Thoughts on fudging rolls

[Koo Rehtorb]

And that (passing narrative authority) is something that is

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

I think this is a bizarre thing to say. I would think that shared narrative authority is something that all but the most hardcore of railroaders would agree to. If you're just there to listen to the GM tell you a story about what happens then there's probably better formats for it.

[Thrudd]

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".

Right. To translate that into D&D, where fudging happens most often - instead of the rules saying that at 0 HP the character is dead or unconscious, a houserule might say that when a character gets to 0 HP the DM gets to declare what happens to them. Maybe you get to roll a hit die to restore some HP, in return for the DM getting to declare something bad happens to you (like losing a weapon or having to retreat for a turn, or being stunned and unable to act). Or, on a critical hit, the DM can choose the effect of the attack. It doesn't need to be extra damage, it could be a broken weapon or armor, or a disarm, or the character is forced back or knocked down with no extra damage, or even no damage at all. The DM might have a list of possibilities, or just a completely open narrative moment - in any regard, change the rules so that there are codified and defined times when the results of the dice dictate that the DM makes a narrative decision - instead of the DM lying to the players or needing to ignore the dice in order to do so. Then you can roll in the open, and everyone can be clear that, because they failed or the dice rolled the way they did, the DM will choose what happens. Not wondering about how implausible it must be that they've been running around with just 1 HP left for three encounters and have never suffered a hit, or that the bad guys seem to be going down really easily today for some reason.

The point is, make rules so that the game does what you want. It's a much better game to play, that way, rather having to wonder when the game's mechanics will apply and when they won't according to the whim of the GM.

[Louro]

The main argument against fudge I see here is something like:
If you fudge one roll you are stealing everything away from the players, so better play other thing.

I think this is a bold statement.
Story must be over rules and not viceversa.

I can change on the fly any citizen into an assassin, a fight encounter into a riddle, furniture into traps and water into enemies. At will.
But if I change a single attack for the sake of the encounter and the joy them I'm cheating my players.

[flond]

The main argument against fudge I see here is something like:
If you fudge one roll you are stealing everything away from the players, so better play other thing.

I think this is a bold statement.
Story must be over rules and not viceversa.

I can change on the fly any citizen into an assassin, a fight encounter into a riddle, furniture into traps and water into enemies. At will.
But if I change a single attack for the sake of the encounter and the joy them I'm cheating my players.

Can you though?

Leaving aside the extremely old school options where the elements are expected to be static or random, in general an element is variable until established. Once somethings on the table and we are fighting now, then that's what's happening. Why should it not be also so with stats, once there are dice being rolled keep them the same.

(Also, if rules trouble you so have you considered just running freeform)

[Louro]

in general an element is variable until established. Once somethings on the table and we are fighting now, then that's what's happening. Why should it not be also so with stats, once there are dice being rolled keep them the same.

I agree. And a roll "is not happening" until I narrate the outcome. Right?

(Also, if rules trouble you so have you considered just running freeform)

Are rules troubling me?
No way.
I have rule zero.

[kyoryu]

Fudge: Player tries to gather information about stolen artifact. Rolls badly. Gets information. Dice roll is inconsequential and ignored.

Succeed at a cost: Player tries to gather information about stolen artifact. Rolls badly. Gets information but attracts shady guy's attention, whose thugs will duly show up next scene. Dice roll is important for the story's advancement and respected.

Spot the difference?

To expand on this a bit, the stakes should generally be set before you roll.

GM: "Okay, you're at the scene, and you'll definitely be able to get the information you're after. The question is whether you'll be able to do so without leaving information that it was you/taking too long/etc."

If you tell the players "on a success, you get x, on a failure you get y", and then follow through on that, there's no fudging. You're living with the results of the roll. One of the differences is that Fate never says "on a failed roll, this happens." That is always left in the hands of the GM.

I think this is a bizarre thing to say. I would think that shared narrative authority is something that all but the most hardcore of railroaders would agree to. If you're just there to listen to the GM tell you a story about what happens then there's probably better formats for it.

It depends on what people mean by "narrative authority". Do you mean the ability for what your characters do to have an impact on what happens in the game? Or do you mean literally the ability to decide what you find in the box when you open it?

[flond]

I agree. And a roll "is not happening" until I narrate the outcome. Right?


Are rules troubling me?
No way.
I have rule zero.

Depends! To go back to the apocolypse world example, if I'm rolling the dice, we already know what will cause a success (10+ or 7+ for a partial) and depending on the move, we have a pretty good idea of what that means.

Likewise, in burning wheel, we've already established the stakes on a failed roll.

Even in end, if I'm making an attack roll, we've already established much.

While not rare pure " roll the dice and have the dm internet the results with no guide" isn't exactly the only game in town.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think this is a bizarre thing to say. I would think that shared narrative authority is something that all but the most hardcore of railroaders would agree to. If you're just there to listen to the GM tell you a story about what happens then there's probably better formats for it.

Some people don't want certain types of narrative authority. Specifically, they want to describe what their character attempts and leave the resolution (and the "what happens then") to someone else. And that's not wrong, nor is it railroading. And to that matter, willing railroading (signing up to be told a story) isn't wrong either. It's the foundation of most JRPGs. Unwilling railroading is wrong, as an agency violation.

Just listen to some of our fellow posters who don't want the word "story" used anywhere near an RPG.

People are different. Not everyone wants what you want. And that doesn't make them wrong.

[kyoryu]

Just listen to some of our fellow posters who don't want the word "story" used anywhere near an RPG.

Unfortunately, "story" has far too often meant "the GM's story that will be followed no matter what". Leaves a bad taste.

[Mordar]

What is everyone else's thoughts on fudging rolls (changing the result of the roll) as a game master? In particular what are your thoughts on the following situations:
1) fudges attack/damage to save a player
2) fudging hit points or something similar to save a villain or enemy

I do not believe in fudging rolls at all, because if the DM/GM is allowed to fudge rolls then the players might as well be allowed to fudge their rolls as well. There are exceptions for example fudging the hit dice (if applicable) or not even rolling and giving them a predetermined number of hit points, fudging a roll on something like a teleport to make for a better story etc. Obviously this should be done beforehand and not changing hit points in the middle of a combat.

So what are your opinions? What about other similar scenarios of game masters "fudging" things such as regenerating spell slots mid battles or changing prepared spells (assuming a Dungeons & Dragons type game)?

Sorry if there is already a thread about this topic.

I am pro-fudging when I think it is making up for a mistake I made as the GM. I may nerf an adversary if I didn't realize the ramifications of something at the time of creation, either by on-the-fly modifying the adversary, the situation or the story.

I'm not a "protect player agency at all costs" type, but if I have bypassed player agency by unintentionally disguising a unwinnable encounter as a fair fight, then I want to undo that. However that doesn't mean that the Mega Dragon of Demon Mega Dragon Mountain that levels villages is fair game for the level 3 PCs. Just that Moderately Successful Bugbear Bandit of Scary Bugbear Bandit Badlands should be an auto-wipe because I did some poor customization.

I don't like #2 at all. You kill it, you kill it.

- M

[farothel]

I use fudging as a last resort, but sometimes I use it. As others have said before, I feel if a player has a string of bad luck with the dice that shouldn't really kill their characters. They might go unconscious and end up a prisoner, but they should have a chance to get out. Of course, if they decide to do stupid things, they get what's coming.

I've played in games where the GM could fudge (roll behind a screen) and I've been in games where the GM rolls everything in the open. I'm fine with both methods, as long as it's clear up front. Maybe I've been Lucky insofar that I've never had the feeling that the GM only fudges for one person or Always makes it easier for one player.

It also depends on what game and system you're playing. There are systems where character death is almost impossible and there are systems where it's expected.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It depends on what people mean by "narrative authority". Do you mean the ability for what your characters do to have an impact on what happens in the game?

Yes. It's kind of amazing to me that this is apparently a contentious point.

[Nifft]

Yes. It's kind of amazing to me that this is apparently a contentious point.

"Narrative authority" implies authority, and specifically the authority to narrate. Narrators speak facts about the world, not just one character's personal actions.

As an outsider, it looks like you're using ambiguous language in a misleading way, and then trying to paint the natural confusion that people experience when they take you at face-value as "contentious".

If you meant to say "player agency" but you screwed up and said "narrative authority" instead, now would be a fine time to come clean.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think one reason PbtA games are able to get away with disallowing fudging* is that the MC is given the escape valve of varying the hardness of an MC move. It's always "make as hard a move as you like", though you should be respecting the tension of "say what the fiction demands" (i.e., respect the world, respect the fictional situation, don't fluff your punches) and "be a fan of the characters" (i.e., don't set out to screw the players over, give them challenges, consequences, and drama to let them shine). This lets players fail rolls but not be totally screwed for it. Dungeon World even goes so far as to gate permadeath behind one last roll, giving characters a chance to return from the gates of death, often having struck a bargain.

*that's correct, they explicitly do, and I'll cite the facts here and even get pedantic for fun.

DECISION-MAKING
In order to play to find out what happens,
you’ll need to pass decision-making off
sometimes. Whenever something comes
up that you’d prefer not to decide by
personal whim and will, don’t. The game
gives you four key tools you can use to
disclaim responsibility. You can:
• Put it in your NPCs’ hands.
• Put it in the players’ hands.
• Create a countdown.
• Make it a stakes question.

Emphasis noted. "Disclaiming responsibility" is clearly not about dice rolls (how are NPCs supposed to roll dice?), it's about consequences for actions. A player asks how well-armed Dremmer's guards are, you have four options if you don't already have a personal answer, and this principle suggests these tools.

(It's also worth noting that this is an abbreviated version of the MC section. It's a reference sheet to remind you, not a comprehensive MC guide.)

Most importantly, if you fudge dice, you're not playing to find out what happens, you're playing to find out the outcome you already know, the outcome where you shield characters from the consequences.

Also, weird factual question: how does a PbtA fudge dice if they don't roll dice?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Narrative authority includes the ability to make decisions for your character and have them matter in that they have a meaningful influence on the narrative. The ability to say "I shoot the mayor" is meaningless if what happens is the GM says "Okay, but you miss. And everyone ignores your feeble attempt." regardless of what you rolled or what the rules of the game say. If you're sitting down to play an RPG you are making an agreement that everyone at the table has the ability to meaningfully influence the narrative, with input from random chance. (for the most part, there are some RPGs that don't involve dice or whatever). Fudging dice is saying that only one person's input on the narrative is the one that matters. Which is... well, it's like trying to play soccer with a rock.

If there's one thing this thread has shown it's that people are really bad at understanding rules and terminology, apparently. Kyrell1978's take on Fate earlier in the thread was particularly embarrassing.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Also, weird factual question: how does a PbtA fudge dice if they don't roll dice?

I suppose one would fudge dice in PbtA if they were to say. "Well you rolled a 6, but I think it would be more interesting if you hadn't failed here so take a +1 on that roll because I said so."

[Thrudd]

It's not "wrong" to play however you want with your friends. My main point is that games are better when the rules work, and I think that's a fairly objective thing. A game where the rules shift and may or may not apply at the whim of the GM is a worse game (especially for the players) than one where the rules are followed consistently. I understand that the excuse for fudging and invoking "rule 0", etc., are that following the rules don't always give you a result you want, and getting the results in terms of narrative or "cool" or fairness, or whatever it is is more important than following some rules. I agree. But I also don't understand why, if the game's rules are regularly not giving someone what they want, why they aren't fixing the rules or switching to another game that gives them more of what they want in an RPG. Needing to fudge rolls, or otherwise ignore rules or lie to players about what's going on with the dice, on more than very rare and specific occasions is a sign that the game you're using doesn't work for what you want it to do.

I think a good number of players would be rather disturbed if D&D was actually played the way some folks here suggest - only following dice and rules when the DM wants it to be random and is willing to accept the outcome. Most DM's know this, or sense this, I think - which is why they resort to fudging dice and using other tools of illusionism to fool the players into thinking things are being decided randomly, mechanically, and fairly when really something has been determined by the DM for narrative purposes (usually).

Some players are obviously OK with this - I think probably because they don't know anything else, have never played a narrative-focused system with rules that actually work, and think that if there's going to be a "good story" the DM needs to do things this way, and they're willing to be treated to the magic show. They think that the game is about "telling stories" (it doesn't have to be, or rather, that phrase can mean a few different things), and so obviously the DM needs to fudge things a little or a lot in order to get the story right.

If you truly only allowed the dice to be rolled when you were willing to accept all possible outcomes of the roll, I think some of these D&D games would have a lot less rolling happening, and I'm not sure a lot of players would actually be into that. Those who are fine with this are probably fine with free-form role playing in general and don't really want or need an actual game system at all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Narrative authority includes the ability to make decisions for your character and have them matter in that they have a meaningful influence on the narrative. The ability to say "I shoot the mayor" is meaningless if what happens is the GM says "Okay, but you miss. And everyone ignores your feeble attempt." regardless of what you rolled or what the rules of the game say. If you're sitting down to play an RPG you are making an agreement that everyone at the table has the ability to meaningfully influence the narrative, with input from random chance. (for the most part, there are some RPGs that don't involve dice or whatever). Fudging dice is saying that only one person's input on the narrative is the one that matters. Which is... well, it's like trying to play soccer with a rock.

If there's one thing this thread has shown it's that people are really bad at understanding rules and terminology, apparently. Kyrell1978's take on Fate earlier in the thread was particularly embarrassing.

How is "you shoot and miss and everyone ignores you" (because the DM's notes said that there's an invisible barrier and that the crowd doesn't react to things like that because they know, after all it happens weekly) different from "you shoot and miss and everyone ignores you" (because you rolled a 1 on the attack roll and everyone there is level 20 to your level 1) or from "You shoot and miss and everyone ignores you" (because the player is a disruptive jerk and the DM isn't going to let him ruin everyone else's fun):

a) from a perspective of narrative authority (which is very different than player agency in my mind)?
b) from a rules-obedience standpoint?

If the DM doesn't say, there may be many many reasons why a particular action was resolved the way it was. Many of them based on things the character (and the player) can't know about. And what really matters is the resolution, not arm-chair-quarterbacking the DM.

-------

Back on topic, one of the very rare cases in which I'll actually ignore a dice outcome is random treasure tables. If it rolls something that, while it might make sense for a different party in a different area of the setting, doesn't make sense for this party at this time (a water item in a lava pit), I'll ignore that roll and re-roll. Because I'm using those tables as a source of ideas, not a binding "this is what exists." There's only one binding authority on that. Me (as world-builder and DM).

As for combat things, if I have to fudge a die roll to salvage something, I'm into emergency damage control for quite a few mistakes made earlier and I'll be quite honest with the players about that. It's most often (which isn't very often) because I drastically misjudged an ability (or misread it) or an encounter. There are many more politic levers to control things before it reaches that point.

I'll ignore lots of other "rules" in other cases, but that's because they don't apply to the fiction right now. Its exactly the same as a judge deciding which of all the laws and precedent actually applies to the fact pattern at hand. Those rules are useful in other circumstances, just not now. And all systems have that same issue unless they tightly bind the situations that can be presented. Which I don't like.

In the end, my players trust me to consider their fun much more than they trust the game designers. Because I'm there, watching them. The designers aren't. If something's not fun, I'm the one on the firing line, not them. Game designers are speaking to a huge, diverse audience using the game system for many different games. Their pronouncements can't apply equally well to all of them without restricting diversity or abandoning specificity. I'm the last gatekeeper, in concert with my table of players. And the rules serve us, we don't serve the rules or the designers. Men are the masters of the rules, not rules the masters of men.

[Keltest]

I think its also worth pointing out that fudging dice doesn't actually mean you are literally picking up a die and setting it down on the side you want. It CAN mean that, sure, but that's only one scenario. Even in a basic 3.5 attack roll, there are 3 possible outcomes: hit, miss and crit. If you reject a crit from a monster, you can handle it by downgrading it to a regular hit (since they did meet the threshold for one, but you don't want them to have the extra power), arbitrarily declare it to be a miss (deciding on the outcome you want) or just rolling the dice again until it doesn't land on your disfavored outcome (using the dice, but excluding a result). Fudging doesn't require you to completely remove the dice from the equation.

[Nifft]

Narrative authority includes the ability to make decisions for your character

No, that's player agency.

Narrative authority is the authority of a narrator -- and narrators have the power to dictate truth independent of any particular character.

If you want to be understood, it's best to avoid using words that are misleading, for example words that mean something far larger than what you had intended to imply, for example using "narrative authority" when all you meant was "player agency".

[kyoryu]

It's interesting how many conflate "no fudging" with "running the rules exactly as written".

I don't know of any anti-fudging folks that make that assertion. I, and all the ones I know, are perfectly okay with the idea of houserules or "ruling" even up to the moment of rolling the dice.

[Koo Rehtorb]

No, that's player agency.

Narrative authority is the authority of a narrator -- and narrators have the power to dictate truth independent of any particular character.

If you want to be understood, it's best to avoid using words that are misleading, for example words that mean something far larger than what you had intended to imply, for example using "narrative authority" when all you meant was "player agency".

Way to cut off the second half the sentence, I guess.

[Nifft]

Way to cut off the second half the sentence, I guess.

There was once a god who wrote a book. In the book there were many, many sentences.

Do you think that it's reasonable to discuss writing one sentence as a "god-like power"?

Justify why or why not in your own words.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Justify why or why not in your own words.

Nah. I'll just be over here bein' good at roleplaying games instead. ;)

[Nifft]

Nah. I'll just be over here bein' good at roleplaying games instead. ;)

It's praiseworthy that you can have fun by yourself.

IMHO it's more rewarding to interact with others than to mislead them, so I do encourage you to try interacting with others in a more socially positive way, but you do you and have as much fun as you can.

Also, of course, I'd encourage you to start using words in ways that aren't misleading -- if you continue to behave like this, eventually people will decide that you're doing it deliberately.

[Kyrell1978]

Narrative authority includes the ability to make decisions for your character and have them matter in that they have a meaningful influence on the narrative. The ability to say "I shoot the mayor" is meaningless if what happens is the GM says "Okay, but you miss. And everyone ignores your feeble attempt." regardless of what you rolled or what the rules of the game say.

That's not what this says narrative authority means.
https://litreactor.com/columns/writi...ority-a-primer

Also your example doesn't apply to what anyone is saying. Everyone who is advocating fudging the dice is saying to only do so when the player is not doing something ignorant. (Shooting at the mayor would qualify as ignorant, thus another strawman).

If you're sitting down to play an RPG you are making an agreement that everyone at the table has the ability to meaningfully influence the narrative, with input from random chance. (for the most part, there are some RPGs that don't involve dice or whatever).

This again is opinion. Nowhere is it written in stone that some agreement has been made etc.

Fudging dice is saying that only one person's input on the narrative is the one that matters.

This is just blatantly false, and yet again unsubstantiated by anything, and does not follow. (Non-sequitur)

Which is... well, it's like trying to play soccer with a rock.

You're like a dog with a bone with this analogy, but professing it over and over again neither makes it more true, nor does it make it less a strawman. You are just not doing well with making logical analogies today.

If there's one thing this thread has shown it's that people are really bad at understanding rules and terminology, apparently. Kyrell1978's take on Fate earlier in the thread was particularly embarrassing

I was unaware that substantiating one's viewpoint with facts and citations was embarrassing. Another individual and I had a difference of opinion on whether or not a particular mechanic constituted fudging (in a game derived from a system coincidentally named FUDGE though that's an acronym and I believe it has more to do with the game's mechanic of boosting natural ability than anything being discussed here). I'm sorry if I embarrassed you, because I am just fine with it. Also, this is just another ad hominem attack on your part.

That's five logical fallacies in one post. It's not the most I've ever seen, but you're getting close.

[Louro]

A game where the rules shift and may or may not apply at the whim of the GM is a worse game (especially for the players) than one where the rules are followed consistently.

I understand that the excuse for fudging and invoking "rule 0", etc., are that following the rules don't always give you a result you want, and getting the results in terms of narrative or "cool" or fairness, or whatever it is is more important than following some rules. I agree.

"You" means "the whole table" there, right?
Fun. Having fun is the thing.
If we are having fun with an encounter, I might extend it just for the laughs. Fudging? Cheating? Breaking the rules?
Whatever if we get some epic moment to remember. If you know your game well, most of the times you can get along with it without breaking anything from the player's perspective.

I think a good number of players would be rather disturbed if D&D was actually played the way some folks here suggest - only following dice and rules when the DM wants it to be random and is willing to accept the outcome.

Yeah, as DM/referee that's part of my job.
When a player's comes with an elaborated lie I don't even get him roll for deception. He put a RP effort in building the lie, fabricating evidences or toying around with words and hidden information. I decide to ignore the rules and grant the player an automatic success if the lie is feasible and not being opposed.
Note that I'm not even fudging but declaring success straightforward. Sometimes players also like their efforts rewarded rather than determined by luck.

Most DM's know this, or sense this, I think - which is why they resort to fudging dice and using other tools of illusionism to fool the players into thinking things are being decided randomly, mechanically, and fairly when really something has been determined by the DM for narrative purposes (usually).

But... isn't it all an illusion?
I mean, governor Tharkad didn't exist until players asked about him.

Some players are obviously OK with this - I think probably because they don't know anything else, have never played a narrative-focused system with rules that actually work, and think that if there's going to be a "good story" the DM needs to do things this way, and they're willing to be treated to the magic show. They think that the game is about "telling stories" (it doesn't have to be, or rather, that phrase can mean a few different things), and so obviously the DM needs to fudge things a little or a lot in order to get the story right.

RPGs are about telling a story.
"Playing D&D is an exercise of collaborative creation. You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama."
- D&D 5e PHB p.4

If you truly only allowed the dice to be rolled when you were willing to accept all possible outcomes of the roll, I think some of these D&D games would have a lot less rolling happening, and I'm not sure a lot of players would actually be into that. Those who are fine with this are probably fine with free-form role playing in general and don't really want or need an actual game system at all.

"All possible outcomes" have a very wide meaning in D&D because of the design flaw (high skilled tests).

I think you missing the whole point.
You decide to fudge one roll because it either increases laughs or drama.

The tactical-dramatical combat system from paranoia showed me the power of editing. It allows/encourages players to go do some minor editing to get advantages in combat. (Well, it encourages you to suggest players to cheat, in creative ways).

It's the best combat system ever. You won't get anything as dramatic as a paranoia fight.
I don't fudge to drive the story in the way I want, I just allow myself to use one "Inspiration" to prevent randomness from cutting of drama or fun.

...

I wish I had a story to drive. Most I have are some important NPCs doing their businesses. Sometimes the outcome is a story, others I fail as DM.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I was unaware that substantiating one's viewpoint with facts and citations was embarrassing. Another individual and I had a difference of opinion on whether or not a particular mechanic constituted fudging (in a game derived from a system coincidentally named FUDGE though that's an acronym and I believe it has more to do with the game's mechanic of boosting natural ability than anything being discussed here). I'm sorry if I embarrassed you, because I am just fine with it. Also, this is just another ad hominem attack on your part.

I'm sure you are fine with it. And that's what makes it so embarrassing, in the manner of watching someone earnestly trying to explain why the Earth is flat. You were objectively wrong in a really blatant way, and it was hard to watch. This is on an entirely different level from talking to someone who believes fudging dice makes roleplaying games better. I disagree strenuously with them and think they're wrong, but it's a legitimate opinion to hold in a way you misunderstanding everything about Fate and vocally rambling on about it certainly wasn't.

[Kyrell1978]

I'm sure you are fine with it. And that's what makes it so embarrassing, in the manner of watching someone earnestly trying to explain why the Earth is flat. You were objectively wrong in a really blatant way, and it was hard to watch. This is on an entirely different level from talking to someone who believes fudging dice makes roleplaying games better. I disagree strenuously with them and think they're wrong, but it's a legitimate opinion to hold in a way you misunderstanding everything about Fate and vocally rambling on about it certainly wasn't.

You have a remarkable way of ignoring the fact that you attempt to debate logically, almost exclusively by using logical fallacies.

[Koo Rehtorb]

You have a remarkable way of ignoring the fact that you attempt to debate logically, almost exclusively by using logical fallacies.

This isn't a debate. You've already been thoroughly debunked with regards to Fate and how it relates to the subject of dice fudging.