Thoughts on fudging rolls

[Louro]

I was actually making a joke concerning the difference between the players (real life people), and the characters. That's why I was apologizing in the post as well.

Oooh! Oh! I see. Lol.

...

Actually... Haven't you ever wished they all... well not dead obviously, but... like, constipated or something?

[Kyrell1978]

I see you tired of providing reasonable arguments and saying something that sounds cool to avoid responding to what I said.

You didn't point our anything that I hadn't already explained, I don't feel the need to do so further. You are obviously taking the strictest possible interpretation of that reading, and ignoring the stated intent of "narrative story telling." There is no point in wasting any more time beating that dead horse. I couldn't care less whether you or anyone else thinks I sound "cool" or not. I stopped caring about that particular ignorance a few decades ago.

[Psikerlord]

Not only am I in favor, I expect my GMs to fudge occassionally and tend to consider "all rolls in the open!" absolutism a warning sign and kind of a red flag. I trust my GM's judgement for what would be a fun result a lot more than I trust some stupid plastic polihedrons.

The opposite is true for me. Sigh of relief at open combat dice table. Red flag if combat dice are hidden.

I guess ultimately it's a preference thing. I'm big on the "game" part of RPGs, and low on the "story" part (or at least, preplotted story). I want the player to know they earnt their victories.

ACtually, this reminds me, of one of the things I like very much about new fangled "player facing" mechanics in some games where the players roll all the dice and the GM doesnt roll anything. Or at least in combat. By making the players roll attacks against their own PCs (or more accurately make defence rolls), the players can't "fudge" themselves. Everything is on the table for all to see.

[Psikerlord]

One way to distinguish rolls which can be open vs. rolls which should be secret is to look at the difference between known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.

Known unknowns are stuff like: "The orc attacks. Does he hit?" -> roll in the open

Unknown unknowns are stuff like: "Do I hear anything behind the door?" -> roll behind screen


Mostly I prefer to roll the former in the open, but for the latter it seems significantly better to roll in secret.

Non-combat dice behind the screen, no issues. In many cases it's preferable.

[Kaptin Keen]

This entire medium is about telling stories.

Clearly some disagree with that. To those I can only say, if simulated combat is what you crave, maybe you're in the wrong business.

For the rest - those who play a role, in a story - it should be reasonable to expect agreement that the ultimate goal of the game is an entertaining story. And one of the ways in which the story becomes entertaining is by creating the illusion of overcoming adversity. Of beating the odds. Of being clever, and cooking up a water tight plan, of essentially outsmarting the GM.

Fudging isn't cheating. If you fail a roll, death isn't your just reward, and the GM isn't taking that away from you. He's keeping in mind the ultimate goal of the game, keeping it entertaining. Possibly it's more entertaining if your character dies to a random crit - 'weee, everything was going great, but them I died to a nat20 and 200 points of True Damage, hooray' - but in all likelyhood it isn't.

And maybe it isn't even just about you. Maybe the other people around the table also need to be having fun, and your selfish desire for death by randomness isn't entertaining to anyone but you? Not only do you risk a TPK by insisting on dying to bad luck - you also insist on time to reroll, time in which the fun is at best reduced while you cook up a new guy.

[Koo Rehtorb]

This entire medium is about telling stories.

Clearly some disagree with that. To those I can only say, if simulated combat is what you crave, maybe you're in the wrong business.

For the rest - those who play a role, in a story - it should be reasonable to expect agreement that the ultimate goal of the game is an entertaining story. And one of the ways in which the story becomes entertaining is by creating the illusion of overcoming adversity. Of beating the odds. Of being clever, and cooking up a water tight plan, of essentially outsmarting the GM.

Fudging isn't cheating. If you fail a roll, death isn't your just reward, and the GM isn't taking that away from you. He's keeping in mind the ultimate goal of the game, keeping it entertaining. Possibly it's more entertaining if your character dies to a random crit - 'weee, everything was going great, but them I died to a nat20 and 200 points of True Damage, hooray' - but in all likelyhood it isn't.

And maybe it isn't even just about you. Maybe the other people around the table also need to be having fun, and your selfish desire for death by randomness isn't entertaining to anyone but you? Not only do you risk a TPK by insisting on dying to bad luck - you also insist on time to reroll, time in which the fun is at best reduced while you cook up a new guy.

If your group can't handle the possibility of randomly dying fair and square based on the rules of the game you're playing then play a different game. I would be happy to recommend many fine RPGs in which death is not mechanically on the table regardless of how badly you roll or what stupid things you do. It's totally fine. I just finished GMing a three month campaign of Masks, a system in which it is 100% impossible to die unless you've specifically picked the one playbook that allows it in one niche case.

If you do sign up to play a game in which death is a realistic possibility then, yes, fudging the dice to save you from dying is, in fact, "****ing cheating". And the only time this is acceptable is when everyone at the table has explicitly agreed that people are allowed to cheat. You have a responsibility to make it clear in advance that you plan on cheating, so people can find somewhere else to play and aren't wasting their time on your game. It's essentially the difference between agreeing with your spouse that you can have an open relationship, and just having an affair in secret.

[Mordaedil]

I disagree.

I think fudging the rolls is the norm and you should instead warn your players if you are planning to run the game with no fudged rolls.

Also, concealing your dice is sometimes necessary as a DM, such as when making opposed spot checks for monsters against your players stealth. Are you really advocating those be rolled openly too? Because if so, I'm pretty sure you are just a metagamer.

That said, I will never bother fudging rolls for a villain to save them. The way I see it, I should not be married to my NPCs and be willing to plan around the PC's killing them even on their first encounter. If my entire campaign falls to pieces because my players decide they don't trust the mayor and kills him, I have to plan around that and not interrupt their hand at it.

On the other hand, if I have my villain cast a spell and roll a natural 20, I want to be able to call it just a hit instead of a critical hit, since spell attack rolls can be really devastating if you allow it to crit. I'll usually plan the encounters to already be deadly as it is, without critical hits turning the tables on the players. But I won't save them from just pure damage or anything either, or from falling from the rooftop during a speedy-rooftop chase. I'll roll the dice, ask for how many hit points they have left and inform them that they have 1 hit point remaining (or 0 in 3.5 as it counts as disabled and they have to give up pursuit that way).

[Koo Rehtorb]

Also, concealing your dice is sometimes necessary as a DM, such as when making opposed spot checks for monsters against your players stealth. Are you really advocating those be rolled openly too? Because if so, I'm pretty sure you are just a metagamer.

I never find myself in this situation in the first place. If people are sneaking somewhere, I don't roll to spot them until the moment when the bad thing will happen if they fail. However, I will grant the possibility that there may be an occasional reason to conceal a roll from a player, in a certain sort of game, in a certain niche situation. It is still totally unacceptable to use that as an excuse to cheat on that roll though.

I'll roll the dice, ask for how many hit points they have left and inform them that they have 1 hit point remaining (or 0 in 3.5 as it counts as disabled and they have to give up pursuit that way).

There's no bigger siren you could possibly set off that you just fudged damage, you know. If you're going to fudge things on the sly then at least try not to be nakedly transparent about it. Jeeze.

[oxybe]

This entire medium is about telling stories.

Clearly some disagree with that. To those I can only say, if simulated combat is what you crave, maybe you're in the wrong business.

For the rest - those who play a role, in a story - it should be reasonable to expect agreement that the ultimate goal of the game is an entertaining story. And one of the ways in which the story becomes entertaining is by creating the illusion of overcoming adversity. Of beating the odds. Of being clever, and cooking up a water tight plan, of essentially outsmarting the GM.

Fudging isn't cheating. If you fail a roll, death isn't your just reward, and the GM isn't taking that away from you. He's keeping in mind the ultimate goal of the game, keeping it entertaining. Possibly it's more entertaining if your character dies to a random crit - 'weee, everything was going great, but them I died to a nat20 and 200 points of True Damage, hooray' - but in all likelyhood it isn't.

And maybe it isn't even just about you. Maybe the other people around the table also need to be having fun, and your selfish desire for death by randomness isn't entertaining to anyone but you? Not only do you risk a TPK by insisting on dying to bad luck - you also insist on time to reroll, time in which the fun is at best reduced while you cook up a new guy.

I prefer stories that emerge from play. Sometimes it's a grand story. Sometimes it's a mundane one. Sometimes it's tragic comedy. But the "story" is what is told around the hearth after the adventure is done, or sung about in town squares, or written out as a cautionary tale.

Your goal when playing a TTRPG isn't to tell a story. Your goal is to play your character. To roleplay. If you get a good story out of it, all the better. And the stories, IMO, are much better when they evolve naturally out of play instead of being selfishly forced upon you by someone who thinks they know better.

I am also a firm believer that the GM shouldn't have investment in how the story plays out.

A GM that fudges because they think they know what's better for the game because of the story they want to tell is the antithesis to the style I like.

To me a GM sets up NPCs, situations, and lets the players loose. He adjudicates when necessary, but in the end it's about the PCs and the story their PCs will tell when the adventure is done. Not the story I want to tell. The players know I will have them live or die by their choices and actions. I will not pull punches and fudge things in their favour. This gives their actions and choices weight. It gives the choices meaning.

Failure is a possibility. Death is a possibility.

But it's up to you to grasp victory from failure from your actions. It's up to you to be aware of death and plan accordingly.

I could have stopped the TPK. I was GMing. I could easily have held back and rolled behind a screen, and had the boss miss when he hit. But the TPK occurred as the PCs jumped the gun and entered the fight largely unprepared. They pushed on though, they struggled, and though in a sense they prevailed, they still lost in the end.

I'd like to think we have a good story to tell now that the play is over.

[Mordaedil]

I never find myself in this situation in the first place. If people are sneaking somewhere, I don't roll to spot them until the moment when the bad thing will happen if they fail. However, I will grant the possibility that there may be an occasional reason to conceal a roll from a player, in a certain sort of game, in a certain niche situation. It is still totally unacceptable to use that as an excuse to cheat on that roll though.

Well, I wouldn't normally cheat concealed rolls, because they aren't always critical.

There's no bigger siren you could possibly set off that you just fudged damage, you know. If you're going to fudge things on the sly then at least try not to be nakedly transparent about it. Jeeze.

Well, how about you don't tell me how to run my games for me, kthx.

Seriously, I get where you come from, but generally it is far less of a problem than you make it out to be. Generally it isn't a thing that comes up in my games, but just a (perhaps a bit weak, context-less) scenario where I might fudge things to not outright kill the players, but still have them fail their task. If they die from a fall from the rooftops, I reckon I'd have to factor in other things, but I don't think my players think "David the cleric ran across the roof, slid on a lose tile, fell from the roof and cracked his neck and now he is dead" is a good epitaph either. Sometimes, you just have to make the fall damage believably lethal, while other times it doesn't really serve the story or the game at large to kill a player over a bad roll.

Maybe it'd be better if I just deemed all fall damage nonlethal damage?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Seriously, I get where you come from, but generally it is far less of a problem than you make it out to be. Generally it isn't a thing that comes up in my games, but just a (perhaps a bit weak, context-less) scenario where I might fudge things to not outright kill the players, but still have them fail their task. If they die from a fall from the rooftops, I reckon I'd have to factor in other things, but I don't think my players think "David the cleric ran across the roof, slid on a lose tile, fell from the roof and cracked his neck and now he is dead" is a good epitaph either. Sometimes, you just have to make the fall damage believably lethal, while other times it doesn't really serve the story or the game at large to kill a player over a bad roll.

Maybe it'd be better if I just deemed all fall damage nonlethal damage?

I think the decision point comes a step back from where you're taking it. So there's a daring rooftop chase sequence. Opposed athletics rolls or something, whatever's fitting in whatever game you're playing. Failure doesn't have to mean "you plummet off the roof and take falling damage (and I'll fudge falling damage if it kills you)". Failure could just as easily mean "Baron von Evilstein leads you on a chase through the rooftops and makes a death defying leap between two buildings. You know you can't match that jump, you just don't have the goat blood in your veins like he does. If you try you'll fall to your death."

And then if they really want to push it anyway, you either follow through and they fall to their death, or maybe you give them one last ditch roll to try to make the jump anyway at a very high DC, and if they fail they fall to their death, or you roll falling damage honestly and let the dice fall where they may. There's so many options that don't involve cheating dice rolls, but also don't involve killing a PC without warning on a random skill check out of nowhere.

The key point here is, always follow through on the stakes as established honestly. But there's nothing forcing you to set lethal stakes, most of the time.

[Pelle]

This entire medium is about telling stories.

Clearly some disagree with that. To those I can only say, if simulated combat is what you crave, maybe you're in the wrong business.

For your information, this is completly misunderstanding the other side. It's not about combat at all. It could be about a jump check or a stealth roll or whatever. Situations with tension.

For the rest - those who play a role, in a story - it should be reasonable to expect agreement that the ultimate goal of the game is an entertaining story. And one of the ways in which the story becomes entertaining is by creating the illusion of overcoming adversity. Of beating the odds. Of being clever, and cooking up a water tight plan, of essentially outsmarting the GM.

Bolded, the other side don't want the adversity to be an illusion only. I guess the difference here is that you want the uncertainty to be on how the PCs overcome challenge, while the others want the uncertainty to be on do the PCs overcome the challenge?

Fudging isn't cheating. If you fail a roll, death isn't your just reward, and the GM isn't taking that away from you. He's keeping in mind the ultimate goal of the game, keeping it entertaining. Possibly it's more entertaining if your character dies to a random crit - 'weee, everything was going great, but them I died to a nat20 and 200 points of True Damage, hooray' - but in all likelyhood it isn't.

Failure and PC death is rarely very entertaining (though it can be, and if so you might agree as well). It's the possibility of PC death that many people prefer, not when it actually happens.

And maybe it isn't even just about you. Maybe the other people around the table also need to be having fun, and your selfish desire for death by randomness isn't entertaining to anyone but you? Not only do you risk a TPK by insisting on dying to bad luck - you also insist on time to reroll, time in which the fun is at best reduced while you cook up a new guy.

Here you are assuming this isn't agreed upon by everyone at the table, like many of the anti-fudgers do as well. Be open about it, and don't lie to your players about your style.

And the only time this is acceptable is when everyone at the table has explicitly agreed that people are allowed to cheat.

If it's condoned and encouraged by everyone, I wouldn't call it cheating.

I disagree.

I think fudging the rolls is the norm and you should instead warn your players if you are planning to run the game with no fudged rolls.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on your group. And when someone has the wrong expectations, whose responsibility is it to clear it up? Just be open about it.

Maybe it'd be better if I just deemed all fall damage nonlethal damage?

Or you could just tell the players "it would kind of suck if your character died by falling off this roof, so let's just ignore the rules here and go with this instead", instead of pretending to apply the rules as normal.

Your goal when playing a TTRPG isn't to tell a story. Your goal is to play your character. To roleplay. If you get a good story out of it, all the better. And the stories, IMO, are much better when they evolve naturally out of play instead of being selfishly forced upon you by someone who thinks they know better.

To be fair, "your" should be "my" here. I agree with the rest of your post, though!

[Mordaedil]

To be honest, the rooftop thing was kinda just a bad example, because if I had to do it now, I'd probably formulate it as a skill challenge as seen in 4th edition and usually I wouldn't have it be that dramatic way of flipping the dice to save someone. It would mostly just be to avoid having them bleed out in the streets from a fall that would just put them a little bit into negative hit points. I am a firm believer of -10 is death no matter what.

Heck, I could just tell the player that someone saw him fall and rushed over and helped stabilize him, but basically speed it up a bit.

[Kaptin Keen]

If your group can't handle the possibility of randomly dying fair and square based on the rules of the game you're playing then play a different game.

Oh but they can. You need in no way concern yourself with my group, they're consenting adults and all that. And thank you but no, we'll keep playing this game.

See, being able to handle dying randomly is not the same as considering that the best or most entertaining outcome. I've played with these guys since I was 16, that makes it just over 31 years. In all that time, I've lost ... maybe 2?! ... characters to 'death by diceroll'. That's me, as a player. Across all of us, it could be as high as a staggering 10 characters dead, grand total!

More have died to other things than ... say, a random crit. Electing to make a last stand against unbeatable odds happens more often than 'dying because the rules say so'. I think we (that is, my group) all agree that the rules can go die in a ditch if they get in the way of us having fun. We're not playing this game in some sort of ritualistic service to the rules - we're playing for fun.

Mileage varies. Other people play for other things, or define 'fun' differently.

For your information, this is completly misunderstanding the other side. It's not about combat at all. It could be about a jump check or a stealth roll or whatever. Situations with tension.

To roleplay is to tell a story. The story of the role you play. That's what the game is. What happens to Winfried the Merciful on his travels through the world - that is a story. Without a story, it's a strategy game.

For your information, this is completly misunderstanding the other side. It's not about combat at all. It could be about a jump check or a stealth roll or whatever. Situations with tension.

I'm not addressing the other side.

[Psikerlord]

I prefer stories that emerge from play. Sometimes it's a grand story. Sometimes it's a mundane one. Sometimes it's tragic comedy. But the "story" is what is told around the hearth after the adventure is done, or sung about in town squares, or written out as a cautionary tale.

Your goal when playing a TTRPG isn't to tell a story. Your goal is to play your character. To roleplay. If you get a good story out of it, all the better. And the stories, IMO, are much better when they evolve naturally out of play instead of being selfishly forced upon you by someone who thinks they know better.

I am also a firm believer that the GM shouldn't have investment in how the story plays out.

A GM that fudges because they think they know what's better for the game because of the story they want to tell is the antithesis to the style I like.

To me a GM sets up NPCs, situations, and lets the players loose. He adjudicates when necessary, but in the end it's about the PCs and the story their PCs will tell when the adventure is done. Not the story I want to tell. The players know I will have them live or die by their choices and actions. I will not pull punches and fudge things in their favour. This gives their actions and choices weight. It gives the choices meaning.

Failure is a possibility. Death is a possibility.

But it's up to you to grasp victory from failure from your actions. It's up to you to be aware of death and plan accordingly.

I could have stopped the TPK. I was GMing. I could easily have held back and rolled behind a screen, and had the boss miss when he hit. But the TPK occurred as the PCs jumped the gun and entered the fight largely unprepared. They pushed on though, they struggled, and though in a sense they prevailed, they still lost in the end.

I'd like to think we have a good story to tell now that the play is over.

Emergent stories are the only stories worth coming together to make in a Roleplaying G-A-M-E. Playing out a pre-plotted story, where GMs abhor random encounters and side treks, or are scared to kill off PCs or critical NPCs, pale in comparison.

[Pelle]

To roleplay is to tell a story. The story of the role you play. That's what the game is. What happens to Winfried the Merciful on his travels through the world - that is a story. Without a story, it's a strategy game.

You know that's contentious, just see oxybe's post above. In my current game, the PCs try to stop the evil cult and the conspiracy against the Duke. We don't know if they will succeed, and that's exciting. If they succeed we will have a story to tell of how they prevailed, and if they fail yet another story. The story itself is not the goal of our game though, the goal is to experience it, whatever it turns out to be.

I'm not addressing the other side.

Well, you seemed to be equating anyone who don't like fudging with combat simulators, maybe I'm interpreting you wrong. Anyways, it doesn't seem like you understand the reason for why people object to fudging. It's not about adhering to rules for rules sake. Personally I don't care much about RAW, and will often deviate if necessary. It's about clearly setting the stakes, which ironically makes for more dramatic story moments in my opinion. If I don't want stakes, I'll rather not roll at all and just narrate the intended outcome. Fudging is pretending there are stakes, when in fact there are none. Your group might prefer that and that's fine, but at least try to understand why some people prefer otherwise.

[Kyrell1978]

I love all of the "everyone who doesn't play like me is having badwrongfun going on here."

[Kaptin Keen]

The story itself is not the goal of our game though, the goal is to experience it, whatever it turns out to be.

That's semantics - and I'm not discussing semantics with you. Or anyone, for that matter.

maybe I'm interpreting you wrong.

Yes you are. Which you should know, cause I cover that in my post. But maybe I'm expressing myself unclearly.

[Koo Rehtorb]

If people insist on playing soccer with a big rock instead of a ball I'm certainly going to judge them for it. I'm not going to try to stop you, you have every right to kick a rock around a field if you really want to, but it's still dumb and bad. And I reserve the right to gently suggest that you use this nice ball over here that was specifically designed for the thing you're trying to do instead.

[Kyrell1978]

If people insist on playing soccer with a big rock instead of a ball I'm certainly going to judge them for it. I'm not going to try to stop you, you have every right to kick a rock around a field if you really want to, but it's still dumb and bad. And I reserve the right to gently suggest that you use this nice ball over here that was specifically designed for the thing you're trying to do instead.

This is a giant strawman argument (no one is trying to use the wrong tools, the tools being discussed are supported in the rule books as previously cited) to back up your ad hominem of calling the opposing viewpoint cheaters. I've already cited around a dozen games that support this in the rules of the game. For fun (and my own personal curiosity) I checked every game I own. There are still only two that do not specifically state in the rule book that this is okay. That's a hair over 96% of the games on my shelf, they cover a wide range of systems, worlds, and editions. To continue to state that it is "cheating" and "not following the rules" in the face of all of the evidence that has been presented is just silly. Again, it's perfectly fine if you don't want to play that way, because at your table you can make that rule.....because it says that in all of those books. To take this stance is akin to saying that all house rules are cheating, period. It is the same logical chain and falls just as flat when actually examined because the game designers gave permission to DMs to do so. It's okay to think that those are badly written games, the apocalypse game that you mentioned is extraordinarily poorly written in my opinion. (Anything that utilizes the term "barf forth....", or justifies playing its characters, even jokingly, "because they're hot" isn't going to make my list of well written material). It is, however, pretty ridiculous to "judge" anyone else (especially for having fun playing a game they enjoy according to the specifically stated allowances by the game designers) by your arbitrary standards.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I don't fudge, and to that end, I roll openly when running a game. I think it's important not just to trust the game but also to be open to the chaos of the dice. This may be related to the fact that I heavily avoid railroad situations.

If I fudge the dice, we slowly stop playing a game, and we slowly start playing my story, and the idea of being the one who makes the players into an audience is anathema to my idea of a GM.

[Kaptin Keen]

If people insist on playing soccer with a big rock instead of a ball I'm certainly going to judge them for it. I'm not going to try to stop you, you have every right to kick a rock around a field if you really want to, but it's still dumb and bad. And I reserve the right to gently suggest that you use this nice ball over here that was specifically designed for the thing you're trying to do instead.

Fishing for a rise. Not getting one.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I stand by the analogy. I feel that it is a fair one.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It's okay to think that those are badly written games, the apocalypse game that you mentioned is extraordinarily poorly written in my opinion. (Anything that utilizes the term "barf forth....", or justifies playing its characters, even jokingly, "because they're hot" isn't going to make my list of well written material).

I will address this further, though. What you're objecting to here is the game's tone, not its quality. AW is written to be evocative of the genre it's presenting, and it does an extraordinarily good job of that. It's perfectly fine not to like the game's tone. Plenty of people don't. Plenty of people don't like what AW is selling. And that's fine. People have every right not to like things about the game, like there being a distinct mechanical effect for each different playbook when it has sex. This is entirely distinct from the game trying to push bad habits on you.

AW's GM section is one of the best, if not the very best, in the entire hobby and I fully suggest that everyone reads it even if they have no intention of ever playing the game. It will make you a better GM by doing so.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is a giant strawman argument (no one is trying to use the wrong tools, the tools being discussed are supported in the rule books as previously cited) to back up your ad hominem of calling the opposing viewpoint cheaters. I've already cited around a dozen games that support this in the rules of the game. For fun (and my own personal curiosity) I checked every game I own. There are still only two that do not specifically state in the rule book that this is okay. That's a hair over 96% of the games on my shelf, they cover a wide range of systems, worlds, and editions. To continue to state that it is "cheating" and "not following the rules" in the face of all of the evidence that has been presented is just silly. Again, it's perfectly fine if you don't want to play that way, because at your table you can make that rule.....because it says that in all of those books. To take this stance is akin to saying that all house rules are cheating, period. It is the same logical chain and falls just as flat when actually examined because the game designers gave permission to DMs to do so. It's okay to think that those are badly written games, the apocalypse game that you mentioned is extraordinarily poorly written in my opinion. (Anything that utilizes the term "barf forth....", or justifies playing its characters, even jokingly, "because they're hot" isn't going to make my list of well written material). It is, however, pretty ridiculous to "judge" anyone else (especially for having fun playing a game they enjoy according to the specifically stated allowances by the game designers) by your arbitrary standards.

Additionally--if the rules say to do something, then following that is definitionally not cheating. Nor is it "bad advice", it's the rules. If the rules say "the referee decides X and the referee's decision is final", then whatever the referee decides is following the rules. Some people might not like those rules, but they are rules just the same as "roll a d20 + modifier, if greater than AC it's a hit."

So it's not using the wrong tools, it's using tools that are explicitly specified in the rules ("a soccer ball shall consist of X, Y, or Z).

Yet additionally, it's an inherent part of any open-ended system. The term for a game that defines all possible events exhaustively is "board-game". Even PbtA (where the GM doesn't roll dice and has strict rules) still has significant GM discretion required. The list of GM moves is (and cannot be) exhaustive--it's too fiction dependent.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Looking at AW's basic rulebook (http://apocalypse-world.com/Apocalyp...fbook2ndEd.pdf), I see the following relevant statements in the (very abbreviated and elliptical) MC section:

(Principles)

Sometimes, disclaim decision-making

(Decision-making)

Whenever something comes up that you’d prefer not to decide by personal whim and will, don’t.

The fact that it says "sometimes" and "that you'd prefer not to decide by ..." tells me that the default for AW is that the MC makes the decisions by personal whim and will. That's rather on the "fudge the dice" side of things, not the "be a neutral referee and let the dice decide" side. Now maybe the full rules (which are not freely available?) say otherwise, but those basic rules are

a) not that good or broadly applicable outside of AW's very peculiar setting/conceit.
b) incredibly elliptical and unspecific
c) pretty firmly on the "GM makes things up as they go" end of the spectrum.

[flond]

Looking at AW's basic rulebook (http://apocalypse-world.com/Apocalyp...fbook2ndEd.pdf), I see the following relevant statements in the (very abbreviated and elliptical) MC section:

(Principles)


(Decision-making)


The fact that it says "sometimes" and "that you'd prefer not to decide by ..." tells me that the default for AW is that the MC makes the decisions by personal whim and will. That's rather on the "fudge the dice" side of things, not the "be a neutral referee and let the dice decide" side. Now maybe the full rules (which are not freely available?) say otherwise, but those basic rules are

a) not that good or broadly applicable outside of AW's very peculiar setting/conceit.
b) incredibly elliptical and unspecific
c) pretty firmly on the "GM makes things up as they go" end of the spectrum.

To be clear that's a basic reference book, not a rulebook. (The file name is refbook)

And, the big thing about apocolypse world that makes anti fudging partisans like it is that the rules bits are clear and unavoidable. That is, there are clear fictional triggers for when the dice are rolled, it's clear when you succeed and when you fail, and the target number is always the same, and the results, while requiring arbitration are always known.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I don't especially want to make this into a thread where I explain AW to everyone, but in short:

1) Players describe what they do.

2) If what they're describing doing would trigger a move from then, then call for it. Running screaming at a 500 man army shooting your gun doesn't trigger any move because you can't fight an army. The GM just narrates until something you do would trigger a move.

3) Player rolls the move. On a 10+ they accomplish what they're trying to do. On a 7-9 they accomplish what they're trying to do but there's an additional complication according to the move's rules. On a 6- the GM gets to do whatever they want, so long as they're staying within the game's agenda and principles.

Eliminating GM discretion has never been a goal, or a desirable thing. The point is having a ruleset that facilitates passing narrative authority back and forth between everyone present. A GM fudging dice rolls is essentially stealing that narrative authority and saying "What you want only matter when I want it to".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't especially want to make this into a thread where I explain AW to everyone, but in short:

1) Players describe what they do.

2) If what they're describing doing would trigger a move from then, then call for it. Running screaming at a 500 man army shooting your gun doesn't trigger any move because you can't fight an army. The GM just narrates until something you do would trigger a move.

3) Player rolls the move. On a 10+ they accomplish what they're trying to do. On a 7-9 they accomplish what they're trying to do but there's an additional complication according to the move's rules. On a 6- the GM gets to do whatever they want, so long as they're staying within the game's agenda and principles.

Eliminating GM discretion has never been a goal, or a desirable thing. The point is having a ruleset that facilitates passing narrative authority back and forth between everyone present. A GM fudging dice rolls is essentially stealing that narrative authority and saying "What you want only matter when I want it to".

And that (passing narrative authority) is something that is

a) taste-based, not objectively superior (or inferior)
b) not broadly applicable to other systems.

You're confusing "I like X" with "X is good." As are others, to be clear.

But either way, I was highly not impressed by the supposedly "great" MC guidance I found in AW. It was vague, had a very strong slant to "this is the correct way" that doesn't apply to many (or most) games, and was written in a super compressed fashion. But I recognize all of those as being subjective things. If you like it, great. But it's not objectively great, or at least that superiority has yet to be convincingly demonstrated.
-------------

More generally, I think there's a fundamental divide among commenters on the essential nature of RPG rules. I, for one, wish that we didn't use the word "rules." "Guidelines" or "framework" or "mechanics" would set a better tone--one in which the "ruleset" is a toolbox of resolution mechanics and pre-fab pieces that the creators believe work well to facilitate play in a particular niche. Acceptance that the rules serve the players, not the other way around.

Rules, in my eyes, are one tool among many that are used by the table's designated authority figure(s) (DAFs) to adjudicate the success/failure of actions within the fiction. Others include the judgement of the DAFs, player votes, bribery, etc. Using non-"rule" mechanics (or overriding "rule" mechanics in the best judgement of the DAFs) is a good thing to the degree that you can trust the DAF's judgement. And if you can't trust them, don't play with them (or don't designate them as AFs).

[Kyrell1978]

I will address this further, though. What you're objecting to here is the game's tone, not its quality. AW is written to be evocative of the genre it's presenting, and it does an extraordinarily good job of that. It's perfectly fine not to like the game's tone. Plenty of people don't. Plenty of people don't like what AW is selling. And that's fine. People have every right not to like things about the game, like there being a distinct mechanical effect for each different playbook when it has sex. This is entirely distinct from the game trying to push bad habits on you.

AW's GM section is one of the best, if not the very best, in the entire hobby and I fully suggest that everyone reads it even if they have no intention of ever playing the game. It will make you a better GM by doing so.

That is entirely your opinion with no factual basis. I read the GM section, along with some of the basic mechanics. I disagree with your position that it is well written. There is some good advice in the GM section, and, in my opinion some, terrible advice. The specific instance I remember without looking it back up is the "whole GM randomly deciding that a fire fight suddenly shifts to each side having the other pinned down for two hours," this is pointless and is terrible advice, in my opinion, and goes directly against the purpose stated earlier in the same section that everything you say should "make stuff not boring" and "feel real." Like I said, in my opinion it's poorly written...including mechanically. The other game was better written, but a little generic in its approach. Also, it has language that supports the DM holding sway. It doesn't come out and say it's okay to fudge die rolls, but it does say on pg. 551 that it is the GMs job to "make sure the mechanics run smoothly, make sense, and gel with the story," "to challenge and engage the players," and "to make sure...everyone is involved and enjoys themselves." It also has a section about picking out which mechanics are going to be used and which will be set aside, as well as allowing for the GM to manipulate events "so that the two pieces intersect dramatically."

While these statements are not a shining endorsement, they are certainly not a rebuke either.

Koo Rehtorb

Re: Thoughts on fudging rolls
I stand by the analogy. I feel that it is a fair one.

Again this is an unsupported opinion and quite honestly factual wrong. Unfortunately facts don't care about your feelings.