Dice fudging is the most unforgivable action a GM can make.
If the DM want something to happen, because of the story, because the player did something creative or reasonable, because it would be better and etc, he should just say: "That happens." No need to roll unless you're ready to keep the thing going on the direction the dice says it goes.
Dice fudging is bad GMing. Any game that encourages it or even rolling dice behind the screen is BAD.
All dice rolls should be OPEN for all to see and thrill in the anticipation, pondering about the possible outcomes that fate will decide.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Meanwhile 3/5 of my players don't even know how to calculate the dice mechanics and need roll20 macros I wrote to roll for them.
You're a dying breed old man.
This is basic respect for your players. There's no greater wrong than lying to a man's face.
homosexual.
You are playing alone while pretend to include your friends that don't even respect you enough to learn their part and do it themselves. Your "help" and automatization foster apathy and entitlement. You waste your time and get nothing from it but being tired.
Agreed.
How? Please explain. I ask sincerely.
Why is the first thing fudgers say always something like this?
>well all my players are morons
>well all my players cry when anything happens
Find a playgroup that isn't special needs chilldren then?
I bet you 10 dollars that none of you play any games, or actually care about this issue.
Open rolls encourage metagaming.
How? Like perception rolls? Those are a different breed of moronation. Perception rolls may work as reaction rolls (like "roll perception to see if your character notice at the last moment" or "the room is flooding, roll perception to see if you can spot the mcguffin before it's too late") but any kind of active examination of a scenario by a character should only work with a fixed result (much like the 3.5e rule "take 20").
How about if the character is sneaking across a field covered by snipers or artillery spotters? How can he be sure that he hasnt been spotted? The enemy might be waiting until friends join him before opening up on him, or until he gets closer. If you let him know the success by rolling in front of him, he might decide to metagame, knowing if the enemy has spotted him or not, something that he would not know.
It's most obvious on perception rolls. When party walks through a hallway, there's open peception roll with a low result, and you tell them they don't notice anything extraordinary, chances are they will start searching the place thoroughly to find out what they've missed.
To lesser extent applicable in everything else. First attack roll is 19 and doesn't hit? Players will immediatelly start freaking out. But three consecutive misses on low roll make them at worst mildly annoyed.
I have never had that problem. If my p
rolls go bad, my players will happily let their characters walk into trouble.
Then again, I play with close friends, not random homosexuals I don't even like.
>It's most obvious on perception rolls.
See
>chances are they will start searching the place thoroughly to find out what they've missed.
Assuming the gm adjudicated a perception roll for a low stakes search, why on hell he should allow more rolls without any ulterior cost? Like exponential loss of time and progressive negative adjustments (the character is sure he searched well enough at the first attempt).
>To lesser extent applicable in everything else. First attack roll is 19 and doesn't hit? Players will immediatelly start freaking out.
Yes? Why this is metagame? The character has the first hand way to figure out the difficulty of the encounter in that case.
>Why this is metagame?
If character shouldn't know how well they've searched the room, they shouldn't know how well they've swung a sword.
Because...?
The skill contest (sneak vs perception) gets adjudicated only when relevant (eg: the pc tries to pass through a relatively open field) and thus with immediate resolutions.
>Because...?
Consistency. Either players can be trusted not to metagame (or you just don't care) and all rolls can be in open, or they can't and none of the rolls can be open.
>Consistency
Why? Aside from the fact that i prefer differentiate perception rolls this way
you can still seed uncertainty even with the classical procedure:
>PC asks to inspect the room and gets adjudicated a perception roll to which gets a very low result
GM: "it takes you about 15minutes to look around but you can't find anything worth of notice. It seems strange though, you have an eerie feeling of wrongness, maybe there's more on this room than what meets the eye... or your mind is playing tricks on you, what do you want to do?"
>If the player asks to press on searching
GM: "this may take double of the time you employed before and a -2 to the roll, your character already has approached the end of his wits in figuring out if there's actually something wrong or not in this room"
Even if the player doesn't get a satisfactory roll you already anticipated the potential metagame and diverted into immersion through doubts inception.
Nta but you don’t really know how well a strike landed irl either. Sure, you have a general idea but mostly due to the opponents reaction or visual effects, which could just be described.
>But three consecutive misses on low roll make them at worst mildly annoyed.
Man, what players do you play with that only get 'mildly annoyed' at this? I've heard so much whining and b***hing and players getting angry about dice rolls across so many different games. To some degree I even understand it - it doesn't feel good to be stonewalled from accomplishing anything just because the dice don't turn up in your favor all session.
>All dice rolls should be OPEN for all to see and thrill in the anticipation, pondering about the possible outcomes that fate will decide
Dice don't determine outcomes, the GM does. The dice determine which outcome the GM has is the result.
The screen is there to obscure information from the players, be it upcoming tokens and maps, GM notes, or GM rolls. If the GM rolls in the open, the players will always know both the die result and that a roll was triggered or possible, meaning the following is possible:
>players immediately know the bonuses a given creature has for their stats based on outcome vs roll result ("does a 24 hit" after rolling an 8 betrays a +16 to hit the same way asking their AC after a low roll does, "he saves" on a 3 vs DC 13 tells the bonus is 10+, etc). while metagaming is unavoidable and in some cases even encouraged, this outright removes the option to NOT metagame, since people cannot fully pretend and act as if they don't know what they know
>rolling for unseen creatures and unknown events in the open immediately alerts everyone about something their characters would not know about, and worse, they know the general result ("what the frick was that 18 for, everyone look sharp" "oh thank god, I hope that 3 was good for us") rather than the simple omen of dice clattering behind the screen
>in the same vein, rolling initiative or some other collective will reveal the total amount of participants/affected, again making metagaming mandatory
The screen isn't there to give the GM the ability to lie, it's there to give the GM enough of a moment of ambiguity to perform their role and come up with the narration for the result. If the GM is always rolling in front of the screen, there remain fewer and fewer chances for the players to be in genuine suspense, not more chances. Advocating for never fudging is great. Claiming screens are exclusively negative to the experience? You're moronic.
You baiting homosexuals are a mess. Every game under the sun encourages the GM to set his own TNs. So what is so wrong with him adjusting them on the fly for whatever reason? Especially if it doesn't disturb the game flow? So the TN to identify salvia officials is 6 instead of 8. Whoopdy-fricking-doo.You either trust the guy to run an entertaining game or you don't. Why does everything has to be rage bait for asocial spergs?
I wouldn't consider on the spot adjustments "fudging" though, changing the result of a roll because it isn't convenient for the game flow? A minor, forgivable sin (if the gm makes the mental note of trying in not incurring in the same issue in future) stemming from time constraints (like the scene is getting struck sucking out all the available game session time) but definitely fudging, changing a result because it ruins the "plot" ("Noooo, the courtesan cannot fail the save against the pc wizard charm spell, that would ruin all my work about the intrigue plot! Not on my watch!")? Pure moronation and definitely fudging.
The result of a roll is only revealed to the players after it is narrated by the GM. That is ttrpg 101. Thus whatever adjustment happens before the narration is objectively fair game. This fudging "controversy" seems to stem from some weird antagonism some people have with their GMs which is absurd. It implies you don't want him as your GM and if that is true why is he your GM? Are you kidnapped and strapped to his table? Should we be calling the authorities?
>The result of a roll is only revealed to the players after it is narrated by the GM. That is ttrpg 101. Thus whatever adjustment happens before the narration is objectively fair game.
How this contradics what i stated?
>This fudging "controversy" seems to stem from some weird antagonism some people have with their GMs which is absurd.
It stems from the current revival and misuse of linear story adventures/campaigns in games hardly designed with that in mind (eg: d&d). The rulesystem hardly fits that kind of game so the gm is forced more then often into adjusting rules and results to scenarios per se but that made the misconception that the gm SHOULD ALWAYS do what the frick he wants something fair (which isn't). Rule zero exist in service of the game (filling blanks, reworking ambiguities, modifying the game, resolving stales), not to service narration.
>How this contradicts what i stated?
It doesn't care about the reason the result is adjusted. It doesn't even care If the result is adjusted. If it happens before narration it's cool. Thus "fudging" doesn't really exist.
>misconception that the gm SHOULD ALWAYS do what the frick he wants something fair
No one says that, ever.
>Rule zero exist in service of the game not to service narration.
The fact that you think that narration is not an integral part of the game leads me to think that you should pick up your rulebook of choice and check the What is a Table Top RPG section. Usually at page 4 or something.
>It doesn't care about the reason the result is adjusted. It doesn't even care If the result is adjusted. If it happens before narration it's cool. Thus "fudging" doesn't really exist.
Cool, so why roll? Either you have a range of results you deem appropriate and want it to be randomised or you know beforehand what the result should be, therefore the roll was moot to begin with.
>misconception that the gm SHOULD ALWAYS do what the frick he wants something fair
>No one says that, ever.
What? Aren't we right now in a fricking thread about this argument?
>The fact that you think that narration is not an integral part of the game leads me to think that you should pick up your rulebook of choice and check the What is a Table Top RPG section. Usually at page 4 or something.
Narration is handled differently depending on the game, some lean more on the emergent aspect of it and some other are designed with more control on it rulewise.
>Either you have a range of results you deem appropriate and want it to be randomised or you know beforehand what the result should be, therefore the roll was moot to begin with.
Or adjusting the results can be an exception and not the rule or it can use the roll result as base to adjust, both cases need the die as a starting point.
One could even say that adjusting results is part of the strengths the game has because it runs on a human brain and not a machine.
>What? Aren't we right now in a fricking thread about this argument?
No? The op clearly states that any and all adjustments to rolls are bad practice. Not that constant( or an x amount of) adjustments invalidate dice rolling, which is a different argument.
>narration is handled differently depending on the game
Yeah so what? It is always an integral part of ttrpgs and if rule zero is there to serve the game it is also there to serve narration.
>Or adjusting the results can be an exception and not the rule or it can use the roll result as base to adjust, both cases need the die as a starting point.
My point is that isn't the case. You only get to fudging because you fricked up something as a last resort solution, trying to elevate it to a good practice and not as a temporary patch not to be abused is what lead to these arguments to begin with.
>No? The op clearly states that any and all adjustments to rolls are bad practice.
Clearly i don't concur with OP (which is an hyperbolic homosexual as always), but it also calls into question the opposite hyperbolic situation (the GM going freeform because rules don't matter)
>Yeah so what?
You have clearly different starting point and frameworks depending on the game you pick
>It is always an integral part of ttrpgs and if rule zero is there to serve the game it is also there to serve narration.
My point is the rules inform the game and the game informs the narration, changing a rule and being consistent about fits in that hierarchy but changing rules at whims (to satisfy situational narrative occurrences) breaks it.
I don't roll dice.
>A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make. - Gary Gygax
Fudging doesn't exist.
Gary was wrong.
>Dice fudging is the most unforgivable action a GM can make.
I do not require your forgiveness.
Had a GM once who did this whenever he felt a given player was doing "too well" in combat. It was very obvious and served no real purpose other than to make his mind-numbingly boring combats even more of a slog - his early combat encounters were good but as the campaign progressed it quickly became apparent that the only way he knew how to escalate combats was to throw more basic mooks into the fights and to double, triple, or sometimes quadruple their hit points to make them all obnoxious hit-sponges.
Probably the worst campaign I've ever played which is a shame because the first couple sessions were pretty promising.
you sound mad
The dice are a tool. Rollling the dice is a tool.
Keeping the players invested in the story -- whatever that story may be, a hex crawl or a political ccampaign - is incredibly important. "Orcs jump out" is worse than "dice roll, orcs jump out."
>roll 18 on Perception
>"you don't SEE anything"
As a GM I can summon additional NPC forces, I can keep the hitpoints of enemies vague so they can press out one last attack before they bite it, i can make up a secret second or third boss phase.
All of these are much more potent for "directing" the adventure without having to straight up lie to my players.
So I kinda agree with OP. For a newbie GM fudging offers an easy solution to situations he didn't account for but ultimately they sour the agreement of fairness between GM and player.
Personally I stopped rolling "behind a screen" because I play online with friends and changing the visibility settings bothered me too much.
Also the hyped reaction when we all wait for the outcome of a roll made by a difficult enemy is much more engaging than me telling them "you lost."
>Never fudge
>Player rolls 1 below target
>Entire table now acts as a legal department trying to explain how the player actually has a +1 to their roll and I owe them this in compensatory damages
>I am glad I am playing the game with honesty and integrity
Animosity towards ambiguity is a symptom of moderate to severe autism.
Clearly your strawman issue is autistic/immature players and not adherence to the rolls and rules, try again with a better case scenario anon.
Real, frequent, happening at my table. The secret is we enjoy it because we're playing a game together to have fun, and a part of that fun is arguing over outcomes.
That's why you're playing, right? For fun?
Watching your DM turn into the world's shittiest liar after he rolled up enough d6s to kill your character if they all landed on a 2 is not fun.
Truth be told, lying is a very important GM skill.
I always fudge die in the players favour and do meaningless perception checks to gaslight the party into feeling cautious. I also never prepare my games past daydreaming about it. It is scary how easy it is.
Remember that you're not talking to an autist posting in good faith, anti-fudgegay is a shitposter farming (you)s and he has done it many times before:
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/91682331/
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/91326444/
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/80902322/
>roll a critical against a player
>they force a reroll and I get another critical
>"well, they still hit you but you negated it being critical"
I think its pretty cool if this makes you mad I guess.
You make me glad.
>action a GM can make
>if the DM want something to happen
SAAAAR DO NOT REDEEEM DO NOT!!!! POOPERPOWER 2020!!!!
Lissen, all I'm saying is that fudging dice IS metagaming.
You prepare the encounters before the session, you write down stats for creatures, rewards, positions and everything else. You allow players to PLAY what you prepared AS YOU PREPARED. If the thing is in the room 5, and they need to find it, you don't put in the room 4 because they never went to the room 5. IF THEY CHOOSE TO NOT GO INTO ROOM 5, THE THING IS LOST FOREVER.
Games shouldn't rebalance mid-session, for the same reason players can't rebuild their character sheet on the fly.
That is a game.
This ambiguity mess of retcons, reflavors, rebalancing and dice fudging is just PRETENDING TO PLAY A GAME. Its pure, unadulterated railroad storygayging. The whole quantum ogre is unbridled cheating!
I don't want to explore what the GM think that "should happen now" for the sake of "fun". I want to move in a map in all possible directions on my own decisions, kill monsters or befriend them as better as my own character sheet choices and rolls allow me, loot treasure and deal with NPCs as I see fit.
The GM is to provide a consistent setting, not a "story". If through my choices and open rolls, I meet my own demise, I have no one to blame, I'm at peace. It's fine! I make a new character and try better.
But when something happens because the GM "felt it should happen", I'm livid. Its PREPOSTEROUS.
Anyway, thanks to you all.
>dice fudging thread twice a day, every day, for weeks
I'm so tired of this. Nobody cares. Not even you care. It's why you posted an exaggerated image.
>no you don't understand I have to cheat
>you don't play games, if you did you would know you can only play them by cheating
RPGs are a joke not even TCG players are like this.
You taste of spam.
>the fudgetard cries out as he spams at you
>Please, please stop noticing I post this thread every day
PSA: you're not talking to an autist posting in good faith, anti-fudgegay is a shitposter farming (you)s and he has done it many times before:
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/91682331/
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/91326444/
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/80902322/
Black person, why didn't you post this in the Fudging general?