Not Fudging It

[Falconer]

Winging It is where you decide (“on the fly”) what die you or someone else needs to roll and what the die results would mean—decided before the roll.

Fudging It is when you roll something but decide not to abide by the result of the roll.

Some “Modern RPGs” are built upon the principle that the DM should Fudge It (to serve the story), yet shouldn’t ever have any reason to Wing It.

Obviously OD&D is all about Winging It, but one thing that I find really fun is Not Fudging It. That way, I get to “find out what happens” just as much as the players do. That way, if a player character gets killed, it’s not because I don’t love them. That way, if the player characters succeed, it is because they were smart and have good rolling-fu, not because I made sure of it.

Does that make sense?

[Deleted]

Absolutely, & I agree whole-heartedly. I "Wing It" all the time--it's just easier than taking time flipping through a book or cramming your head full of useless rules. Keeps things movin'.

And I never fudge. Ever. IMO, it's not fair for anyone involved. This is a game; you get what you roll--for better or for worse. Keeps everything grounded, & yes, I enjoy finding out what happens too!!!

[korgoth]

Agreed also.

Now, when rolling stuff up for the game in advance, like randomly generating an area or rolling for treasure, I can ignore the dice at my discretion. I don't consider that "fudging".

I think when we talk of fudging, we're really talking about combat and other dangerous situations where the DM alters the dice to get the outcome he wanted in advance (usually, the PCs winning/surviving).

I think fudging is bad because the DM is really deciding what the 'story' is in advance and he's going to make sure it happens. I think the story is what everybody can tell afterwards about the adventure. If Bucky the Halfling got eaten by a giant frog, then that's the story (a comedy). If Bucky barely survived and clubbed the thing senseless with his torch, then that's the story (a tragedy). If the giant frogs lost initiative and the party's mage fried them all with a fireball, then that's the story (melodrama).

[WSmith]

Winging: Good

Fudging: real men don't fudge dice rolls. That's what makes the game unpredictable, and in turn exciting.

[greentongue]

It helps if the rules have a reroll mechanic to avoid one really bad roll killing the character.
However, if everyone has agreed to play with rules that don't, so be it.
=

[Finarvyn]

I guess I'm not a Real Man, then.

Maybe it comes from gaming with my family rather than a bunch of wargamer friends, but I'd rather not have characters die very often and occasionally I'll fudge a roll in order to keep them from an early death.

Also, if they're winning a battle too quickly and I want to draw out the suspense (often in the final encounter) I'll fudge a little to keep the bad guy alive just a little longer. Just to make the situation dire and the players sweat.

My rationalle is this: who decided how many hit dice for the monster? Me! What if I picked poorly? Suppose I decide that the final baddie will be 4 HD but the party scores some critical hits early on. Is it better to let them win too quickly or to boost the HD of the monster in order to make the battle more interesting?

While I agree that it's fun to be surprised, it's really the players' story and I hate to ruin it.

Just my two coppers.

[Zulgyan]

I wing it a lot.

I tend not to Fudge it.

But when a player had done some really good roleplaying, has used clever tactics, has made everyone have fun and STILL due to some very unlucky rolls or circumstances, he's about to die, I feel so sorry that I can't resists Fudging it.

It's rare, but I do it. And in complete secret. Sort of a reward for good play.

I don't fudge in favor of a "story". I got none really. The story builds itself. I just fudge in favor of a good player. Not all the time, but I do it when the destiny the dice prescribe is too unfair with the good play he demonstrated.

[edsan]

Vila le Wing, down with le Fudge.

admin said:

I guess I'm not a Real Man, then.

Don't worry mate, they have drugs to help you deal with that these days. ;D

admin said:

If they're winning a battle too quickly and I want to draw out the suspense (often in the final encounter) I'll fudge a little to keep the bad guy alive just a little longer. Just to make the situation dire and the players sweat.

I'm sorry my friend but this is the sort of thing that has make me vow never to play with Fudge-GMs again.

If I come up with a good enough strategy to defeat your Ubber-Boss of Doom down at the 10th dungeon level; and the dice rolls say I pull it off...

Then by Gygax beard! I *WANT* to pull it off.

I won't accept having the boss last for 6,7 or 8 rounds just because you "want to make me sweat".


Just my two pennies.

P.S. - BTW, I just joking about them drugs

[Finarvyn]

Oh, if they have a good strategy and all I won't stop them from winning. After all, it's not a "DM against the players" situation. I just slow 'em down a little, that's all!

[greentongue]

admin said:

I guess I'm not a Real Man, then.

Maybe it comes from gaming with my family rather than a bunch of wargamer friends, but I'd rather not have characters die very often and occasionally I'll fudge a roll in order to keep them from an early death.

Also, if they're winning a battle too quickly and I want to draw out the suspense (often in the final encounter) I'll fudge a little to keep the bad guy alive just a little longer. Just to make the situation dire and the players sweat.

My rationalle is this: who decided how many hit dice for the monster? Me! What if I picked poorly? Suppose I decide that the final baddie will be 4 HD but the party scores some critical hits early on. Is it better to let them win too quickly or to boost the HD of the monster in order to make the battle more interesting?

While I agree that it's fun to be surprised, it's really the players' story and I hate to ruin it.

Just my two coppers.

This is the purpose served by the "Bennie" mechanic in Savage Worlds. Bennies allow rerolls. Both players and GM get a limited number of them.

This removes the _need_ for Fudging as a mechanic is included to account for bad rolls (or too good ones).
=

[WSmith]

admin said:

I guess I'm not a Real Man, then.

Sure you are. You play OD&D, don't ya?

Maybe it comes from gaming with my family rather than a bunch of wargamer friends, but I'd rather not have characters die very often and occasionally I'll fudge a roll in order to keep them from an early death.

In a game where CharGen takes a while, I can understand why a GM would wnat to do this. I have done such back in the day too. But now, I stick to games that making a character in 5 minutes is the norm. I actually like when a player runs "Richard the Fighter the III" cause the I and II died a heroic death. Yes, I am sick.

Also, if they're winning a battle too quickly and I want to draw out the suspense (often in the final encounter) I'll fudge a little to keep the bad guy alive just a little longer. Just to make the situation dire and the players sweat.

Humm. That actually might not be a bad reason. Me personally, I would just throw another monster at them. But I see what you are saying.

[makofan]

It's interesting in my play-by-post game that the players have no clue what I have rolled. SO what I do is I work out exactly the sequence, like this:

Party rolls d6 for initiative, Monster rolls d6 for initiative
If Party wins, they attack in this order (list them) then apply damage in same order
If monster wins, roll randomly for target, then a d20, then damage if hit, then saving throw for character (fighting a spider)

Then I know I'm not favouring anybody, and I just roll the dice linearly and apply them as I get them. No fudging whatsoever

[doc]

I wing it more often than a bluejay on amphetemines.

I generally don't like to fudge, but I am not comfortable with a well-played character perishing just because of one bad dice roll. If the player does something bone-headedly stupid and the dice decides it is his time, then fine. But I want the option to say that a character is merely unconscious if he came up with a good plan that just didn't go off because of a bad roll. I have found that when DMs "take no prisoners," it leads to players who are afraid to take risks. And that's no fun for anybody.

Doc

[Finarvyn]

Clearly, some feel that fudging rolls is never good. That's fine, and there are some campaigns I have run where I let the dice fall where they may. Often those games are run without the screen, with the dice on the table so everyone can see everything.

However, in those more secretive games, wouldn't you say that the secret is to mildy fudge rolls without players knowing you do it? After all, if they know it's being done then it ruins the fun because they feel like you "let them win" or "made them lose". That's why I don't do it often and try to pick just the right times -- that way players never really know it's happening.

[ffilz]

The problem is that eventually the players will figure out you fudged, or they will suspect it. And suspecting it, or wondering if that last success was due to a fudge, is if anything more destructive than outright knowing the fudge is happening. It puts every success into question.

And if the GM is fudging to make things harder, then it really throws the whole game into question.

Now I know some players do prefer or enjoy the results of fudging, but as I have thought about fudging more and more, I see less and less value to it.

Now that isn't to say that occaisionally you may need to be up front and make a change. There are rare occaisions when a player will be devestated by failure. In those circumstances, it may be appropriate to look for a way to soften or override the failure.

Frank

[Stonegiant]

One argument I hear allot from people about reasons to fudge dice rolls has been "They thought everything out, the planned for everything, etc.". My only problem with this argument is that history shows us many examples where people, groups, and even nations have planned for something and things have gone horribly wrong at a seeming whim of fate and it is this fickle maiden that is represented in the dice rolls.

[edsan]

I believe the core of the issue we have been debating on this thread is not "to fudge or not to fudge" but the importance of the gaming social contract.

Clearly wing-fudge is an issue which divides gamers; arguments have been brought forward in favour and against both choices.

What is relevant IMO is that every gaming group recognize the importance of determining how they addressing this before play begins. So that individual players don't feel cheated/ripped off.

i.e.: While chargening the GM sits with his players and asks "So guys, what type of game should this be? Can I fudge dice at will or should they fall where they may."


A big no-no that has not been addressed yet, but which I have personaly experieced...more than once, is when the GM makes dice fall where they may but exceptionaly fudges only for a select few players...in which is girlfriend tends to be included.
This sucks major-time, I had some of my worse gaming experiences in groups like these where instead of having fun you *really* feel you are being ripped off.

So, we should point out the necessity of sticking to the "rule of the law" after the group determines wether they are playing a fudge or a wing campaign. Both gaming variants have their merits and flaws. It's really a question of personal taste.

[greentongue]

Again I bring up the concept of allowed selective "Fudging" by the use of "Bennies".
This mechanic can be graphed on most games.
Giving players and GM tokens to exchange for rerolls and/or automatic successes.
=

[korgoth]

greentongue said:

Again I bring up the concept of allowed selective "Fudging" by the use of "Bennies".
This mechanic can be graphed on most games.
Giving players and GM tokens to exchange for rerolls and/or automatic successes.
=

Just putting in my personal preference, but I don't like "bennies". The chance of success was whatever it was... if you missed, then you missed. It just seems to be a way to sneak in "script immunity" for the PCs... but I object to having a script in the first place.

It doesn't help matters that the DM gets to use bennies as well... after all, when does he re-roll? When it's "dramatically appropriate", I suppose.

YMMV.

[greentongue]

The idea is to remove the "One Bad Roll Killed __" from the game. Then it becomes more about the choices made and less about the fickle dice.
=

[korgoth]

greentongue said:

The idea is to remove the "One Bad Roll Killed __" from the game. Then it becomes more about the choices made and less about the fickle dice.
=

I understand. And if it works for your game, that's cool.

I guess I just like there always to be the prospect of acerbic or meaningless death for the PCs. It creates a different tone. "The armies of the hill men were routed, their warlord slain, and the party breathed a collective sigh of relief. Then Ravencloak was slain as a parting arrow struck him in the eye." I don't think that anticlimax is necessarily bad, especially if mordant.

[crimhthanthegreat]

I wing it all the time, as for fudging it, I won't say I never do, but it is quite rare. Since I have probably killed off somewhere in the neighborhood of 6000 characters, I doubt if too many people could find too much fault with the times I have fudged it.

[makofan]

Man, I love the non-script approach. I have a weird 3-way confrontation in the dungeon right now, and by using the Reaction table I got some results that astonished me - I would not have chosen the courses of actions that the groups took. The fun is now trying to deal with what the dice roll gave.