Fudging & the Aleatory Element

"Lucky rolls!  I can't believe that he kept missing me!"

Some interesting counters to my arguments on Dragonsfoot. 

Apparently, my counters to Argument A do not counter Argument B, and my counters to Argument B do not counter Argument A.  

Therefore, my position is invalid.  

Also, because I only address the most common reasons given for fudging, and do not address every possible reason, my position is invalid.  

Likewise, an argument made to demonstrate that choosing not to fudge the dice is turned into imagining that the roll is “inherently special” and “fetishising the dice”…already answered of course by the context that the poster in question (Classicdnd) chooses to leave out.

Or an argument that the poster fails to see the difference between rolling a Find Traps check behind the screen, whether there is a trap or no, and abiding by the result if there is, and fudging the die roll.

On the other hand, I was very pleased to be pointed to this survey by Ulan Dhor. It is difficult to determine how many folks do not fudge, when things like adding house rules or altering a module are included in the poll, but if one assumes that the people who say they fudge in one case are largely the people who also fudge in other cases, then over 90% of the respondents do not engage in fudging.  That’s a hopeful sign, and suggests also that the majority of respondents have a good understanding of the problems inherent in the practice.

(While many may "fiddle with" the game, few fudge.)

EDIT:  As Predavolk points out here, the above numbers are more than a bit wrong, depending upon the number of respondents, which we do not know but can deduce is probably 36.  We know that Pred is wrong about his 92% as well, because 21 respondents is the highest number that agree they would alter a roll in any given instance (58.3%), and 19 the maximum that would alter a roll that is necessarily occurring during play rather than setup (wandering monster roll) (52.7%).  A good 38.8% are altering combat rolls.

(Including those who introduce house rules as "fudgers", for example, results in the skewed number Pred suggests.)

Whereas Ulan Dhor said that "This suggests to me that most people already stay away from fudging dice rolls. This suggests to me that the concerns about fudging are overstated. I think people already avoid the more egregious sort of fudging." the actual percentages in the survey, when looked at more closely (actual numbers rather than the rather misleading values posted by Ulan in the fudging thread), this cuts against my earlier optimism, which I leave in place, above, for the record.

Thanks, Pred, for the correction!

And still, of course, those assailing my position (with the partial exception of Spartakos) refuse to address these questions:  Do you tell your players that you fudge? When you fudge?  If not, why not?

"Whaaaa!?!  Why are you picking on me?!?"

For example, given the premise that the party fighter encounters a rust monster and beats it with a cudgel (not exactly thinking outside the box!) and brings it to within 1 hp of death on the third blow, why would the GM adjust the rust monster's hp secretly so that it finished off, rather than saying, "Well, it has only 1 hp left, and it can't really hurt you, so let's call it dead." I.e., why be secret about it?

In the above example, we are told that the fighter makes a cudgel by cutting a thick branch from a tree. How long did this take?  What did the rust monster do while the fighter was cutting through the branch?  Why didn't it run away when it became obvious that there was no meal coming, and it was getting beaten on the snout?

(In one game I ran, the party used the cudgel trick to instead beat a rust monster into submission, with the intent to use it as a weapon of their own.)

The rest of this post has nothing to do with whether you should or should not fudge, unless, like myself, you desire an aleatory element in your fantasy rpg.  If you do, I strongly recommend Dungeon Crawl Classics to you.

Folkways, by William Graham Sumner, 1906, p. 20:

There was an element in the most elementary experience which was irrational and defied all expedient methods. One might use the best known means with the greatest care, yet fail of the result. On the other hand, one might get a great result with no effort at all. One might also incur a calamity without any fault of his own. This was the aleatory element in life, the element of risk and loss, good or bad fortune. This element is never absent from the affairs of men.

I not only expect this aleatory element in a fantasy rpg, I have no interest in a fantasy rpg that fails to evoke it. IMHO, fantasy (novels, films, short stories, or games) is interesting specifically because it can evoke the more primitive, fundamental aspects of our minds....what lies below rationality....and then give it meaning within a framework that our rational minds can comprehend.

I expect a fantasy game to allow me to step outside modern modes of thinking, at least to some degree, and gain a wider appreciation not only of the rational process that created the game, but of the "mythic universe" as well. Likewise, I don't want a game that treats magic like technology; I want a game that treats magic like an extension of a universe that is rife with consciousness and will.

Anything less seems sterile to me.

More on Fudging: Point the Gun, Even When it is Pointless

Mock26 wrote a post on Dragonsfoot (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=63701&start=210#p1512235) which I have reproduced below. In my version, I have broken the wall of text into paragraphs, but you are welcome to read the original if you think that I have changed anything salient.

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!)

In a like vein, Ravendas points to DM of the Rings as a shorter version of the same set up (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=63701&start=240#p1512247).

Mock26 clarifies his intent (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=63701&start=240#p1512635), and again I am breaking this down into paragraphs for clarity:

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.

The easiest response is to point out that in this post (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=63701&start=120#p1437049), Mock26 says that

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?

And in this post (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=63701&start=120#p1437081), Mock26 says:

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. 

Interesting choices (see http://ravencrowking.blogspot.ca/2011/05/c-is-for-choices-context-and.html, etc.) require that the “right” answer isn’t obvious.  By fudging, this GM is making the “right” answer obvious, even if it is not what he wants the answer to be.

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.

More On Fudging: Ookla the 26

"This is a valid argument, right?"

This thread on Dragonsfoot has recently been brought back from the dead, and it is worth checking up on again if you are interested.  In any event, the comments left by Mock26 require a bit more space to answer than is generally considered polite on a gaming forum.  These comments are interesting not only from the standpoint of gaming theory, but they are interesting from the standpoint of the "dumbing down" of rational discourse.

Also, frankly, I find it impossible to answer Mock26 properly while meeting the politeness guidelines expected of posters on Dragonsfoot.

Part I

At 6:55 pm on 28 May 2014, Mock26 takes issue with material from this post. I will ask you to indulge me in reading both the post, and his response to the post, before we continue.  I ask this because, I hope, it is clear to you that Mock26's questions are revealing of nothing more than failure to understand context.  There is nothing terribly unique in this - if you go back upthread, you will note that Mock26 has been attacking the argument without bothering to read or understand it all day.

The post in question is a response to Greg Barry, who is asking specific questions related to two examples.  The context of the questions is that If A, Then B, Therefore C.  If A occurs, then B will occur, therefore C should occur (in this case C is fudging).  The responses are demonstrations that B need not occur as a result of A, and therefore A need not lead to C.

Mock26's question amounts to asking, "Even if B need not follow A, what if B does follow A?"  In the listed cases, it is assumed that B (i.e., that the game grinds to a halt, either because of an inability to move forward or because the party is killed by a lich) is worse than C (fudging).

And, of course, you may well agree that B is worse than C.  But, this doesn't make C good; it just makes B worse.  This is akin to saying, "Isn't it okay if I sometimes punch you, if the alternative is that I shoot you instead?"  It is a false dilemma; it is neither okay to punch or shoot you, and it neither B or C is demonstrated herein to be a good idea.

The basic assumptions upon which the argument is built (meeting a lich automatically ends in a TPK; destroying a single item prevents all play) are flawed.  It does not matter whether or not Mock26 is able to avoid these problems.  The question is not "What traits are shared by poor GMs?"  It suffices merely to demonstrate that these situations offer no dilemma for a good GM, and that there is no need for a good GM to fudge.

Mock26 is, however, correct in that this particular blog post does not demonstrate why fudging is bad; it is merely an answer to why fudging is not necessary in the cases described.  I would lay down good money that over 90% of the readers of this blog were able to understand that from the context.

Part II

At 6:56 pm on 28 May 2014, Mock26 takes aim at this post.  Again, feel free to read both the post and Mock26's questions.  If nothing else, it will supply some context.  Then jump up to 3:26 pm, where I wrote

Well, technically, I think there is a real difference between set-up and play. In set-up, one is looking for inspiration, and personally I don't care if you fudge during that time. I have said the same in the past (I believe in this very thread, although I am not going to go back to look for it), and I am sure that I will say the same in the future.

because once you have done so, you will realize that Mock26's first salvos in this post again miss the mark.

Later on, at 8:00 pm, Mock26 posts again, and again fails to hit the mark, using my above quote to again suggest that I somehow do not agree that the GM has a right to alter a roll during set-up.  I do say

The reasoning that, say, introducing a Vorpal Sword at 1st level will somehow doom the campaign/milieu, however, is one that I strongly disagree with.

Even when dicing for inspiration, though, I think it occurs far too often that the GM in question will decide "That doesn't fit" far too soon....better/more creative work would result from asking "How does that fit?" a bit more often than may occur. When I choose to use die rolls to help in creation, I have noticed that it is the unusual results that give the milieu depth, and make it seem less like the work of a single mind....because that mind is forced out of its rut.

and Mock26 seems to believe that the material he quoted from Gary Gygax is a counter to that.  He also seems to think that Mr. Gygax's advice to other DMs (many of which, based upon other sections of the book, Mr. Gygax addresses as if they have not yet learned the craft) suggests that Mr. Gygax himself would have been unable to place a vorpal sword in a 1st level adventure and make his own campaign more interesting thereby.

I doubt that is the case.

I fully accept that neophyte GMs, Mock26, or others, might be unable to place a vorpal sword without spelling disaster for their games, and I have repeatedly stated that rolling for inspiration is not the same as rolling for outcome during the game.  Others may disagree with that assessment (others do in the thread), but once again, Mock26 is knocking down straw men of his own devising.

Part III

Jump now, if you would be so kind, to Mock26's post of 7:36 pm on 28 May 2014.  Or don't.  Mock26 is attempting to set up a situation in which the GM fudges, but in which we are supposed to describe why fudging is bad without referencing the situation in which the fudging occurs.

Huh.

I point a gun at you.  Why should I not fire the gun?  Please answer using only a description of the process of pulling the trigger.

If you cannot see the problem with pandering to this type of discourse, I cannot help you.

Part IV

Back up to the 6:56 pm post, where Mock26 makes his only intelligent contribution to the conversation.

In response to my posting "It should be noted that the percentage of GMs who believe that they can make the players believe this while fudging is quite a bit higher than the percentage of players who believe that they do not know. Likewise, the majority of players seem to prefer, as do you and I, that the GM does not fudge.", Mock26 asks:

Have any actual numbers to back up this claim of yours? Because I, for one, would love to see the evidence you have that allows you to make this claim.

That's actually an intelligent question, and one anyone should ask when confronted with any sort of data.

For the record, though, given a poll sample of 112 votes (which, admittedly, is not large enough for firm conclusions), 14% of respondents preferred (2% strongly) that the GM fudge, and 55% (41% strongly) preferred that the GM not fudge.

In another poll, 61% of 41 respondents felt that, as players, they know when the GM is fudging.

Until better data comes along, the majority believe that they know when the GM is fudging, and the majority would prefer that the GM does not fudge. Better than a third of players feel strongly that the GM should not fudge. But better data should be a goal, and it might change the above conclusions.

Conclusion

For those who claim that this is all simply opinion, and any opinion is as good as any other, that is simply untrue.  Reasoned debate doesn't work like that (although, granted, shouting into the wind does work like that, and there are always folks who will listen to whoever shouts the loudest).

An "answer" to an argument in an analysis of that argument, showing where it stands up and where it does not. It is not simply an "opinion".  For instance, if I said, "2 + 2 = 4 because a cow is in the field", your answer could well be that (1) 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of whether or not a cow is in the field, and that (2) the cow in the field has no rational connection to the mathematical operation being performed. Note that this does not mean that 2 + 2 =/= 4, but merely that my reasoning is incorrect. Note also that, while I may then say that "The cow making no difference is just your opinion; there's no correct answer here", that does not make it true.

Likewise, the reasons giving for why fudging is good, on examination, turn out to be cows in the field that are supposedly affecting the math. The answers, specifically, are why the given reasons that fudging is worth doing do not actually appear supported when examined. You may have good reasons for fudging, but the reasons given thus far do not support examination. That the examination is not being addressed is evidence of its validity; you cannot counter the argument, so you declare it all mere opinion.

YMMV because (1) you may be right that fudging is good for the game overall, but have not articulated an argument as to why this should be so, just as 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of the cow explanation's obvious failure, or (2) your motives in fudging may be seated not in the good of the game overall, but in a different motivation.

My experience tells me that fudging is a bad idea overall, but my experience is (while wide) perforce limited. That no one to my knowledge, least of all Mock26, has yet to develop a thesis that explains why fudging is (or can be) good, which also holds up under rational scrutiny, reinforces my experience. I am willing to accept that (obviously) my experience may not apply to all cases, but I am not going to make the assumption that it does not apply without a counter-example or line of reasoning that can stand up to examination.

I don't believe in bigfoot; I am willing to change my mind if evidence presents itself that changes the balance of probability that bigfoot exists. Whether or not bigfoot exists is another example where all opinions are not of equal value.

Even with all that said, though, it is fundamental that what you want out of the game may differ from what I want, and that whether or not you articulate your position in a way that stands up to rational scrutiny, your position may still be as valid as, or more valid than, mine. I just have no reason to come to that conclusion.

Add your own sound bite in lieu of a rational statement here.

As long as you can get a single player to buy into your game, you should run what you want the way you want to run it. Analysis of the pitfalls and/or values of various approaches is useful in helping GMs and players discover what they want, and take steps that bring their goals to fruition.

If you want to paint your house green, but are instead using red paint, it is worth noting. If you want your house to be red, but are saying you want it to be green, by all means you should continue to use red paint even though we note that (1) your house will not be painted green, and (2) your actions will not help you meet your stated objectives. And, of course, we are fully justified in cautioning others who might take your methods and stated aims at face value that using red paint is highly unlikely to result in a green house.

If one then claims that it is only opinion that using red paint will not result in a green house....well, one is entitled to make that claim.  But that "opinion" will not be as good as one that actually examines what colour red paint results in, no matter how loudly you scream into the wind, and no matter how many idiots then wonder why their houses are red despite following your instructions.

Is Fudging Just a Style Difference?

I contend that it is not.  To my mind, a difference in style is cosmetic, whereas a difference that actually affects the substance being offered is not.  If you don’t buy into that premise about style vs. substance, the odds are very good that you will not buy into the reasons I think fudging fundamentally changed what is being offered by a game.

The issue arises from a discussion on Dragonsfoot (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=58418), and is related to previous blog posts on Context, Choice, and Consequence: 

http://ravencrowking.blogspot.ca/2011/0 ... t-and.html

http://ravencrowking.blogspot.ca/2011/0 ... t-and.html

http://ravencrowking.blogspot.ca/2011/0 ... nd_06.html

Simply put, you can run your game however you like. So long as you have even a single player interested in the type of game you want to run, you should run your game however you like....no matter what I, or anyone else, thinks about it!

But the interplay between context, choice, and consequence is real, and it is what drives player interaction within the game milieu.

In my experience, the GM “fudges” for one of two reasons:

(1) He believes that the consequences of the choices made by the players should be ameliorated (for good or ill), or

(2) He believes that he has made a mistake in presenting the context, and therefore the (die roll dictated) consequences do not follow from the choice as presented to the players.

Either way, the GM is fudging because he has no faith in the choices made by the players. If the players play smart, and make a scenario “too easy”, they are effectively punished when the GM pumps up the opposition.  Likewise, when the GM makes things easier to prevent an “undesirable” outcome, he makes smarter play irrelevant while simultaneously deciding which outcomes are desirable and which are not. He narrows the range of the game to a very few possible outcomes.

There are three basic arguments that arise from the “pro-fudging” side of the debate:

1. Fudging allows the GM to keep “the story” on track.

This, of course, assumes that there is a single story that must be kept on track, with a known beginning, middle, and end.  It is a fallacy, for example, among some GMs that every module has a known beginning, middle, and end.

In reality, events in a game without fudging are a story only after the fact.  If you have determined the middle and end beforehand, then what do you need players for?  How can something where the players only occasionally get some minor input into what occurs be at all the same as a game driven by player decisions?

Let's take, as an example, a lovely outing against a Hill Giant Jarl. There is definitely a beginning, but what the middle and end are no one can say until events play out.  Do they find a way to burn the giants out?  Are they cautious and clever?  Do they tip their hand early, and end up facing the giants en masse? And the end....do they find the route to the next module in the series?  Do they learn where to go by using speak with dead upon the Jarl's decapitated head?  Do they give up and run away?  Do they all die?

Even in a ten room dungeon, how do you know ahead of time that Room 10 is the end?  Perhaps there is a TPK in Room 5.  Perhaps Room 7 is so scary that the PCs give up and seek greener pastures.

Every published module has a beginning. Every published module has a lot of potential middle. Every published module has a lot of potential ends. If you know the middle and the end before you start playing, then you might as well be writing a novel.  In fact, the very difference between player choice mattering and not mattering may be summed up with whether or not there is “the” middle and “the” end.  And, as soon as you start lopping of ends (“Can't have a TPK in Room 3!”) to meet your idea of what “the middle” and/or “the end” are supposed to be, you have moved away from doing anything like what I am doing with the game.  The further you go down that road, the less this is “style” and the more it is substance.

Note also that there are game systems that give bennies allowing outcomes to change.  Many of those games give those bennies to the players, allowing them to choose when to alter the dice, thus allowing them to choose narrative paths by regarding context and while keeping potential consequences in mind.  This is different, in my mind, to GM fudging, because there is no attempt to create an “illusion” that choice matters; instead, another layer of choice is being added.   There is no “the story” before the fact; the story is what happens at the game table.

In essence, this argument supposes that a player-decision-driven sandbox and a railroad are two “styles” of the same thing.  I reject this supposition, and contend that they are two different things.  There is no reason for the GM to keep things “on track” unless there is a track to follow.....and I would argue that such a “track” destroys the core strength of a P&P game, which is the interplay between context, player choice, and the consequences of that choice.

You might as well be playing a computer game….and it is notable that computer games attempt to emulate that interplay of context, player choice, and consequence as far as they are able.  That this is important, and considered desirable, by a large segment of the gaming population should be made obvious by its adoption, in so far as possible, by other gaming industries. 

Indeed, if tabletop games were just Resident Evil when Gary and Dave set pen to paper, without the fancy graphics, I very much doubt that there would be a tabletop rpg industry today.  Computers can do it better.

2. Fudging allows the GM to re-balance encounters when they seem unexpectedly unbalanced.

Although this is addressed somewhat above, I would like to note that the perceived need for “re-balancing” is often the result of player choices, which have made the encounter easier or harder than the GM expected.  It is, specifically, removing the effects of those choices.  Changing the encounter or fudging the die rolls in this case absolutely removes the value of player choice, for good or ill.

Another common rejoinder is that the GM is fudging to ensure the outcome desired by the players.  But if the goal is to ensure an outcome that is desirable for the players, why not let them make that decision?  Leave it up to them to fudge their die rolls, and fudge their current hit points?  The answer is obvious – because it changes what the game is. It is not just style.

Any game that makes changing the die roll an overt choice, with limitations as to how that choice is implemented, empowers choice at the table. I am all for that. My game of choice (Dungeon Crawl Classics) uses a Luck mechanic that allows players to adjust their own die rolls, for example (or, in the case of halflings, die rolls of your friends as well).

Conversely, any game that attempts to make you believe that your choices matter, while the GM secretly fudges events behind the scenes to reduce the impact of your choices – whether by changing die rolls or otherwise – dis-empowers choice at the table.  It is the same problem that would occur with players being allowed unlimited ability to fudge rolls and hit points at the table; it changes what is being done at the table, and it is more than just a change in style.

The funny thing is, whether or not the GM’s fudging is of benefit is very easy to test.  I would encourage any fudging GM to instead put that power in the hands of the players, in the form of Luck or Fate points, or what-have-you, and then discover when the player wants the dice to stand or not.  I will guarantee you that 90% of the players I have encountered – in two countries and several American states – are happier to have that decision in their own hands.

The GM is plenty empowered – determining the context and what choices are available, as well as the range of consequences – without having to fudge anything.

A final rejoinder is that the GM cannot always balance encounters “properly”, or take every eventuality into account, and therefore should fudge die rolls to maintain fairness.

I don't believe that at all.  It is noteworthy that the “eventualities” that the GM fails to take into account are the decisions of the players, and the consequences of those decisions.  Changing things to revert an encounter back to the “expected status quo” is intentionally nullifying the choices made by the game’s participants.  In my opinion, the GM should be making it possible for the players to worry about balance.  It is up to the players to determine when they are in too deep, and to take appropriate action.

This does not mean that the GM need not do his best to make a playable environment for the game, but it does mean that, having done his best, the GM should not then fudge to ensure that his expectations for how encounters will play out are met.  It also means that, so long as the GM includes context by which player decisions can be made, it is possible to include encounters that are “unfair” if the players make poor choices. 

An excellent example of this can be found in Sailors on the Starless Sea (By Harley Stroh, for the DCC system), where there is a creature which can be easily bypasses, or which can easily kill over half the party if they fail to understand the clues providing context.  I have run games using this module where both have occurred, and the players had great fun under both circumstances.

It is, therefore, incumbent upon the GM to help make the context, and possible consequences, of choices available to the players.  It is not incumbent upon the GM to fudge encounters.  And, again, if the GM really feels that he is unable to do this properly, it is always better to put some form of “fate points” in the players hands, so that their choices matter, rather than remove the effects of their choices from behind the curtain.

In my experience, sooner or later, players always realize that the fudging GM isn’t really the Great and Powerful Oz.

3. Not fudging is being a “slave to the dice” or a “dice fetishist”.

This one is easy.

If you don’t want to consult the dice, don’t roll them with the intent to consult them.  If you don’t want something to be random, don’t make it contingent on the outcome of a die roll.  There.  Done.  You don’t need to be a “slave to the dice” in order to stop fudging.

Sometimes, in order to preserve the contextual information of the players to a level appropriate for their characters, the GM will want something to appear random when it is not.  For example, when a thief is checking for traps when there are none.  Not rolling is too good of an indication that there is nothing to find.  So, yes, you can roll the dice without the intention of consulting them, and still not be fudging.  If, however, you are rolling the dice with the intention of consulting them, and then decide to ignore the result because you don’t like it, then, yes, you are fudging.  And, also, either you should not have included that as a potential result, or you should not have consulted the dice.

The “dice fetishist” rejoinder is laughingly easy to respond to, because no one is suggesting you be a “slave to the dice”.  Simply don’t make random rolls if you don’t want randomness.

There is always, of course, the possibility that you are the type of GM who wants to fudge, because you want to preserve your storyline, or because you worked hard on an NPC or encounter, and you don’t want luck or good planning on the part of the players to ruin your shining moment.  If that is what you want, and you can find even one player that goes along with it, or is actively pursuing it, that is the kind of game you should run.

But I will not be playing in it. My response is a firm, but polite, “No thank you”.  And I do not believe that it is a difference in “style” – the farther you walk down the fudging path, the more you are doing something that is very different from what I am doing.  And that, my friends, is a difference in substance.

Fudging: I Fail My Will Save (Shoulda Fudged?)

I make two broad assertions: (1) playing with fudging is a difference in kind (not merely style) from playing without fudging, and (2) fudging is not a good solution to the problems that pro-fudging people usually claim it to solve.

In examining arguments here, I point out that there is a problem with how the discussion itself is being "fudged". I do contend that there is potential harm in fudging, and I do think that any pro-fudging position that purports to address the material honestly is going to have to address that factor.

Answering these questions demonstrates a willingness to engage honestly; it does not answer the broad assertions. It may provide data that does help examine the broad assertions, however. In a poll on Dragonsfoot, of 112 respondents, 55% prefer that their GM does not fudge (41% strongly), but 14% did say that they prefer fudging (2% strongly), so if your group consists of that 14%, and especially if your group happens to consist largely of that 2%, not fudging may harm your game, and you will have to take that into account. Those people would, undoubtedly, hate my game.

But, to the degree that the polls discussed here reflect the norm, the odds are in my favour. If Ulan's poll is reflective, and over 40% of GMs fudge die rolls, including combat die rolls, and 55% of players prefer not to have these rolls fudged, there is a large enough spread that everyone might simply line up nicely. We have no way of knowing from Ulan's data how many GMs might be suitable for that 55% of players who prefer no fudging, or especially for the 41% of players who strongly prefer no fudging, because he is not only looking at fudging in the poll, so other material (such as house rules) skew the data.

As to (1) determining what is a difference in kind (not merely style) is a subjective evaluation. Dogs and cats are both mammals, and they are both living things. They are both kept as pets. Is keeping a dog a difference in style or kind from keeping a cat? Are the animals themselves just different "styles" of mammal, or different kind? What about coyotes and wolves? Do you want to cut "kind" off at class, order, genre, or species?

This is no different than examining whether or not different editions of D&D (or related games) are different versions of the same thing, or different things. In both cases, the evaluation is subjective.

As to (2) if you are not fudging to solve the problems that pro-fudging people usually claim it solves, then the reasons why these specific claims fail shouldn't affect you. If you want to argue that pro-fudging people do not claim that they fudge to solve those problems, it is easy enough to find discussions of fudging (including in this thread) where those claims come up.

Or perhaps you take exception to the claim that choosing to accept the result of a die roll does not make you a slave to the dice?

Or do you take exception to the fact that I strongly prefer no fudging, and believe that it makes for a better game? Because I do strongly prefer no fudging, and I do believe that it makes for a better game. While it is certainly true that the type and degree of fudging are important in determining how it may affect a game, I don't believe that fudging does not affect a game. And while one may make a claim that fudging is just another form of GM fiat, and that I am okay with GM fiat in general, it does not follow that I am okay with any form of GM fiat. I would not recommend "Tiamat First" dungeon design, for instance. Nor is "I can do worse than X, therefore X is okay" a valid argument in my book.

(Obviously, I also disagree with Frank Mentzer's assertion that giving these ideas consideration is going to harm your game.  Whether you agree with me or not, thinking about these things is more likely to help your game than anything else.)

Frankly, in the series of posts (blog and forum), I should not have let myself be drawn down the rabbit-hole of ever-finer distinctions.  The point was never "Your game will suck if you fudge!" - and that is a straw man which is easy to burn.

crossposted, with slight alteration, from http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=63701&start=420#p1514721

As a player or as a GM, no fudging please

Every so often, the old question rises again:  should the GM ever fudge?  In examining this question, I am going to define fudging as changing the outcome of die rolls, or the meaning of their outcome, during the course of actual play.

It is pretty easy to understand what is meant by changing the outcome of die rolls:  If you roll 2d6 for damage, and 12 comes up, but you say “10” instead, you have changed the outcome of die rolls.

Changing the meaning of the outcome works like this:  The opponent had 12 hit points, the player rolled a “12” on damage, but rather than have the meaning of the roll (opponent dies) play through, the GM changes the opponent’s hit points, or gives him a special ability, or does something else behind the scenes so that the opponent does not die, but can follow a script which more closely adheres to the GM’s expectations or idea of “fun”.  The meaning of the roll’s outcome within the context of the game has changed.

People can fall on either side of the “fudging” debate, and many people are divided in how they feel , but I have never encountered any single instance where I think the game would be improved by fudging. 

Some debunking:

"Now it doesn't matter what I roll!"

Not fudging makes the GM a slave to the dice.

No.  The GM chooses when the dice are rolled, and chooses what dice are rolled.  The dice are still a tool; the only thing that changes is that the GM is firm in his decision to use that tool and brave enough to abide by the results, even if they throw him “off script”.

Fudging is the same as prep work.

No.  Prep work – including “on the fly” decisions that the GM has to make to supply unexpected information within the scenario – is part of world-building.  World-building presupposes a world in which the players can make decisions, and world-building within the context of a game presupposes that those decisions matter.  Prep work supplies the context for decision-making, and has nothing to do with fudging.

Fudging is a good tool for developing GMs to learn the trade.

I strongly disagree. 

Consider a case where the GM decides that Trap A does 3d6 damage, and that 3d6 damage is rolled with a result of 18 against a character with 14 hp.  In this particular case, having the PC die is not “on script” for the GM – it throws his “plot” off the rails.

In the case where the GM does not fudge, he learns to adapt to new situations, and he learns that throwing the plot off the rails is what players do.  It is what makes their choices meaningful.  He also learns that he needs to consider the possible effects of anything he throws into the game – if he does not want PCs to die from a failed save, for example, he should not include save-or-die effects.  By seeing the outcome of unexpected game events, his understanding of what can happen is increased.

In the case where the GM fudges, he learns that changing the die roll can keep his adventure on the rails, negating the effects of player choice.  He learns that prep work is not really important – he can just change stuff mid-stream.  He does not develop anything outside his comfort zone, as game events cannot take him there, and he reinforces his “plot” over the tapestry of context, choice, and consequence which the game becomes without fudging.

I only fudge when it is important.

Then you are fudging at the worst possible time.

When it is important is when player choices matter the most, and you are removing the ability of your players to have their characters succeed or fail by those choices.

I only fudge when it is not important.

If it is not important, why not let the roll stand?  Why are you even rolling at all?

It doesn’t hurt the players if they don’t know.

Consider trying to learn chess, where your uncle keeps letting you win no matter how poorly you move.  If you think your uncle is doing his best, it might make you think that you are a great chess player.  But it will quickly prove otherwise when you play someone who isn’t handing you the game.

Did your uncle’s “kindness” in letting you win help you or hurt you?

So too with the fudging GM.

It’s the same as when you roll a die to make something appear random when it is not.

No it is not.

Imagine a scenario where the GM knows there is no secret door, and rolls the die.  The meaning of the outcome (no meaning) is known prior to the roll.  The GM is not changing that meaning.  The GM is not changing the roll.  No fudging is occurring.

It’s my game and I can do what I want.

Yes.  Yes, it is.  And if you can find even one player who wants the same thing, you should play the game that you want to play.

But let me quote Mr. Joseph Goodman, if I may, on page 314 of the Dungeon Crawl Classics core rulebook:

• Always roll your dice in public.  "Let the dice fall where they may," as the saying goes. The players will learn fear, as they trust in the objectivity of your combat encounters.

• Let the characters die if the dice so dictate it.  Nothing is as precious as a PC's life when it can be taken away -  and nothing is so unchallenging as a game where the players know the judge will not kill their characters.

Wise words, in my humble opinion.

Obeying the Dice

Recently on Facebook, I came across this post by Frank Mentzer, which reflects upon this blog post.  While the blog post is too long to quote in full, both are worth reading, and I suggest that you do.  Clearly, Frank Mentzer believes that a GM can and should fudge the dice, and can run a "player character" in the same milieu in which he is GMing.

Frank writes "Some good points are always made, but every one of these commentaries incorrectly presumes one vital point: Yes, some DMs ARE good enough to avoid the negatives that are described. Some DMs can and DO ignore die rolls (for the right reasons), and some can and do play a character (for the right reasons)."

I don't think that any one of those commentaries (and I assume he would include mine as well, as we have butted heads before) assumes that some GMs are not good enough to get away with it, merely that their game would be better if they did not.

The problem here is that, while Frank asserts that some DMs are good enough to avoid the negatives described, he offers no practical solution to those negatives.  Nor, in fact, does he offer any evidence to support that claim.  Nor does he answer the obvious logical problems with a position that a person with full knowledge of a situation has when attempting to play from a position wherein gaining knowledge of the situation is a primary goal.  This is not dissimilar to the player who wants to read the module before playing, because, yes, some players ARE good enough to avoid the negatives of doing so.  In fact, the problem is exactly the same:  the person, while playing the dissociated game, pretends to play the associated game.

(Add to that the problem of fudging die rolls, and decided aforehand that you want certain outcomes to occur, and the question begins to arise quite quickly whether or not the "DM PC" is especially favoured or the only one that the GM feels uncomfortable fudging for.  Either the GM fudges for his PC, or does not, at points where fudging only benefits that PC.  That silence on what occurs in these cases is all that one hears is not surprising.)

What we get continually are comments like "Your inexperience is showing; a good game master can have both. (Sorry you've never seen a game that good.)", which are an attempt to argue by authority rather than from a reasoned perspective, and "Sorry, I don't exist to obey dice." which is a straw man argument.  If you decide when to to roll the dice, what dice to roll, and what the various outcomes will mean, following the results of the dice doesn't mean that you "exist to obey dice" but that you have knowingly added a random element.  If you are unable to then use that random element, which you knowingly added, and still have a fun game, perhaps you shouldn't be so certain that your definition of a "good game master" is as firm as you would like to believe.  Or, maybe, when you roll the dice, you don't do it knowingly, but that still doesn't make you a good GM.

The point is not that Frank Mentzer is a bad GM.  The point is that he is making a lousy counter-argument.  Indeed, his counter-argument is meaningless in terms of actually countering the argument he presents it in opposition to.

I am no where near as absolute in my thinking as the writer of the blog post.  It may be true that "some DMs ARE good enough to avoid the negatives that are described."  I, for one, tend to believe that some GMs are not skilled enough to make a game work without fudging dice, and if you are one of these, then you should fudge...because that really is the best you can do.  I also believe that, so long as you can get a single player, you should run whatever game you want however you want.  But neither one is an indicator of quality.

The closest we get to a reasonable position is "From this POV, if you follow the rules and the dice produce an encounter that will wipe out the entire party, then you wipe 'em out. That's the rules of the game.  But the game is supposed to be Fun, and that's not. So I fudge it."

I wonder what game Frank is playing where rolling an encounter automatically wipes out the entire party.  I have never played it.  In fact, I have never played, on either side of the screen, an RPG where such a thing was remotely true.  I can just imagine the response to the GM who says "Sorry, guys, I rolled an encounter with 200 orcs.  You all died." without any input from the players as to how they handle the encounter.

If you have ever played in such a game, I am fairly certain that the problem is not that the GM didn't fudge his die rolls.

The line of thinking which makes "choosing to roll the dice and then following the results" is "existing to obey the dice" is actually similar to writing a scenario, and then determining that following your dungeon notes makes you a slave to the written word.

Likewise, in the comments, some have likened this to relegating the GM to a computer, which is utter nonsense.  In a computer game, the computer can only respond to players following pre-programmed responses.  If 200 orcs are encountered, and that encounter can only be responded to by fighting, then, sure, there is a problem.  But the problem is not in the 200 orcs, but in the way the computer can respond to the choices of the players in reaction to the encounter presented.  IOW, fudging the die rolls to eliminate encounters that you previously allowed on the encounter table because you cannot imagine how the players can respond to them without a TPK, and because you cannot respond to the ideas of the players in a way that keeps the game moving, you might want to reconsider whether the non-fudger or the fudger is responding more like a computer.

Which is not to say that a TPK is a "bad" or "unfun" outcome, even when it is the result of a random encounter.  I would have a long, hard think before I determined that an encounter that wipes out the party is not "Fun", and I would have a long, hard think before I determined that "Fun" was the be-all and end-all of all game play.  The limits we impose on our failures are also, perforce, limitations imposed on our successes.

"Some DMs can and DO ignore die rolls (for the right reasons), and some can and do play a character (for the right reasons)."

I look forward to the post that explains exactly what these right reasons are, and why fudging the dice and trying to run a PC ('cause no one is arguing that the GM cannot run an NPC) are the best solutions to whatever problems these reasons arise from.  But I expect that I shall not be reading such a post any time soon.  It is easy to explain the problems caused by fudging dice; I have yet to read anything that supplies a benefit to fudging dice that does not break apart on even surface examination.

"[E]very one of these commentaries incorrectly presumes one vital point: Yes, some DMs ARE good enough to avoid the negatives that are described."

No.  Every one of these commentaries correctly presumes one vital point: While some GMs may be good enough to avoid the negatives that are described, the odds are good that you are fooling yourself if you think that you are one of them, and the odds are even better that it would still improve your game if you didn't fudge or play DM PCs, even if you ARE that good.

Fan Expo 2014

Photos courtesy of Toronto Area Gamers

As previously mentioned, I was scheduled to run three games at Fan Expo 2014, having been asked to volunteer by the wonderful folks in the Toronto Area Gamers.

On Friday, I was scheduled to run The Imperishable Sorceress, which had been published as a Free RPG Day adventure by Goodman Games in 2013. On Saturday, I was scheduled to run The Arwich Grinder, which appeared in Crawl #9. On Sunday, I was scheduled to run The Thing in the Chimney, which was initially available as a free adventure for Christmas 2012, and then made a part of Perils of the Cinder Claws, along with a sequel adventure, by Purple Duck Games for the 2013 holidays.

Friday went well, with a TPK occurring in the cold halls of Ivrian the Unkind. The players failed to listen to Ivrian’s instructions, and the cleric attempted to invoke divine power to deal with the first demon. And failed. They also failed to obtain almost all of the treasures that could have helped them with the adventure – being initially afraid even to touch the magic sword. With very little oomph left to the group, the survivors perished when they met the waspmires on the face of the Cleft Mountain. Still, it was fun.

Saturday, I started with five players, but one was taking care of a baby. One should not take care of a baby and play in The Arwich Grinder. He bowed out when they reached the attic. Of the remaining 16 0-level PCs entering the funnel, 14 were still alive when we were warned that the room was going to close about 45 minutes before the game was scheduled to end. They had just begun to examine “Hell on Earth”, so they might not have done as well if we had continued. Still, it was amazingly impressive, as the dice showed the game’s Judge no love, and player caution prevented them from doing anything truly stupid. And it was a lot of fun. Letting the dice fall where they may, if nothing else, ensured that the players knew how exceptionally lucky their 0-level PCs really were.

Sunday, I didn’t have enough sign-ups to run through The Thing in the Chimney, but last-minute players allowed me to run for a foursome. They burned through the adventure, avoiding most of the potential combats, but all dropped when a pair of hands came from the chimney. “You are drawn up into the chimney, one by one. There are some crunching sounds. Then your boots fall into the ashes.” Lovely. Especially in contrast to the humorous tone of the rest of the scenario.

Because there was so much time left, I ruled that the fruitcake helped them (because the halfling ate it all), giving each 2d6 hit points back, and allowed them to face the Cinder Claws himself. Yes, this was a fudge – but it was also a fudge in a one-shot game, where everyone knew it was a fudge (no lying about it!) and agreed to turn the clock back. They also knew what the “real” events had been.

In the ensuing battle, two PCs dropped again before the Cinder Claws was defeated. When rolled over, after being dragged through the portal, they were discovered to be dead. A fruitcake can only do so much.

But the players had burned through the adventure so quickly that I still had half the time left. And they were asking if I had another scenario on me. Having the core rules, I had them generate three 0-level PCs each and ran them through Joseph Goodman’s The Portal Under the Stars. It was well received. In the end, two new “heroes” emerged from the adventure site, and they were the two who ran.

One of the players then asked if he could join my weekly game. This was a young gentleman who had never played DCC before, but who really liked the pace of the game. A lot of things can happen, and you don’t always know what they are going to be!

NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS

I was recognized from having run other DCC promo events in the past, which was nice.

You can, apparently, be voted MVP by the other players if you do a good job role-playing being cursed with a desire to eat human flesh.

The big draw this year seemed to be 5E, but Pathfinder retains a strong hold on the Toronto crowd. I didn’t see anyone playing older edition games, which was a bit sad.

The Goodman Games swag program continues to surprise players. I was repeatedly forced to tell people that, really, they could have that mechanical pencil, that button, those bookmarks, that graph paper, etc., because the publisher provided it to me to give away to players.

It was very kind of the Toronto Area Gamers group to invite me to run games this year, and I would certainly be willing to do so in the future. Next time, though, I will be running all-new never-before-seen material, and players willing to chance their PCs’ fates on the dice and my gentle adventure designs may be able to gain playtest credits as a result!