "No," because they have never asked me about
a situation when I did in fact fudge the dice. And if they did ask about a
particular situation where I did in fact fudge the dice I would still look them
in the eye and say, "No." And I would not consider it a lie, because
I see the DM as primarily being a storyteller who uses the rules, the dice, and
his judgment to tell a story to entertain the Players, and in that situation
that "lie" would simply be part of the story.
So the idea that
fudging is harmful if detected is already pretty well established, even by the
person asking the question.
Do they know when I occasionally fudge the dice?... On occasion they
have asked me….And if they did ask about a particular situation where I did in
fact fudge the dice I would still look them in the eye and say, "No."
We also have a
confirmation of the basic claim about how this can erode the relationship
between players and GM, and about whether that relationship is on a firm foundation
or not:
And I would not consider it a lie, because I see the DM as primarily
being a storyteller who uses the rules, the dice, and his judgment to tell a
story to entertain the Players, and in that situation that "lie"
would simply be part of the story.
This is
obviously not the position of everyone who advocates fudging.
Okay, so here’s
the situation. The PCs are heading to Mordor
to destroy a magical ring, but they don’t know where Mordor is. It is only a rumoured land far to the North,
where they are from. The GM decides that one evil NPC knows where there is a
map to Mordor, but the PCs kill the guy. What then? Should the GM fudge to allow the NPC to blurt
out the map’s location, or should the GM shrug and go with it?
Apart from the (im)plausibility
of the NPC just “blurping” out where the map is, and then attacking
ineffectively and dying, let us point out the obvious: The PCs simply attack the NPC without thought
to the consequences. That they cannot
kill the guy and get the information should have made the encounter
interesting; these players seem pretty confident that they can do whatever they
feel like, and the information is going to get to them anyway. And they are right.
This is
different than in the “DM of the Rings” version, where “Legolas” doesn’t know
who he is shooting (Gollum).
Nonetheless, the outcome is the same – Gollum knows a secret way into
Mordor that, if killed, Frodo and Sam cannot later use.
Why does Legolas
shoot the unknown creature on the river? Why are the PCs in Mock26’s example
not worried about accidentally killing their target?
Because there
are no consequences for this behaviour, while not killing every foe has
consequences. By fudging in this instance, the GM not only reinforces the “kill
it on sight” mentality of the players, but by doing so he increases the chance
of feeling the need to fudge again in future situations where the players are
confident that the GM will make sure needed information falls into their hands
no matter what they do.
The problem is
not that the situation is badly thought out. The problem is not that the
information is not written down. The
problem is that the players, never having experienced the consequences of
thinking things through before acting, do not think things through before
acting. And why do they not need to
think things through? Because experience tells them they will get the
information anyway.
The players are
not at fault in any way. Their
characters live in a milieu where rashness is rewarded (or at least not
punished), and without some reason to avoid rash behaviour, the easiest and
safest way to deal with a threat (or potential threat) is immediately and
finally. Hear something on the
river? Dude, the longer you wait, the
more the chance that you are attacked by it.
The important
thing to remember is that the players here are acting rationally: their
characters live in a world in which things try to kill them on a regular basis,
and those things don’t always announce themselves more than “You hear something
on the river”. There is no reason not
to attack, and not to attack to kill.
Unless, of course, the occasional negative consequences are not fudged
away.
The GM did not salvage
bad planning made worse by lucky dice rolling. There was nothing necessarily
wrong with his plan. There was nothing wrong with the dice. The only thing that
was wrong was the willingness of the players to use lethal force. The GM didn’t
salvage that; he reinforced it. And, had
he not reinforced it earlier, he might not have had to worry about it now.
It will later in
the thread be suggested that, had the GM not fudged, he would have had to found
some other way to convey the information, or would not have been able to
continue with the adventure. This last
may be true if the adventure was such a narrow railroad that nothing existed
outside the tracks, but otherwise there is no reason whatsoever for the
adventure not to continue. The players
have made things harder for themselves.
It is they, not the GM, who needs to find some other way to get this
information into their hands.
The wise GM does
not fudge the result; rather, he makes certain that the context (that the PCs
slew their potential informant, and deprived themselves of information thereby)
so that the players think twice the next time.
Or the time after that. Or
however many times it takes.
Because we can
be certain in this case that fudging removes consequence. And we can be certain that, with negative consequences
removed, the players not taking chances is the safest, most rational course
available to them. Fudging begets more
situations where fudging is needed.
When
anti-fudgers imply that GMs don’t learn from fudging, this is what they
mean. Rather than poor planning or dice rolls, what occurs is the obvious consequence of the type (not style) of game that the GM in question is running. And Mock26 clearly does not see the obvious relationship between fudging away consequences and the players not taking those consequences into consideration.
Not only has the GM set himself up
for more of the same, but in selecting this as a good example of why fudging
can be positive (or needed), the individual in question demonstrates that he
hasn’t learned from his previous experiences.
But he might
look you in the eye and tell you he has.
And he might not consider it a lie.
