I once fudged a roll as a player and i still feel bad about it 5 years later

You keep saying I'm wrong to laugh at your juvenile outburst, but you can't seem to elaborate on why. All you can do is spout buzzwords and be angry. Which, honestly, only makes this funnier.

>things I never said
I know it's easier to win arguments when you can put words in other peoples' mouths, but in reality the only person you're beating is you. By definition, you are the loser in every argument you have with yourself.

>so angry at being proven wrong that he can't even come up with coherent insults
Your earlier work was better.

What on earth are you talking about?
I swear you people are just polbots, repeating whatever bizzare insult your peers have invented on any given day. Do you even read the posts you reply to, or is your reaction just instinctive now?

I'm willing to accept that fudging *is* a *type* of cheating, sure, but the fact of the matter is that fudging as a concept exists because the GM is fully within his rights *to* actually "cheat", but we tend to use different terms to differentiate between sanctioned actions and illegal ones.

Like I said, I find fudging detestable, even though I am a kind of GM that plays fast and loose with any ruleset, but the distinction is still there. But the OP, as a player, cannot, by any definition, "fudge" dice; it is straight-up cheating, no ifs or buts or two ways about it.

Dude, you don't need to samegay. I don't think I can keep up with having to quote 2 posts to laugh at every time

That was my only post in the thread, anon. Take your meds.

>See, I don't understand this sentiment. "If you don't ignore the rules whenever it's suddenly convenient or serves the story, you must only play dungeon crawls with no roleplaying!"
>How do you even reach this conclusion? There's nothing between A and B.
People on the spectrum don't enjoy roleplaying, in fact you find it uncomfortable.

>People on the spectrum don't enjoy roleplaying
This is a fact. All autists should unironically get the rope. They can't wrap their heads around non-formulaic and asymmetrical gameplay, which is ultimately the foundation for roleplaying games, no matter how many rules we shake at it, and the autistic mindset is caustic and will corrupt any and all attempts to play the games in earnest, demanding unceasing specificity that will then be leveraged into absurdity and used to demand increased specificity, and so on, ad infinitum.

[...]
are the redditors in the room with us right now anon

Shut up Black person. You cheated at a game, and that's all there is to it. Keep coping

tl;dr

Tldr is: stop having ADHD you sõy addled homosexual.

We're going to note that down as a yes.
Now, how is it that the redditors are hurting you? Can they touch you or is it more about their words?

>Shut up Black person. You cheated at a game, and that's all there is to it. Keep coping
Yeah he cheated at a game, that doesn't automatically make him a troony.

>lost back in the 2000s,
You are both clearly children thinking that history is another world. The fight against people playing the way you dislike was lost in 1976, by Dave Arneson.

>ignores the rules
>blames other people for cheating

>they only cite "rules" and "fun" and "reality" because they
don't play games.

I think as much or more fault probably goes to the other players tbh.
One of them moves like molasses when they want something to happen in-character and the other is simply not very attentive. It was a cool idea that I think the people involved just couldn't really follow up on.

Because the thing the players at that moment want the most is the roll to be good. Its an act for the players.

As were mine. Yours show a distinct unfamiliarity with the subject matter that I suspect is feigned in order to entice internet strangers into calling you a moronic homosexual, however.

Why fudge at all then? Just don't do it.

Why fudge at all then? Just don't do it.

It's really easy to spot the people that only play videogames.

I know the way I play the game is great and I know you play the game rarely and it is shit. Because if it is not communal storyplaying and it is just numbers crashing videogames are better so no one who plays games like you would ever pick the tabletop over the videogame.

Do you do everything you do 100% or 0% of the time?
Do you pee sometimes or are you always 100% of the time peeing. You seem insane.

Don't worry anon. It's fine to be unprincipled and undermine the one thing in the game that's allegedly meant to be impartial, because nobody will ever find out he's unprincipled, so it doesn't actually matter!

You seem offended. I sure hope you are because offending midwits is usually a sign you are doing something good.

I am not justifying anything. I am just telling you why I do it because I think it is good advice.
>>Has to make math rocks do the clicky clack to build fake tension he's just going to lie about anyway
I mean yeah. Any fictional good story has some fudging. DnD is no different
>Like, I recognize there's no point in arguing this
Why would I come to a discussion board if I wouldn't want to discuss it. You are not the brightest.
>we clearly aren't playing games the same or for the same reasons.
I mean if I would run a super munchkin min-max frick roleplay this is a videogame session with people like you I assume I would never fudge either.
Don't escape discussions on a discussion board. Give me good reasons why fudging is always 100% wrong without even knowing the context.

I don't understand why you gays had to be dishonest weasels for several dozen posts and acted like you were genuinely asking questions when all you wanted was confrontation since you are offended people smarter than you can adjust the game
Any houserule you ever used is the same kind of cheating.

>See, I don't understand this sentiment. "If you don't ignore the rules whenever it's suddenly convenient or serves the story, you must only play dungeon crawls with no roleplaying!"
>How do you even reach this conclusion? There's nothing between A and B.
People on the spectrum don't enjoy roleplaying, in fact you find it uncomfortable.

Because autistic people that are fixated on something that doesn't matter, the platonic notion of the sacred sanctity of random dice roll, don't like roleplaying.

>because to 100% follow the rule without a single houserule or anything is a sure sign you never roleplayed ever. Those are videogames.
Literally nonsensical. And of course I hosuerule shit, but you know what? Once I write it down I follow it, I don't randomly change shit in the middle of the session because "oh no muh storee!"
>That is insane.
Why? Why is it insane to let the impartial mechanism of the game whose rules you agreed to when you sat down remain impartial?
>All dnd is fake tension.
And I'm the autist? How do you even conflate "Knowing the outcome has impartial stakes," and "The scenario is fictitious?" Are you okay? Does the barrier between fiction and reality work for you?
>Because that genuinely is just you sitting there and ignoring player agency
So telling the players what happened based on their input into the fiction is ignoring their agency
But rolling dice first, lying about it, and telling them what you were going to anyway, wow, that's real agency?
Holy Christ you're moronic.

>that is fudging.
Not by any definition of it I have heard expressed anywhere, ever.
>I think you are terrible and I know people don't enjoy playing with you.
Solely, solely, based on the fact that I don't change dice results. That's it. That is literally all you can say for certain I do different from you.
You will notice that I have not asserted anything else about any of you or how you run your games. Just that I feel like lying about the dice for any reason is deleterious to the experience. That is all we disagree about so far. This alone is enough to make me an autistic nogames, no RP, 100% videogamer powergaming munchkin schizo, a nonsense tirade of buzzwords that halfway fricking contradict each other.
Because I have had the fricking temerity to assert that I think it's shit to fudge dice. That is it.

Because autistic people that are fixated on something that doesn't matter, the platonic notion of the sacred sanctity of random dice roll, don't like roleplaying.

You can believe whatever you like

>We play with the houserule "Tip the scales" By which the gm can once per session add or subtract 1 from a roll without telling the players.
That sounds like a really shit houserule.

>that means as a dm when rolling dice you never root for any result.
Oh I absolutely do. Combat's fricking nailbiting because I don't want my players to die, and I have no idea what will happen. Is someone going to fall off a cliff, or bash a door down in time? Who knows, that's what the rules are for. If the outcome is uncertain, we roll dice.
If it's obvious, we don't.Do you roll dice to open unlocked doors just to 'maintain the illusion it could have been locked?' No different.
>So you don't give a shit. You treat it like an emotionless videogame.
I treat the rules as impartial because, this may shock you, I too want to enjoy the uncertainty afforded by them. I don't want to know what's going to happen in situations the rules call for dice rolls over. I have plenty of room to roleplay within the rules otherwise, I have npcs to play, I have enemies tactics and morale to consider, and the scenario to set up and arbitrate, and a million other things. Following the rules for impartial/uncertain things doesn't detract in the least.
>We disagree about so much more. Fundamentally what the job and what the point of this game is.
You know, I'll step back from being mad because now I'm curious.
The point of RPGs, as my end of the culture plays them, is to present a fictional world and play actors within it to our best understanding of those characters. Following their motivations and personalities to their logical conclusions within the scenario presented. The GM's job in this is to operate the world and its non player inhabitants, and to arbitrate the rules as impartially as possible to best simulate the world so the players can agently interact with it, confident in its internal consistency.
If I'm going to alter the rules, it's going to be to patch up holes in the facade, not to play favorites with the actors within it.

Before I go and answer this, why don't you tell me what you think the point of the game and GM is. Fair's fair, guy.

>The GM's job in this is to operate the world and its non player inhabitants, and to arbitrate the rules as impartially as possible to best simulate the world so the players can agently interact with it, confident in its internal consistency.
NGL, this literally describes a videogame engine.

You can't do whatever you want in a videogame. You can't play the character you want, and the scenario doesn't react to you. Nor can you play the world in a videogame in reaction to other people. Why is engaging in roleplay and creative improvisation suddenly none of that because the rules of the game you're playing were also obeyed? If you unironically think following the rules makes it a videogame, why are the rules here? What are they for?

So yes, we're completely at odds, as I said way back up in

>Has to make math rocks do the clicky clack to build fake tension he's just going to lie about anyway
>Everyone else is the midwit
I mean, I don't cheat at fricking games 100% of the time, yes.
Like, I recognize there's no point in arguing this because there's a cultural gulf here and we clearly aren't playing games the same or for the same reasons. And ultimately, as we'll never deal with each other at the table, who cares.
But you're still wrong and a homosexual.

and you called me a homosexual for just admitting the obvious.
I'm here to discover what happens to these characters as they operate in the world. If I wanted to tell a pre-decided story I'd write a fricking book.

So the promised response:
>No wait oyu said you can't imagine any situation. So no you don't have these moments where you root for them
Nonsensical. Not declaring the outcome I wanted doesn't mean I didn't want that outcome. I'm not writing a book.
>Like a videogame.
If you don't want uncertainty in your game, again, why are there dice? Do you just like the clicky clack sounds, anon?
>What if the logical conclusion of a huge character arc is completely killed by a dice roll?
Then it is. The story now progresses in a different direction. We find out what happens next together.
>That can happen.
No shit? That's why we're playing a game, so things somewhat outside our control can occur. Otherwise I'd write a fricking book.
>The logical conclusion often can be completely killed with a bad or too good roll.
If it's so logical it couldn't be any other way, don't roll the dice.
>The players could just run all the NPCs collectively
True. There are games that work that way. Nobody I knows likes them. because the GM's job is to do that. Not to...I still don't understand your point, guy. If the GM's job isn't to run the world and NPCs, and it isn't to enforce the rules, what the frick do you DO?
>More insistence that writing rules is fudging
Man, the authors of the game we're playing did a 400 page fudge, holy shit.
moron.

>If you unironically think following the rules makes it a videogame, why are the rules here? What are they for?
Following the rules doesn't make it a videogame. Following the rules no matter what makes it a videogame.

And yet nobody has managed to provide any example of when the rules fail so badly they shouldn't be followed except "A character could die when I really don't want them to."

If you don't want uncertainty, don't roll. The only people that get fooled by fudging are people new to the game, and once they catch on they'll start to notice every fudge for what it is.

>If you don't want uncertainty, don't roll.
I do that. But I want uncertainty.
Even with fudging there is uncertainty. Again I only fudge one number at most. So if I roll two to high or low then that failure goes through.
again there is never a roll that completely didn't matter.
There are just some that a small minimal fudge tipped the scales a little.

>But I only want LIMITED fudging...
Play a better system then. Even though we both know this isn't true and you just can't break a bad habit.
Protip: Everybody knows when you do it.

>It works well
It doesn't. Everybody can see when it happens, and they're probably second guessing the legitimate rolls too.

>You aren't going to find a system that works perfectly 100% of the time Mr autismo.
EXACTLY. That is why you find a dm who on the fly fixes the small problems.

Depends on the circumstances. If the percentages were a problem then it is fixing that problem.

Most of the time fudging is in response to very particular situations that even the DM didn't see coming and would have changed the rule preemptively of he did.

Some small problems are easier to fix than others. Let's take a random encounter on the road to a big set piece. I don't want for the PCs to risk their life but I still want the encounter to be an obstacle that can drain them of resources, make them waste time or have a dozen other kind of consequences like some monsters escaping and raising the alarm. Problem is most systems still allows for a chance, even if very small, of utter failure and death.

So I could painstakingly rebalance the entire encounter and alter mechanics so that death is an impossibility, but this would involve a bunch of math and a lot of adjustments. Or I could simply fudge that 1/800 chance of player kill if it happens.

It can apply to most systems except for the most narrative ones however

>If you don't want uncertainty, don't roll.
I do that. But I want uncertainty.
Even with fudging there is uncertainty. Again I only fudge one number at most. So if I roll two to high or low then that failure goes through.
again there is never a roll that completely didn't matter.
There are just some that a small minimal fudge tipped the scales a little.

>If the only outcome of the roll is wasting time, just don't roll.

If you had actually read what you quoted you would have known that I wanted the skill roll to have the "Succeed" and "Succeed very well" outcomes, while not caring for the "fail" outcome. So the roll still had value.

Literal ESL gibberish at this point.
I'm glad you're having fun with your friends.
I'm also glad I will never fricking encounter you in a game.
Stay assblasted, control freak.

>Why are you so dishonest that the one fudge in 1 out 10 sessions invalidates all the other rolls.
It's not dishonest, though. If your rolls can't be trusted, all you rolls are indeed invalidated, because they have no meaning anymore. This is especially true if you're fudging in specific circumstances, meaning that every time those circumstances come up, you're going to fudge and it will destroy the element of chance.

Fudging is bad not because "muh cheating", but because it undermines the integrity of the game and the position of the gamemaster as arbitrator.

>100% binary thinking
It's not binary at all, it's literally the opposite, you absolute smoothbrain. It's about establishing a pattern of suspect behavior that undermines the validity of everything you do, because everything you do becomes inherently suspect. It's no different from trusting someone to watch your bike, because it's fine, he only steals 10% of the bikes he watches. You absolute buffoon. You irredeemably mongoloid.

If you're not a trustworthy person, you cannot be trusted. This is not "binary thinking", it's the truth.

>The GM's job in this is to operate the world and its non player inhabitants, and to arbitrate the rules as impartially as possible to best simulate the world so the players can agently interact with it, confident in its internal consistency.
NGL, this literally describes a videogame engine.

That's simply untrue. See the example here

Generally, because they're new GMs and they havn't learned what they should roll for.
It can also make up for some really bad luck. Say the group has been RPing for the last 45 minutes and the combat guy is starting to look bored. You nudge them towards a combat encounter for him but due to some really high rolls, his character would be one shot on the first round before he even gets to act. Fudging the rolls so that he simply takes a large amount of damage changes it from him being bored and having to sit out what he was looking forward to to a tense high stakes tactical situation that he loves.

It can give agency to players that would otherwise have none.

No, he won't die instantly through no fault of his own, nor will he know I knocked off a few points of damage.

>Why put him in a fight
Because the true agency is not fudging with the world and the setting and the circumstances that led players to be where they are

So if I set up a room full of goblins you think fudging it so the room is suddenly empty so the player wont storm into a fight is fine. That fudging is totally fine. But fudging adding a single digit to a role is too far?

>. If you put combat guy in a fight
I didn't put him there. The fight was there and he got there
I can't just fudge the fight away. That would be like fudging 200 rolls.
>then why did you set the fight up that way in the first place?
The fight was just there because the world isn't built specifically for that one player.

So you believe in fudging. In world creation and in playing. Just not in dice.

>But that's what you're doing when you fudge rolls.
No. You fudge way more if you change the consistency of the world. Your fudging way more by switching fights and the world having it evolve around the players like its a videogame.
>Okay, then let him die.
I can have the best of both world and you would sacrifice that for nothing?
>You're really stretching the definition of fudging.
yes what you are doing is way more than just fudging. It is way more intrusive and way more against player agency. Fudging is too nice a word. You are railroading.

>Oh, like when someone gets into a dangerous fight and the GM decides they can't die regardless of rolls?
What do you mean regardless of rolls? He can always die.

I can't fudge a 20 to not hit him. That would be a change. Fudge is something like a 15 to a 14

>Those are both fudging.
No fudging by definition is a small change.
The smallest possible.
That is why we use the word fudging and not just change
> What guarantee do I have that it's just a point either way?
You have zero guarantee.
So you better watch your gm at all times and have your eyes glued to their dice

again context matters. We could just use change. But fudge implies a minimal change.

Who here assumes fudge means completely ignoring the roll? I wanna see someone who genuinely thinks that. That person is either dishonest or moronic.

No. Again at most I change a 15 to a 14
Its never more than 2.

I didn't ignore the number. The number was within the range.
If it were a 16 or 17 that would be too much too fudge.
so I didn't ignore the number.

Because you lack the experience. You think fudging is just ignoring rolls because you never actually play this game or really dm

>The degree doesn't matter
That we seem to disagree on.
If you think changing a 1 to a 20 is the same as changing a 14 to a 15 then I will disagree with you
both as a DM and as Mathematician.

do you really not see the difference

If a 15 is a success and I changed a 14 to a success I only changed the chance of success from 25% to 30%
5% change
if 20 is a success and you change a 1 to a success then you changed a 5% chance to a 100% chance
that is 95% difference

5% is a lot smaller than 95%.

The percentages don't matter because you aren't using them by fudging. You have decided the outcome regardless of what the math says. How do you not understand this?

>I want the player to succeed, but I rolled a 14
>I'll just say they succeed anyway!
Is the exact same as
>I want the player to succeed, but I rolled a 1
>I'll just say they succeed anyway!

Mathematics don't account for GM fiat.

>I have decided 2+2=9 today
>Mathematics will absolutely support this decision!
Yeah, okay.

Of course that's different because you're changing the target number instead of altering the result.

No it fricking wasn't, you were explicitly changing the die result.

Changing the target number by X is literally the same as changing the result by X.

Giving a +2 to a roll is the same as lowering the CD by 2 which is the same as considering the roll a success even if you rolled 2 under the CD.

I think the main issue is that morons don't understand the difference between making a call BEFORE you roll the dice, and fudging it afterwards.
It's even stupider to try and pretend you're making a legitimate rules call if you're only changing it afterwards honestly.

>It's a last resort
If you have to resort to it, you're basically admitting you failed as a GM to your players. You're too stupid to work on your craft.

>By making my players care less about my game...
>I am doing my job as a GM

To prevent a result the GM didn't want that the dice dictated should happen, obviously.
Why would a GM ever need to do that though? Because he couldn't make a good call earlier, because he failed in some way.

>Or maybe it's because I'm shit and lazy

>organically.
Yes. I see no value in the organics the dice can come up over me. I am better than RNG.
Most decisions NPCs do are what I think would be logical for them to do. Not random dice rolls. The setting I am playing in is thought out. Not rolled.
You can roll everything from tables if you want. I am just better than you

>By making my players care less about my game...
>I am doing my job as a GM

Anyone who would care less is not a person i want to play with anyway. So they can go back to videogames like they truly want.

why no consequences? I often fudge for more consequences. You seem to think fudging is only for the players
I guarantee my game is more engaging than anything you ever played. Because yours is soulless videogames with no engagement
Might as well watch a random number generator and cheer for every prime number.

>No. You can never have consequences if the player, never had any actual choice on affecting the result, but it was entirely up to the GM all along.
so everything. Because it always was up to the gm even when setting up. Then that goes every game. Because fudging is no different from setting a different dc.
>Lmao no, your game sucks ass and you're probably desperate to find players,
Nope. Nice guess.
honestly the last time I fudged was maybe more than 5 sessions ago. I just feel very strongly that anyone who is against it fundamentally is shit at this game.

>Your fudging, however, has taken that away and made player choice and player rolls not matter at all.
Most situations don't have binary results Mr no game.

If nothing matters in the eyes of the players they wouldn't be playing.

I allow phones and I never have this issue. I guess my fudged game must be interesting somehow

I allow phones and I never have this issue. I guess my fudged game must be interesting somehow

>Non-argument
I accept your concession.

Who are you quoting?

You aren't? Where does this say 'forced to play'. It's called being unengaged or bored. Do you just have no friends at all?

Yeah so you're a friendless loser, got it. IRL, good friends put up with other friends faults. Sometimes that means just sitting through the boring parts of their shitty game, even when you'd rather just go watch a movie.

>good friends don't make their friends put up with their shit
Yeah good point, you aren't a good friend if you sit there boring your players by invalidating everything they do. But I guess not everybody's a good friend, huh moron?

We both know this isn't true. Good GMs don't spend their afternoon desperately trying to convince strangers that their game really is the best shit since sliced bread. But you wouldn't know that.

It literally can't because I'm not talking about my games and feel no need to insist that I am the greatest GM who ever lived to you.
>People
Why are you pretending you aren't samegayging? The reason you felt the need to bring it up is because you're insecure and can't actually argue the point.

You were the one who started whining that 'well well well my group likes it when I fudge actually my game is awesome its the best how dare you'.
It reeks of insecurity.

>to you saying players don't like it
Yes? That's a general statement, moron. Players generally don't like having their choices taken away. Railroading isn't fun.
>B-but my group likes to be railroaded...

It is absolutely true. Players like to make choices. They're not there to read a shitty novel. That's just a fact.
And if, by chance, you have a player who is an exception to this? Guess what, they'd be having just as much fun if you were giving them choices along with the rest of the table.

Yep, it is true.
>Anon they would be playing videogames
No, they'd do that if they wanted yours, a meaningless railroad where the develop- I mean GM dictates everything from start to finish and the only thing they need to do is press the prompts to move on.

Again with the binary belief that either everything is left to chance and the DM has no input beyond the setting or it's a novel.

>Buttmad when results don't come up the exact way you wanted. You might as well just write scripts
Some small scripts. Just fractions of a general story.
You don't write anything?
Do you roll for NPCs, cities, dungeons when the game starts?

So there is nothing written down before you prepare the game? No NPC names or occupations. No cities. No setting. Nothing? What are your games?
Also I rarely hand them anything. It is mostly notes.

In answer to if you do this your players don't enjoy the game. Funny how is your memory

by insisting you must be right because your players still enjoy your game
You said no players would enjoy this and they would run away from it
I have been GMing almost a decade with some of these friends.

anon if he brings up my group and tells me people don't enjoy it then I think it is fair game for me to say that is bullshit
Don't tell me what I can defend.

He literally said my players are unengaged on their phones because of my fudging
Can you not read?
He is projecting his unengaged phone players on others and you want them to just take that because what? Its not a clean argument and too far? I don't give a single shit.

HE SPECIFICALLY SAID MY GROUP IS NOT ENJOYING MY GAME
>to justify a practice as a GM
I wasn't doing that there. That was an aside.
>you're not worth bothering with.
You aren't even willing to read the thrad and read the argument you were talking about.

>you wanted to use your players to justify your practices objectively.
nope.
>I can only guess that anon hit the nail on the head when he called you out after you started this.
No. But I am happy one moron left if you are leaving now

>I'm out,

Holy frick lmao that explains it
You're literally just as insecure as I called and you're sitting here with your heels dug in because you feel like leaving would be admitting to it. What point do you have to be at you're afraid of getting embarrassed on an anonymous imageboard?

>still seething
your word means nothing
> What point do you have to be at you're afraid of getting embarrassed on an anonymous imageboard?
I love arguing. I love exposing liars. Like you just said you would be out but you are still seething. It proves how right I am. you want me to be mad but every reply you give me after insisting you are out makes you look stupider and weaker.

>It's like you think people can't see through your bullshit lmao
I genuinely love arguing.
> You're like an open book. You're mad as frick that you got called out
About what? I barely care about fudging. The last time I fudged was more than 5 sessions ago.
>just admitted you refuse to leave because you don't want to feel like you got shown up. By strangers. On the internet.
Why would I leave something I enjoy? I enjoy this. I enjoy your anger. I enjoy how much smarter I am than you.

I am having fun. Why else would I continue this? If I were as mad as you desperately want me to be then why would I continue. That is also why I think you aren't mad. You must be getting something out of this. Probably trolling or just boredom since I am feeding you

I am just stating my opinions on fudging. if you perceive my actions of replying to you as insecurity then keep doing so. I don't really care what you think

>>I'm just stating my opinions...
Yes. I am a good DM and people could learn something
rabidly justifying my behavior by using my friends acceptance of it as shields
The other poster brought up my players. I didn't.
>>And insisting my games are good to strangers
I know they are and I am proud of it. It cost me nothing to insist it to you.
>>And insisting I really don't care either
let me clarify. I don't care about your opinoin. You are a clown. You are basicaly a walking strawman
The word person to defend your side. I am using you to make my case because anyone seeing this argument sees the side for fudging is mentally well adjusted while the anti-fudgers are full on autists. So I do care a lot about the argument but only in so far that it affects lurkers who will never post. Your opinion is already established worthless.
You are probably too stupid to even understand this and you will again respond with unrelated drivel.

>Yeah no you brought up your players
nope. The other side brought up my players and I just defended myself.
Everyone can see it is still open in this thread. You are just making your side look more stupid by lying about something anyone can easily check
>your games kinda suck and you wish somebody else would DM instead,
Sometimes I do think it would be nice to let a lot of the work go and have someone else do the things. BUT I love DMing. When an adventure is great it feels so rewarding.
>and you care so much you felt the need to waste about an hour of your time justifying yourself to me.
Anon I could argue 10 hours about a movie I barely remember. I love arguing because I am good at it. Nobody reading this will think "oh yes that anon is right if you defend something for an hour that means you are wrong"
Very few people think passion is a weakness.

>The delusions run even deeper. You're talking to individual anons.
There are still clear factions. Fudge and never fudge
>Lmfao I literally read you like a book again
What? your prediction was entirely off. I am saying I still do the work because I am so good at it
you can predict the opposite and then cally ourself right
>I feel like I could reasonably guess your favorite color.
Yes I know exactly how it would go
You would suggest a color
I would say a different color
and you would go "holy shit I called it"
lmao. You just tell yourself afterwards you were right. If you weren't moronic I would think you were trying to make a point about fudging.

>Those are not factions, they are a spectrum of beliefs,
fair. It is not as binary as I presented it.
>You literally agreed that I was right
You said I wish somebody else would dm because my games suck
I said I sometimes think it is a lot of work but I still do it because it is so rewarding
I don't see how these are the same things.
That is on me for being honest about sometimes not liking the work that goes on it. Of course you can't be honest and understand it you have to twist it in dishonest way.

>Correct, and you admitted that I was right.
Nope. if you read the actual sentence you would realize that I said ultimately I don't want anyone else to DM
Its like your brain stopped working after I admitted that it is sometimes a lot of work and that I don't like the work

>Yeah so I was 100% right
Anon you were completely off. Are you really this dishonest or moronic? Do you really think you are right here?
>Now you're going to refuse to admit it because you're upset.
Anon if I wanted to lie why would I admit that I sometimes don't like the work of a DM
I am just being honest. You are clearly the dishonest one

>>You were completely off
me literally agreeing with you
I at no point agreed with you. I said sometimes when the ork is there I want someoen else to do it but ultimately I enjoy the reward of DMing so much more that I don't want anyone else to DM

Which part of that did you guess right? Because you said I want others to DM and I made it clear i don't.

I think you are just too stupid for nuance. Me saying I sometimes dread the work was not agreeing with you. Because your point wasn't that I sometimes don't like the work. Your point is that I want someone else to DM which if you read the whole thing is something I absolutely do not.

Yes. See I was just honest and admitted I do not love every aspect of DMing. I still don't want anyone else to DM. Because DMing is still very rewarding to me and worth the parts I do not like.
you took me admitting I don't like some of the parts as agreeing with you that I want someone else to do all of it
which is completely wrong

>Yeah, see you were honest there and admitted you wished somebody else would do it.
Only the work part. I then continued the thought and told you that even despite these lows I don't actually ever want someone else to DM
>The rest I don't really care about,
Its like your brain is too small for midly complex nuanced answers.

>You admitted I was right,
No ad no point did I say you were right. You are too stupid to understand the first part so let me just repeat the second part
DMing is so rewarding I don't want anyone else to do it.
You can act and pout like a 5 year old winning on some technicality but you are wrong. I never agreed with you. you just look childish

>Nah bud, you admitted I was correct
Nope. You can read the inital post a thousand times and in no way was I admitting you were right

more projection. People actually have fun and are actively watching even while it is not their turn
I can't really take credit for that as a GM But it is still nice to know your player are bored on their phone

My player as I just pointed out are polite to each other that they don't tune out when it i not their turn
I can't take credit for that though. But I never have to remind someone unengaged it is their turn
That is something I just don't have to do.

>If I was just trolling you before
hmmmm
>that you're actually insecure about your GMing.
I mean that is kind of a catch 22
if I say nothing you will attack it and say I am insecure about it and if I defend it and bring up time it was praised I am insecure

I am just being honest to a fault. I am very secure and I am sure I am a great DM.

>If it's not true, it's not even worth addressing.
That is your stance. I don't think that is true.

>>No, that's just the truth
Your truth is not my truth
>Generally, people don't sperg out unless the claim is true
Go ahead and go call people gay homosexuals in the street
according to your logic only someone actually gay will punch you.
This is armchair psychology and people are more complicated than that. Nobody likes being insulted and it is absolutely wrong that people only dislike insults with truth to them

Do you like being called a homosexual? I don't think so. And I don't think it means you are actually a homosexual.

no we already went over math. You think 1 to 20 is the same as 14 to 15. You already can't do math

But you didn't yell anything at a crowd. You directly addressed a person

>We went over the math and confirmed that you're incapable of understanding nuance or the difference between a call and a fudge,
Yes. Math is literally on my side here but you can't tell the difference

>Sorry but
Yeah like I thought you're full of shit. The truth is you would never go, let alone stay in some chatroom where you could get called out on dumb shit and have it stick with you. I bet you'll run away from there in less than a week.

I said I would do it homosexual holy shit. Just let me enjoy this moron. You know how rare it is to find someone as stupid as the anon I am posting with who is this convinced he isn't stupid
Get off my ass. I will try your stupid discord.

>Okay, fine, just don't frick up anymore threads with your autism
Only if I actually find people with the exact same brand of stupid. It is not just important that they are stupid. They have to think they are smart. They have to try and catch people on technicalities while they don't even understand why they are wrong

I need dunning kruger. I need people who are the stupidest and think they are the smartest.

that is fine. I don't think I am particularly smart and this is a normal thing to be obsessed with.

>Irrelevant shit
ok
>Defending yourself proving your guilt
Who said it was about defending yourself? It's the fact that you sperg'd out and got mad over it. You aren't at trial. You aren't being put up on display. I called you out based on your behavior, and you reacted angrily because I was dead on the money. It has nothing to do with defending it. If it wasn't true, you could have defended it by just brushing it off. But that's impossible for you because it just hits too deep.
You can't go there cause you're scared. I bet you'll never even start an argument about fudging anywhere ever again because you got so badly cornered here.

>I bet you'll never even start an argument about fudging anywhere ever again
Actually before you made that post I kinda already baited for one in a different thread. So you are proven wrong before you even posted that.

>>I-I already baited another thread...
No so far no one is biting. But it i funny that before you made the post I already did what you said I wouldn't do. I am pretending to be a player but I just wanted to bait out the fudge autists because I identified one. If you ask nicely I quote the post and show you I baited someone before

Well you must not be particularly smart as you just lied to me, as you didn't even go in the chat and are already ruining other threads.

Anon I just went to a different thread because this one poster here is too slow and the /misc/ thread were I was posting died. One thread of arguments is never enough.
and again I told you you have to prove to me that the discord you posted has people as stupid as
So far I have only your word on it which is worth nothing. I will try it out but I doubt it will replace the ease you find people like him here.

>Why don't you go in there and try starting some arguments with them?
Because I still have active threads here where I caught someone really stupid who can't stop replying
believe it or not these are not that easy to find. Even if this one is kinda slow and takes ages.

>Non-excuse, you could just lay some bait in the chat
I might or migth not. Definitely not while I still have an active moron in a thread.

>>I was just trolling bro, I'm just baiting!
Also in no way was I trolling. I stand 100% by any argument I made. I am saying they aren't biting as in they aren't really arguing.

Now you're just posturing, trying to pretend that your time wasn't wasted.

That's not even true, it offends manly-men more than it offends actual homos, christ you are ridiculous.

Can you prove this empirically?

>We went over the math and confirmed that you're incapable of understanding nuance or the difference between a call and a fudge,
Yes. Math is literally on my side here but you can't tell the difference
[...]
I said I would do it homosexual holy shit. Just let me enjoy this moron. You know how rare it is to find someone as stupid as the anon I am posting with who is this convinced he isn't stupid
Get off my ass. I will try your stupid discord.

>Math is on my side here
It has been proven factually it is not.
I like how you don't address the fact that this isn't like a witch trial or anything even slightly like it, that we're on an anonymous imageboard and the reason you're still here is because you're actually mad that you got read like a book. You can't even frick off to some gay's private shithole like you said you would, just because you're too invested in this.

>Irrelevant shit
ok
>Defending yourself proving your guilt
Who said it was about defending yourself? It's the fact that you sperg'd out and got mad over it. You aren't at trial. You aren't being put up on display. I called you out based on your behavior, and you reacted angrily because I was dead on the money. It has nothing to do with defending it. If it wasn't true, you could have defended it by just brushing it off. But that's impossible for you because it just hits too deep.
You can't go there cause you're scared. I bet you'll never even start an argument about fudging anywhere ever again because you got so badly cornered here.

yes nobody hates lies being told about them. That is like witch trials. If you defend yourself you are guilty. What a dishonest weasel you are.

So if I say you are a homosexual with a tiny penis you will agree that you are since it doesn't matter and isn't the truth anyway?

I don't think that post is wrong. Once you've fudged, you've shown a willingness to cheat and that brings the legitimacy of the game down. Ideally you should never HAVE to fudge. But even the best DMs still should sometimes.

>you think it's okay, as long as you
No? I think it's still bad and should be avoided. Do you not understand nuance, moron?

>Or are you saying that fudging is a fail-state, but that a good GM might still do it, because nobody is perfect?
Pretty much this. You don't want to ever get in a situation where you're fudging, but sometimes you should do it to make the game run better obviously.

what about group with zero fudging

>I don't totally agree with this.
So you think it's at least partially wrong.

>I think it's one of the most important factors.
That's a "yes", then, you clearly understand that other factors can be more important, and that their relative value depends on the group.

>Who are you quoting?

I don't think that post is wrong. Once you've fudged, you've shown a willingness to cheat and that brings the legitimacy of the game down. Ideally you should never HAVE to fudge. But even the best DMs still should sometimes.

>But even the best DMs still should sometimes.
This is wrong, there are times and places where fudging is never worth it, and it sounds like you understand that already. Some peoples' enjoyment hinges on the legitimacy of the dice rolls, others don't care as much, it depends on the group.

>I think there are other factors that are just as important
>just as important
>just as important
Or more important, or less important, which is the real crux of the issue that you're trying to avoid.

>but GM trust is an absolute must.
Obviously not, you have admitted that it is sometimes worthwhile to fudge, because other things can be more important than GM trust.

>You didn't quote me properly.
Then explain yourself.

>Even the best GMs will run into cases where fudging is the best option, but this only results after they have failed in some way that made that the case.
To be clear, when most people talking about a theoretical "best GM", they're talking about a theoretical GM who doesn't do it wrong, so to say "even the best GM would do it" is to say that it could be part of a flawless GM's strategy. You aren't saying that, you're saying that the best GM is still human and can still make mistakes such as this one, right? But that's still wrong. I've played with people who would rather face a TPK than live with a fudged die roll, so have you, you know this.

>Some have higher standards, some do not.
lol

>You can appeal to both groups by being skilled enough to not create situations where fudging is necessary.
This directly contradicts your statement about how "Even the best GMs will run into cases where fudging is necessary". Incidentally, it's also a false statement on its own merits, you can dismiss fudge-friendly players as "having low standards" but you can't just ignore their existence.

>a dm who would never fudge is no dm at all.

That's dumb, but it basically just means that you've only played among illusionists, you don't know what it's like to live and die by the dice.
You're probably more reasonable in a lot of ways than this other guy, but he clearly sees both sides. He sees there are groups who depend on fudging and he sees there are groups who depend on non-fudging, but he can't admit to both of these things at once or else he'll have to see that it's just a matter of taste.

You know the random hit chances in Fire Emblem? Like, when it tells you you only have an 80% chance of hitting, so you get worried about what you'll do in that 20% case? It's fudging, the game actually rolls 2 d% and takes the average, so you actually have a 96% hit chance. You do you mate, you can always concoct some essentialist argument for why you're playing D&D and others aren't, but it's way easier to fudge in a videogame than it is as a gamemaster.

isn't**

Fudging is making a decision you don't always make and adjusting a rule so it is better for whatever you think

a game does not make this jugement ever
>just changing something arbitrary like the target number isn't fudging
no that is also fudging.But actually change it. Your FE example is no change. It is a fixed way the game is programmed.

That's just a handicap. You can absolutely have a rule in an RPG rulebook that does the same.

It makes a decision it doesn't always make and adjust a new rule for so it is better for whatever it thinks.
Therefore, it is fudging.

By this definition circumstance bonuses are fudging

Computers do 'think' though, and we already have artificial intelligence in games, so yup. It would be fudging. And so would circumstantial bonuses by this definition.

Just as important is what I said, yup.
>Obviously not
Nah, trust is indeed a must. Tarnishing that trust is generally bad.
>Then explain yourself.
I already did in the post you linked to.
>To be clear, when most people talking about a theoretical "best GM", they're talking about a theoretical GM who doesn't do it wrong
When I say the best GMs, I refer to actual people, so no.

>I've played with people who would rather face a TPK than live with a fudged die roll, so have you
I can't say I ever have. I've been through a few TPKs, but that was either a result of stupidity on the party's part with no real way out, or some very poor decisions on the GM's part that left no alternative beyond retconning the entire session, which I actually did see happen before.

>Fine, it's a "Must", but there are other "musts"
Of course, that's what I've already said.
>Trust is the biggest "must" for some groups, in which case fudging is never worthwhile
On this, I disagree. 'Musts' are contextual, and can change based on not just the group, but what they're doing, what session it is, what events have transpired, and so forth. So saying it can never be worthwhile is wrong.
>and it's a much smaller "must" for other groups, in which case fudging isn't a fail-state, it's just part of the game plan.
This is also totally incorrect. Fudging is always a result of a lack of foresight and a roll being made and having results that weren't dictated beforehand. For example, if I were to ask my players to roll a 10 or higher, and they roll a six, and then I say 'Well, actually, I'll allow a 5 or more', I have fudged because I was inaccurate in guessing the results I would find acceptable. But if I simply allowed a 5 or higher beforehand, it would not be fudging.
And if I wanted it to succeed no matter what, I wouldn't have them roll to begin with, which is also not fudging.
>that's completely different, right? That's not talking about real people at all
No, it directly is talking about real people and how they can be appealed to.
>Christ, really?
Why, yes, most people would avoid the party being TPK'd by something if a single fudge could prevent it. More often the case is one where multiple fudges, or a very large fudge that goes beyond changing the result of a single die roll though, and in my experience most players wouldn't find that as acceptable, and would obviously find it far more noticeable, than a single fudge.
>You explained nothing of the sort.
Oh well, I guess that sucks for you then.

>So real people can be skilled enough to not create situations where fudging is necessary?
No.

I was a different anon. if the other anon thinks it is is possible then he is as moronic as you are
sorry should've made that clear that I was a different anon

>Never seen this either. Neither is true beyond all doubt. Both could in theory exist, just as an ideal GM could exist, and that ideal GM would ideally never need to fudge.

To be clear, this is your way of saying that other preferences (other than your, extremely specific, "fudging is a fail state but it is an unavoidable fail state" position) don't exist in the real world, or that they have the same theoretical existences as the perfect DM (whose existence you categorically rejected by claiming that even the best DMs have to fudge sometime), right?

>Nope.
Your categorical rejection of the existence of all other perspectives leaves you with an enhanced responsibility to define your own. Are you saying that every group should fudge sometimes (in response to GM failure), and also that every group should regard fudging as a fail state (not simply an accepted part of the game? Or are you saying something else?

>What these statements come together to say is that across the spectrum, we can look at both ends of the extremes:
lmao, it means I caught you in a hard contradiction. I don't expect you to admit that you're wrong, we can just move on.

>(i.e, fudging someone's grade, or fudging the numbers in your taxes)
yes different thinks
chocolate fudge is also something different in case that is your next question.

"Fudge" is used in the same sense as "bullshit", where feces is a metaphor for untruth and fudge is a euphemism for feces. You're welcome.

>ideo games are programmed by humans
true
but those humans aren't sitting watching over my shoulder and judging me case by case if they should fudge something or not
that would be fudging
The video game doesn't take my current mood or what I enjoy into consideration

>The video game doesn't take my current mood or what I enjoy into consideration
No, anon, that's what the game designers did.
"Fudge" is a slang term, you can assert that it means anything and I can't really prove you wrong, but I think you can tell that you are being silly.

>No, anon, that's what the game designers did.
Game designers didn't. they don't know players have different moods
are you insane?
>but I think you can tell that you are being silly.
I am not trying to make this about semantics
I just use fudge to what it feels naturally
an incredibly tiny "nudge" to some numbers that is slightly tipping the scales
I feel like if you want to argue it is math tricks or other bullshit you have a weird definition of fudge

>If I play Fire Emblem it's because I'm in the mood for crunchy turn-based tactics.
That is not the point of mood you moron
there are different moods where an outcome would be fine
how do videogames ever make decisions like GMs?

>ou're saying that you are sometimes too grumpy to handle failure
Extreme example but yes essentially if that makes you understand the difference
> anon, a game can't read your mood on a day-by-day basis and choose the right experience for you
EXACTLY
Meanwhile I would argue that is the job of a GM. Reading the mood of the entire room
>Remember how this started? When you said that the only real DM was the one who fudges, because videogames can't fudge?
Technically this argument is mainly about what is mroe like videogames
Remember you wanted to argue taht videogames fudge. Do you concede that they really don't?
>he central point there is that tabletop games are defined by real-time interaction
Exactly
Random number generation of dice is the msot boring aspect. And easily better done by a videogame
if it were just about being a slave to random numbers then videogames are better
the good thing about a DM is his ability to fudge
he can invent an encounter somewhere the players want to go that wasn't planned (that is fudging)
the players can come up with an insane move that he has to come up with a DC for (that is fudging)
Any change or addition to the game that wasn'T previously written down is essentially fudging
and yes he can on the fly decide to change a 14 to a 15

fudging is any change or addition
If you fudge it so the encounter is 3 goblins instead of 4 because your group was more hit in the last encounter then that is fudging
its not just rolls
almost all a dm does and change and add is fudging

>changing a 15 to a 14 is not fudging when it iis a number of goblins
>changing a 15 to a 14 is fudging when you change the DC of a check

That is a moronic definition. But if you want the second one is also vital

that is a moronic definition even if it were the accepted one
even if every single person but me uses that then they are all moronic. I gladly be the galileo here on this. I am right

Also changing DCs is essentially the same as changing rolls so if you are fine with that I just change the dc

>To be fair, I've heard DMs say that they decided mid-sesson to "fudge" an encounter, by increasing or decreasing the number of monsters. They had a certain encounter planned with certain numerical parameters, but then the PCs arrived at that encounter with more or less resources than was expected, so the DM fudged it.
That is fudging yeah. I think it is fine although I think I think fudging a roll is less intrusive
>if the PCs unexpectedly go somewhere so you unexpectedly improvise an encounter that's not fudging,
If you didn't plan anything for a place they went and it isn't entirely empty void are you not fuding it? How is that not fudging? If you switch a different encounter there you are fudging with placement
>ust inventing an encounter on the fly) then where's the fudge?
an added 1 to a roll is a fudge but an added encounter to a campaign is not a fudge? That is a much m ore intrusive and bigger change

>Ah, so anything that you haven't specifically planned is a white-room void, a
well again if it is different from what you have planned then yeah aren't you fudging it?
> it's just that this isn't how most people see it.
most people are dumb
Most people is not anything I ever want to see things like.
The white void was just an extreme example. My point is any change to what you ahve written down. I doN't actually think of it as white voids I jsut thought that would be easier for you to understand but I see now I confused you more and you used it as an opening to insult instead of an opportunity to understand

>the good thing about a DM is his ability to fudge
>he can invent an encounter somewhere the players want to go that wasn't planned (that is fudging)
>the players can come up with an insane move that he has to come up with a DC for (that is fudging)
>Any change or addition to the game that wasn'T previously written down is essentially fudging

lol, if you define "fudging" that broadly then I agree. What about monster/NPC behavior, the DM's ability to act through his characters in ways that weren't planned out beforehand, is that still "fudging"? If you define all real-time interaction as fudging, then yea, I'll agree that fudging is the thing that makes D&D great. But turning a 14 into a 15 is the worst kind of fudge and also the kind most easily reproduced by a videogame.

Yeah, that's pretty crazy. Nobody's ever considered that fudging but you, so you were never really on the same page as everybody else. You're kind of like the dumb, socially awkward guy sitting in the corner of the cafeteria that 'nobody understands'.

>I won't be peer pressured
Didn't you run away from a chatroom invite because you were scared of that

Prove you're in there by making a bait post right now

Nope, you're scared and just proved me right. The links temporary by the way, so I guess you really are just scared.

I don't have to feel right, I am. You're scared and influenced badly by peer pressure and public humiliation. The fact that you're still coping over getting caught lying is proof.

>You fudge when you create the illusion of impartial mathematics.
That is not fudging

Fudging is making a judgement and changing something for a perceived better experience for everyone.
Its specifically a human judgement

>(i.e, fudging someone's grade, or fudging the numbers in your taxes)
yes different thinks
chocolate fudge is also something different in case that is your next question.

>I agree with this, I'm just surprised that you've never talked to the exception.
I've never seen it. There will be situations where everybody I've met would accept a fudge for the sake of the game, but in all of these situations, fudging is ultimately a result of mistakes.
>Obviously not. When a GM throws an oversized dragon at his noob players, he knows that he'll probably have to fudge to keep them alive
This is exactly the 'Lack of foresight, and a roll being made and having results that weren't dictated beforehand.'
The GM here has failed, because the groups it is wrong for it will always be wrong for if he fudges. But if he did not fudge, and instead didn't make any rolls that would kill the players, he would appeal to both extremes of the spectrum and everyone inbetween.
If he can get away with fudging for his group, because they don't really mind, then that's great. But in reality he will likely get a mixed reaction, as some will immediately realize and be insulted by the amount of fudging going on, some will realize and not care, and some won't yet realize that it was fudged, and could fall into either category if they later figure it out in hindsight.

>Then why
It's simply nuance, not binary.

>No, anon, you don't understand. The noob PCs don't want to fight a wyrmling and win fairly, they want to fight a young dragon and win by DM fudge, because it makes them feel like big heroes.
And once they realize that it was all purely fudging and that they did not have a fight, they will either not care, feel poorly about it, or they might even come to dislike it intensely.
On the other hand, a more well designed fight that doesn't require fudging would be something all can fondly remember no matter what their preferences come to be.

>This will keep being untrue no matter how many times you say it. The noob PCs who aren't worried about fudging will enjoy fighting the young dragon more.
More than what? Fighting a weaker dragon? Sure, that's true. But that's not what I said, that's your own suggestion, and I think it's a very poor one.
>Maybe the party beats the young dragon all on their own, because luck is with them, and the DM never has to fudge
Yeah that can happen. I don't think it's a good long term strategy though because the tables will turn. And once fudging is detected, players will start to suspect that even the times they were just lucky were also fudged.
The solution to this is to design fights where fudging would never have been required in the first place.

>You keep implying that a "well designed fight" (according to your personal preferences) will please everyone regardless of their personal preferences.
No. I said it will be pleasant to those who care about fudging, and those who don't. Not everyone. And what I said is entirely true.
If you designed a fight with a dragon where you didn't ever need to roll the dice, but it was all narrative in form, its enjoyment would be unaffected by one's distaste or preference for fudging.
>Okay, I think we're ready to move on to this. For a fight to be interesting, at all, then it must be mathematically possible for one of the PCs to die.
I don't agree with this whatsoever, and it's entirely incorrect. I've had interesting fights where there was never a risk of death.
>Ideally I think you design an encounter where good tactics almost always succeed but bad tactics almost always fail, the "ideal" is to make PC decisions matter, but you have to understand the system very well to get there.
I agree. For the sake of this, I think rolling and chance has to be eschewed entirely. However, there is a definite difference in perception between having rolls that don't matter, and not bothering with rolls that wouldn't have mattered; One can be displeasing to people. The other, likely never.

>They could decide that you always crit the first time you hit the final boss.
that is not deicging. That is going through a list of if checks
a switch case is also not a decision
a random number generated resulted in an option is also not a decision
I am a professional programmer
you don't understand what a decision is if you think a program can make one

Well you are asking the programm to make a decision if you are asking the videogame
A programmer could make a decision
But he can't write a program that would be capable of making a decision

>I said it will be pleasant to those who care about fudging, and those who don't. Not everyone.

You can't and won't explain why this is a meaningful distinction. You keep making extremely-specific but unimportant distinctions as a way to deflect counterpoints. You won't articulate your own points, which leaves me to articulate them for you, and then you say "No" and choose not to elaborate. This is why it was so easy to catch you in a hard contradiction, when you unequivocally state that every DM has to fudge sometimes, then state that a good DM can design better encounters so that fudging isn't necessary, then said that even a good DM has to fudge sometimes, then stated that a good DM can design better encounters so that fudging isn't necessary.

In this case, we're talking about D&D players, so "everyone" means all the D&D players. It means the ones who like fudging, and also the ones who don't like fudging, and also the ones who don't like it or are in the middle. And you said "No. I said it will be pleasant to those who care about fudging, and those who don't. Not everyone." You have no reason to make such a specious distinction, you aren't going anywhere with this, you're just doing the best you can to say "No".

Context is important here, yeah. I see no contradictions or incorrect statements in what you've posted.

>You don't actually play with these people
Can you prove you do
>People who like diceless systems are the same people who don't mind fudging the die.
Not in my experience, nope. People who prefer a more narrative take on things can fall in either camp.
>And the people who would rather die than fudge are the same people who will tell you that the die rolls make the game infinitely more fun.
I've also heard this from both camps. Some think having some dice rolls and some fudging when the dice are clearly just WRONG is the only way to play. Some think you do need dice to make anything actually matter.
In my time GMing, I've come to accept a hybrid take between RNG and narrative to satisfy both of these camps, and I've found that in every single instance so far it has worked well, and I haven't really fudged much since adopting it.
>If the DM will fudge rolls to prevent PC deaths, and the PCs know this, then the unknown become proportionally less threatening.
I agree with that yeah.
>And there was no threat of death?
Yep, it was one of the most fun fights I've ever had in a game.
>Anyway, you can run a game where nobody dies or you can run a game with a real threat of death, but you can't do both at once.
Yes you can. All the former means is that the threat was avoided. Maybe you meant that you can run a game where nobody can die?

>No, but I thought we were being generous, you openly said that you'd never played with anyone who would choose a TPK over a fudge, so I pretended that his was true
Who's we?
You can't prove you did, and you can't prove I haven't. You accepted this initially and now you've backtracked on it, so I'll just ask you for proof, that seems perfectly fine to me.
>Sure, you were invested, the outcome mattered even if nobody died.
It was something I'll probably take with me to the grave. I've seen many great fights that ended with deaths as well of course, but my personal stakes in that one were more meaningful than it would've been if it ended with either of us dead. It would have been vastly cheapened had that been on the table, as it would've given us an easy way out.
>You can run a game where you do not accept the possibility of PC death, or you can run a game where you do not accept the possibility of fudging, but you can't do both at once.
Thank you for being clear and not trying to twist your words around so you can go 'um acktually' later. This is entirely correct.
However, this has no bearing on my argument whatsoever.

>but at the very least you should have made more attempts to pull the conversation back towards fudging
I tried everal posts. you saw how reluctant he was to even attack fudging or point to any argument he supposedly made. He even pretended every argumetn was from him
>you spent way too much effort on slapfighting and that makes you part of the problem.
I don't give a single shit about the state of this board. If I make the board worse by non-stop arguing then so be it.
I would sacrifice the entirety of this shit website if it mean I could continue with people like these morons.

>I guess I don't know what the internet is really like these days but there used to be chatrooms for people like you and him.
Give me a chatroom where I find people like him and I will leave. I am addicted to dunning kruger morons who are terrible at arguing and make up tons of rules.
Find me a better place than Ganker to reliably find someone as stupid as the person I am arguing with right now and you wont have to deal with me anymore.

Sorry but I will still get every drop of this thread and this threads moron. I will check there if there is anyone as stupid as

>and it is absolutely wrong that people only dislike insults with truth to them
This isnt even what anybody said you spastic its that people dont get mad over insults that arent true and dont matter

but if I can't find anyone I will be back.

>several
>argument
>meant
You got called out again and it's already got you seething.

I haven't been called out for anything. Unlike the special ed class, I don't feel the need to rabidly defend myself to strangers online.

So there is nothing written down before you prepare the game? No NPC names or occupations. No cities. No setting. Nothing? What are your games?
Also I rarely hand them anything. It is mostly notes.

>I only rarely hand them lines to read

Why did you quote my post twice, did you forget to samegay? Too bad you can't fudge your post anon.

I'm pointing out that you tried to samegay and failed, now you're doing it again because you're mad I got you again.

>I will answer honestly
You can't even honestly address anything that was said to you in this entire thread. Why would anyone trust a delusional liar?

See, most people have some literacy and can see where what they're getting called out on. But you're too fricking dumb to try and read the posts you respond to.
>Y-you can't even attack fudging!
Oh, so when you lose the argument you wanna just pretend nobody actually disagreed with you. Gotcha bud, I accept your concession.

>N-nobody but me has an argument!
Just because you're too moronic to make an argument, doesn't mean nobody else has one. You seem upset and mad that you got proven wrong, called out hard, and have been forced by your fragile ego to spend the last two hours angrily insisting you're right and that everybody else is wrong.

Backpedaling already? I'll take that concession again.

Already did bud, I don't care to repeat myself to low IQ individuals like yourself. Everyone reading my posts thinks I have a 12 inch dick and a billion dollars in my wallet, while you're broke on both of those accounts.

Scroll up, take your pick. You can start hashing things out from step zero again if you want to prove you're actually interested in engaging in an argument.
Otherwise, I accept that you concede and also have a microdick.

>So *irrelevant bullshit*
I accept your concession.

(Checked)
You already have, multiple times infact, conceded that I was right. I don't need you to consent to your loss.

Need? Nah, I'm laughing at you and your insecurities.

Who are you quoting?

>I was right
Thanks for reaffirming what I suspected.

>to you saying players don't like it
Yes? That's a general statement, moron. Players generally don't like having their choices taken away. Railroading isn't fun.
>B-but my group likes to be railroaded...

>Yes I directly told you that your players don't care about your game but you don't understand, I was only speaking in general

Lol, that's a coward backtracking if I ever saw one.

>We both know this isn't true.
I know it is true
>Good GMs don't spend their afternoon desperately trying to convince strangers that their game really is the best
Interesting theory. Completely bullshit but interesting Idea. Is that projection? Do you spend your time here shitting one verything and everyone because you are a bad GM? If that is true I want to give you this genuine advice. The best GMs fudge. It is probably the hardest thing to get right. If you want to become a better GM you need to stop being so autistic about the holy dice.

Good friends don't make their friends out up with their faults in the first place. Once can happen, twice it may still be possible. Thrice and you adjust the game or find something else to do that is enjoying for everybody. And if you actually have friends and not a company of sycopants in the remote chance that you are oblivious to it they are going to tell you that your game is boring.

Thank you for admitting you're an idiot, now you just need to seek help for it.

>The GM can't set the DC
This doesn't change what number the dice come up with, illiterate nogames.

but it changes the result
again if I decide the DC is different then it changes the result of the dice roll which is the fudging
Fudging is just adjustings dcs (or ACs) slightly.

>N-no you dont understand I only fudged A LITTLE BIT!
Doesn't matter. Nothing you've done will matter in the eyes of your players because the rolls don't matter anymore and you've shown you're willing to cheat to make the train stay on the tracks.

nope. That is only you. My players know and the last time one of them even explained the game to a new player saying that I maybe change some rolls secretly to make it more fun
It was very cute.

>It does not.
that is literally the same. if you adjust the dc the result is changed.

>if I roll a 14 and change the DC to 14 I changed nothing
>if I roll a 14 and add a +1 so it meets the DC of 15 it is a change
you are literally moronic.

>You're rolling and then changing it
but mathematically there is no difference between going before the call
>I change the DC to 14
or
>if it is a 14 I will add a 1

These things are functionally exactly the same. Why is one offensive to you and invalidating and the other fine.

>Except there is. Acting without the knowledge of what the dice might roll and with completely changes the nature of the call.
No it doesn't. You are literally moronic

>If you're going to make a 14 a 15, why not a 13?
Why would I? I could if I want but I don't wan to.
>The result didn't matter if you were going to change it,
So do you feel the same about setting DCs different?
The result did matter. 1-13 would still have been failures.

God you can't even tell a story without fudging the details huh? Really telling.

You have autism and this is why people don't like playing with you

>Yes it does. You're a nogames who don't know how dice work.
Anon I am better at math than you. We already established this
if it helps your midwit mind cope pretend that before the dice roll I just adjusted the DC instead of afterwards adding a 1
it is literally the same thing

>Explained to a new player
Are you saying you get alot of new players?
Got a bit of a rotating door going on there, pal? Issues with player retention?

Yeah, really. You sound like you made that interaction up to begin with, because nobody goes "Oh yeah btw your rolls don't actually matter anon just makes shit up as he feels like it"
Unless the new guy was questioning the results already, which man. So much for "I only fudge a little bit".

God you can't even tell a story without fudging the details huh? Really telling.

see

>Give me good reasons why fudging is always 100% wrong without even knowing the context.
Because it removes player agency and makes any decision-making pointless.

He's unable to understand that just because you avoided that the fighter died turn 1 without even getting to act doesn't means that he can't always die in the following rounds. Basically he sees fudging as "I have already thought about this specific outcome of the situation and I am now enforcing it", instead of just altering skewed probabilities.

Because of a bunch of reasons
>Getting killed arbitrarily before getting the chance to act is always a bad moment for a player
>By getting close to death and having the chance to act to avoid it the situation get a lot more tense and dramatic, player's actions have more weight
>I don't know if he's going to actually die next turn, I want the chance for him to die to exist but the game put it at 5% (random example) while I think it should be a lot lower but I can't be bothered to rewrite the system to change it

So yes, we're completely at odds, as I said way back up in [...] and you called me a homosexual for just admitting the obvious.
I'm here to discover what happens to these characters as they operate in the world. If I wanted to tell a pre-decided story I'd write a fricking book.

So the promised response:
>No wait oyu said you can't imagine any situation. So no you don't have these moments where you root for them
Nonsensical. Not declaring the outcome I wanted doesn't mean I didn't want that outcome. I'm not writing a book.
>Like a videogame.
If you don't want uncertainty in your game, again, why are there dice? Do you just like the clicky clack sounds, anon?
>What if the logical conclusion of a huge character arc is completely killed by a dice roll?
Then it is. The story now progresses in a different direction. We find out what happens next together.
>That can happen.
No shit? That's why we're playing a game, so things somewhat outside our control can occur. Otherwise I'd write a fricking book.
>The logical conclusion often can be completely killed with a bad or too good roll.
If it's so logical it couldn't be any other way, don't roll the dice.
>The players could just run all the NPCs collectively
True. There are games that work that way. Nobody I knows likes them. because the GM's job is to do that. Not to...I still don't understand your point, guy. If the GM's job isn't to run the world and NPCs, and it isn't to enforce the rules, what the frick do you DO?
>More insistence that writing rules is fudging
Man, the authors of the game we're playing did a 400 page fudge, holy shit.
moron.

[...]
And yet nobody has managed to provide any example of when the rules fail so badly they shouldn't be followed except "A character could die when I really don't want them to."

>And yet nobody has managed to provide any example of when the rules fail so badly they shouldn't be followed except "A character could die when I really don't want them to

Because it's one of the most easy examples and dramatic examples. You can have dozens of them. Like fudging a skill check because while rolling high would have a good consequence failing it utterly would just means a waste of time.

>Has to make math rocks do the clicky clack to build fake tension he's just going to lie about anyway
>Everyone else is the midwit
I mean, I don't cheat at fricking games 100% of the time, yes.
Like, I recognize there's no point in arguing this because there's a cultural gulf here and we clearly aren't playing games the same or for the same reasons. And ultimately, as we'll never deal with each other at the table, who cares.
But you're still wrong and a homosexual.