Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

[Earthwalker]

[snip]

Whether or not fudging is "terrible" or not is entirely up to each individual person and trying to declare it badwrongfun (especially when enthusiastically consented to on both sides) is juvenile, though.

I would like to point out this in now way is the point I am making.

I Have in the past fudged dice rolls and in some systems (that some of my friends prefer I run) I may fudge dice in the future.

I have no problems with dice fudging, it has pros and cons.
Other methods to achieve similar results as fudging dice also have pros and cons. Like handing out Meta-currency to help players effect dice rolls.

What my objection is, and the point of my post is this.


When setting up a game, be honest about what the game is. DO NOT lie to the players about what the game is. If asked directly, do you plan to fudge dice in this FUTURE campaign ? Be honest with your answer. Allow players a chance to choose the games they want to play in, by GMs being honest what the game is.

I really don't see what the advantages are of Lying about what your game style is ?

[Scripten]

I would like to point out this in now way is the point I am making.

I Have in the past fudged dice rolls and in some systems (that some of my friends prefer I run) I may fudge dice in the future.

I have no problems with dice fudging, it has pros and cons.
Other methods to achieve similar results as fudging dice also have pros and cons. Like handing out Meta-currency to help players effect dice rolls.

What my objection is, and the point of my post is this.


When setting up a game, be honest about what the game is. DO NOT lie to the players about what the game is. If asked directly, do you plan to fudge dice in this FUTURE campaign ? Be honest with your answer. Allow players a chance to choose the games they want to play in, by GMs being honest what the game is.

I really don't see what the advantages are of Lying about what your game style is ?

Sorry, I should have been more clear in my post: I wasn't accusing you of making that claim, just stating in general.

Although I would also add that I wouldn't consider my games to have fudging in them, despite my previously stated actions where I ignored or modified random tables on the fly. I don't really have a problem telling my players that I do that, but it's not something that I feel is worth mentioning at the outset of advertising the table.

[Florian]

D&D gives people brain damage. RON EDWARDS WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!!!

The initial statement was, that V:tM gives people "braindamage" because the game idea and the rules used don´t match, like, at all, and will provide totally different experience, dependent on you following the "soft" or " hard" rules.

D&D hasn't the same but a similar problem: The rules are geared towards teamwork and competition at the same time, the later being split between intra-party and in regards to the GM.

Now this originally lead to a conflicted situation for the GM: Being neutral judge of the rules as well as being the opposition at the same time. Starting with 3E and going forward from hence, there was an afford to shift both roles over to the system used, while still maintaining the triple split foundation.

Allow me to be so blunt and say that this triple split only works for people socialized with stuff like the NFL and only if they accept the strict rules and boundaries imposed by something like that, to make it work (something that the current "D&D culture" doesn't really).

I can totally understand where you're coming from, but especially the competition part, which requires your approach, is neither inherent to RPGs nor common.

[Malifice]

When you book tickets to a magic show you know its a magic show.

And you know you're coming to a RPG as well dont you?

When I erect the DM screen, what goes on behind it (notes, rolls, maps etc) are none of your business.

[Earthwalker]

And you know you're coming to a RPG as well dont you?

When I erect the DM screen, what goes on behind it (notes, rolls, maps etc) are none of your business.

GM: I am thinking about running a RPG would you like to play ?
Player : What kind of RPG are you wanting to run ?
GM: That's none of your business.

I just don't understand how that approach is helpful ?
What do you get from it ?

I aren't talking about keeping mystery within the game while you are playing, but why cant you share basic ideas on how you are going to run a game before a player decides if he wants to play ?
Why do you think a player has no business knowing what kind of game they are signing up for ?

[AMFV]

Is fine as long as you are honest.
What is not fine, is when discussing the kind of game you are running. Is Lying to the players about the kind of game you run.

What purpose does lying to the players about your gaming style serve ?

Well I would probably say that I might occasionally fudge rolls if asked directly. But the thing is that I probably wouldn't bring it up if I wasn't asked directly, since I don't think it's really a fundamental part of gaming style in the way some people here seem to be claiming. It's kind of a minor thing. Major things would be things like how I handle character death, the tone, narrative structure, character time in the spotlight. Minor fudges for one reason or another is not a big enough deal for me to consider it part of my "gaming style". This is particularly true of things like "Random Encounter Tables" which if you'll look upthread is what started this whole argument, Tal basically claimed that "changing the results on an encounter table" was equivalent to cheating. Which might be more true in his somewhat bizarre completely table based system (at which point honestly you don't even really need a DM at all).

The other thing is that, what I was talking about was a DM who didn't intend to fudge rolls at the beginning of the campaign deciding to do it at a later date. At which point you can't really announce it or people will know which rolls you're fudging, unless you wait to do it. I would say that's not a big deal.

GM: I am thinking about running a RPG would you like to play ?
Player : What kind of RPG are you wanting to run ?
GM: That's none of your business.

But that's not what anybody has been advocating for. What (and I believe others) have been saying is that "fudging" isn't a fundamental aspect of the game enough that it would come up or be relevant in that discussion.

[Talakeal]

Two questions for the people who are claiming it is fine for the DM to tell their players he isn't fudging:

1: If an RPG doesn't have a "the DM is always right" rule, does that mean that it is by definition not an RPG?

2: Do you actually think claiming that something is in the rules makes violating an out of game agreement not dishonest? Like if a bunch of kids are playing basketball in the park and a much older and taller kid is told he can only play if he agrees not to dunk the ball because it is unfair to the younger kids, its perfectly for him to agree to that and then dunk to his heart's content?

[AMFV]

Two questions for the people who are claiming it is fine for the DM to tell their players he isn't fudging:

First, nobody is making the exact claim that you are claiming they are. I have been saying that I wouldn't tell players either way normally. If they asked me about it outside of a session I might, but not during one. And that I wouldn't bring it up during the "Session Zero" since I don't think it's particularly significant.

Second, nobody said "tell your players you aren't fudging", I just pointed out that if you were not fudging and then shifted your stance to one were you allow occasional fudging not only is it not something you probably need to bring up, but that it would be bad for the game to do so, generally.

1: If an RPG doesn't have a "the DM is always right" rule, does that mean that it is by definition not an RPG?

There are RPGs that don't have that rule, but those aren't the ones we're discussing. You were talking about a D&D based system, even if it's heavily houseruled, as can be seen by the game terms that you are using. Those systems contain a rule like that because of the expectation of the kind of the game they run and the relationship that they involve.

2: Do you actually think claiming that something is in the rules makes violating an out of game agreement not dishonest? Like if a bunch of kids are playing basketball in the park and a much older and taller kid is told he can only play if he agrees not to dunk the ball because it is unfair to the younger kids, its perfectly for him to agree to that and then dunk to his heart's content?

1.) Basketball is competitive, so the analogy breaks down immediately. Even in games which are DM and Player as antagonists, they aren't competitive in the same way that Basketball is. It would be more akin to an organizer for a "Tough Mudder" changing up the course without telling runners (which they often do), or a Strongman Competition changing events without warning (which they often do).

2.) Even depicting the DM/Player relationship as Older/Younger kids is a bad analogy, because you're creating the image that one is "punching down". Which isn't really the case, they have different roles, it's not about a relationship of in-equals, it's more like the difference between what the rules for a director vs. what the rules are for an actor. Or similar, they don't have the same job, so the rules shouldn't be identical to them. And it's not always in the DM's favor, for example, a character can be completely selfish in their character goals, a DM can't make an NPC that is like that or should not. The rules are different because the roles are different.

[Morgaln]

First, nobody is making the exact claim that you are claiming they are. I have been saying that I wouldn't tell players either way normally. If they asked me about it outside of a session I might, but not during one. And that I wouldn't bring it up during the "Session Zero" since I don't think it's particularly significant.

Second, nobody said "tell your players you aren't fudging", I just pointed out that if you were not fudging and then shifted your stance to one were you allow occasional fudging not only is it not something you probably need to bring up, but that it would be bad for the game to do so, generally.

Actually, Malifice did say pretty much exactly that:

Screw them. Fudge rolls. They dont need to know. Lie to them about it if they ask. You have a higher responsibility as DM.

[AMFV]

Actually, Malifice did say pretty much exactly that:

I think that the problem is that there's a big difference between being asked in the moment, and being asked a few sessions later or during downtime. I would certainly not tell somebody if I had just fudged a roll, either direction or at all. And I would lie if they asked me, although it's more likely that I would just not tell them.

[Florian]

Two questions for the people who are claiming it is fine for the DM to tell their players he isn't fudging:

1: If an RPG doesn't have a "the DM is always right" rule, does that mean that it is by definition not an RPG?

2: Do you actually think claiming that something is in the rules makes violating an out of game agreement not dishonest? Like if a bunch of kids are playing basketball in the park and a much older and taller kid is told he can only play if he agrees not to dunk the ball because it is unfair to the younger kids, its perfectly for him to agree to that and then dunk to his heart's content?

I think the basis for your questions is somewhat weird.

1: When you can accept that the GM is not the enemy, not in a competition with the players, has no stakes in the game, but is rather a provider of story and content, then it´s way easier to accept that the GM uses totally different rules as tool to do their job.

2: False equivalency. The rules don't run the game, the GM does, with pro-active players, the whole group does. The rules, or game system, is simple something all participants agreed upon as a baseline to handle things and therefore a way to prevent disagreements. Think about it: Freeform insofar has harder rules when it comes to reaching consent about whether something is possible and accepted at a table, than more details rules, which rely on having a number of discreet rules elements to handle each and every possible upcoming situation. Yet, I've never played with a rules system that manages to be good enough to work without someone at th table having to come up with rulings...

[Malifice]

GM: I am thinking about running a RPG would you like to play ?
Player : What kind of RPG are you wanting to run ?

GM: A campaign set in Faerun, using the 5E ruleset. It will be a heroic campaign, taking you from 1st to 20th level, so I would prefer non-evil PCs. It will feature plenty of undead as the primary protagonists.

Thats all you really need to know. I dont need to discuss with you the fact that I intend to use showmanship, or any other DM techniques during the campaign.

How I DM is a diferent question to what I will be DMing. You're conflating the two.

[kyoryu]

Playing systems that don't suit your needs.

In my mind the desire to fudge dice usually comes from a system/expectations mismatch. Generally the system is harsher or more about gaming skill than weaving a story than what you are actually looking for. Fudging rolls is a bandage on that wound.

Exactly how I usually put it.

Thats all you really need to know. I dont need to discuss with you the fact that I intend to use showmanship, or any other DM techniques during the campaign.

How I DM is a diferent question to what I will be DMing. You're conflating the two.

If I ask if you're going to fudge, and indicate that I don't like fudging, then yes, it is important to me. And if you choose to not tell me, i will choose to not play with you.

And if you lie to me, I will not play with you ever again. Not because fudging (if you're honest I might agree to a game where you say you're fudging if there's enough other reasons to play), but because you have lied to me, not in the context of a game, but on a person-to-person basis.

If I don't ask, then, sure. Do what you want.

[Malifice]

Exactly how I usually put it.



If I ask if you're going to fudge, and indicate that I don't like fudging, then yes, it is important to me. And if you choose to not tell me, i will choose to not play with you.

And if you lie to me, I will not play with you ever again.

Problem resolves itself then doesnt it?

Honestly, if you came to a fun game with an attitude like that, then you probably wouldnt get that far to begin with.

Player: Do you fudge rolls?
Me: Wouldnt tell you if I did, so dont bother asking. My main aim is for my players to be challenged, work together, be engaged by the game and story and have fun. Take it or leave it.

[Cluedrew]

Then you play a game that doesn't allow that kind of things, or you modify the rule to your liking. "Mooks don't get to crit" or "Getting killed by a mook only result in a temporary takedown (unconscious, captured, thrown into the river...)". Or better yet, you use a meta ressource that allows you to control the pace of such things : "The GM gets 3 villainy points per game. He can use those points to get a crit, dodge an attack, or have the BBEG flee the scene"

It's not fudging anymore when it's in the rules ^^

That is they type of thing I meant, switch or adjust systems to fit your game instead of piling hot-fixes on.

Player: Do you fudge rolls?
Me: Wouldnt tell you if I did, so dont bother asking. My main aim is for my players to be challenged, work together, be engaged by the game and story and have fun. Take it or leave it.

You consider lying? Explicitly saying you are withholding certain information... well I'm sure it is morally objectionable in some contexts, this is seems fine and I would not consider it a lie. I am kind of anti-fudging for reasons I have given up-thread and if someone said they weren't fudging but they were, I would be upset. But if someone told me "I may or may not fudge any given roll and will not say exactly when I have", that's OK, not my preference but if there are other things I am enjoying I'd probably stay. If they had no issue with me rolling in secret.

[Malifice]

You consider lying?

It should be assumed DMs lie all the time. They are repeatedly required to mislead, deceive, manipulate, bluff, obfuscate and misdirect the players.

It's one of the skills required to be a good DM.

Player: Ill search the door thoroughly for any traps.
DM: (Rolls for player in secret, gets a crap roll, knows door is trapped. Casually states): This door doesn't look any different from any of the others mate.
Player: I open the d...
DM: *BOOM* (making everyone at the table jump) is the sound of the fireball trap going off as you do so. (or) *inhaling sharply while faking a look of concern for the player to get them worried* It's trapped. You missed it. Fireball. A big one too. Your world becomes fire.

And so on and so forth. You're using flat out deceit and showmanship, misdirection and other techniques to enhance the game.

You do it for entertainment reasons, story reasons, to maintain surprise or keep the players guessing etc.

[Morgaln]

It should be assumed DMs lie all the time. They are repeatedly required to mislead, deceive, manipulate, bluff, obfuscate and misdirect the players.

It's one of the skills required to be a good DM.

Player: Ill search the door thoroughly for any traps.
DM: (Rolls for player in secret, gets a crap roll, knows door is trapped. Casually states): This door doesn't look any different from any of the others mate.
Player: I open the d...
DM: *BOOM* (making everyone at the table jump) is the sound of the fireball trap going off as you do so. (or) *inhaling sharply while faking a look of concern for the player to get them worried* It's trapped. You missed it. Fireball. A big one too. Your world becomes fire.

And so on and so forth. You're using flat out deceit and showmanship, misdirection and other techniques to enhance the game.

You do it for entertainment reasons, story reasons, to maintain surprise or keep the players guessing etc.

I just have to ask: do you seriously not see the difference between lying about how you DM versus acting in the game? One is telling the untruth about what someone can expect from your game; the other one is telling a story.

When an author writes a novel, he is obviously "lying"; what he's writing about hasn't happened. But that's not the same as the author saying "I will never kill off this character" and then doing it anyway in his next novel. One of them is telling a story; the other one is misrepresenting how that story is being told. It's a lie on a completely different level.

[Satinavian]

The other thing is that, what I was talking about was a DM who didn't intend to fudge rolls at the beginning of the campaign deciding to do it at a later date. At which point you can't really announce it or people will know which rolls you're fudging, unless you wait to do it. I would say that's not a big deal.

I would say, it is a big deal.

Some people like fudging, some people are indifferent, some people don't like. Many would even play a game against their preferences if other aspects are good enough. But agreeing to not fudging and then still doing it later is a betrayal between the people sitting together to play a game. I have seen friendships ended for stuff like that.

But that's not what anybody has been advocating for. What (and I believe others) have been saying is that "fudging" isn't a fundamental aspect of the game enough that it would come up or be relevant in that discussion.

And i have seen it come up regularly in session 0 discussions. Certainly not always, but often enough. I have also seen it brought up regularly when it was not agreed upon beforehand and then it became apparent that people had differing assumptions about it.

It is fundamental enough an aspect of the game. And i know several people who would not consider joining a campaign that goes against their preferrence here.


I also have seen some weird compromises including limited numbers of rerolls/fudges or the option to change results for plot reasons if done clearly, explicitely and not in secret. But most groups can agree on some way without such measures.

DM: (Rolls for player in secret, gets a crap roll, knows door is trapped. Casually states): This door doesn't look any different from any of the others mate.

That is not a lie.

That is an out of game statement about how the door looks to the character. And that statement is absolutely true.

I can't imagine any instance where a GM should ever have to lie to players in a normal game. NPCs might lie, but what the DM does in those cases is indirect speech, describing truthfully what the NPC is saying. In all other cases, the DM describes truthfully what the PC know/notice about the world. The GM can additionally make statements about the world that are not linked to PC interactions, but all of those have to be true.

[Malifice]

I just have to ask: do you seriously not see the difference between lying about how you DM versus acting in the game? One is telling the untruth about what someone can expect from your game; the other one is telling a story.

When an author writes a novel, he is obviously "lying"; what he's writing about hasn't happened. But that's not the same as the author saying "I will never kill off this character" and then doing it anyway in his next novel. One of them is telling a story; the other one is misrepresenting how that story is being told. It's a lie on a completely different level.

I could tell my players 'it's unlikely you will die in this campaign for no other reason other than random chance.'

But I'd rather not telegraph that to them because it ruins the suspense. If they know that I'll pull punches from time to time, it kills the sense of danger, excitement and accomplishment.

This is also why I throw many a dice down in front of the table and let them fall where they may. That helps maintain the illusion.

[geppetto]

I would like to point out this in now way is the point I am making.

I Have in the past fudged dice rolls and in some systems (that some of my friends prefer I run) I may fudge dice in the future.

I have no problems with dice fudging, it has pros and cons.
Other methods to achieve similar results as fudging dice also have pros and cons. Like handing out Meta-currency to help players effect dice rolls.

What my objection is, and the point of my post is this.


When setting up a game, be honest about what the game is. DO NOT lie to the players about what the game is. If asked directly, do you plan to fudge dice in this FUTURE campaign ? Be honest with your answer. Allow players a chance to choose the games they want to play in, by GMs being honest what the game is.

I really don't see what the advantages are of Lying about what your game style is ?

The advantages should really be obvious to anyone who understands human interaction.

If players know you fudge occasionally and something bad seems to happen more often to their character then others (whether due to fudging or not) they are likely to feel like your out to get them because they think you either screwed them actively or didnt save them like you (or appeared to) saved other characters.

Same goes if you roll random treasure or anything else. If they know your willing to fudge some rolls they will expect it whenever something bad happens to them, which is not how most of us do it. And if you dont fudge in their favor you can get bitterness.

Its better if they have no idea whether its happening or not, the little white lie keeps everyone having more fun. Like telling your chubby girlfriend that the dress doesnt make her look fat, its a social lubricant.

[geppetto]

Two questions for the people who are claiming it is fine for the DM to tell their players he isn't fudging:

1: If an RPG doesn't have a "the DM is always right" rule, does that mean that it is by definition not an RPG?

I dont play those kinds of games so i dont have an opinion on this one.

2: Do you actually think claiming that something is in the rules makes violating an out of game agreement not dishonest? Like if a bunch of kids are playing basketball in the park and a much older and taller kid is told he can only play if he agrees not to dunk the ball because it is unfair to the younger kids, its perfectly for him to agree to that and then dunk to his heart's content?

As was already stated by someone else gaming isnt competitive. You cant cheat each other because your not trying to beat each other so the analogy is bad.

Its more like a job. Everyone has different roles, say I'm the manager of a restaurant (the GM) and I hire you to be the front of the house and play host. We each have our roles. But one day something unexpected happens, a waiter calls in sick and i need you to go be a waiter that day because its more important then hosting.

You should go do it, its not your job, not what you agreed on when you were hired, but we're all on a team with the same goal and thats what needs to be done at the moment to accomplish the goal (a good dinner service) so get your butt over there and start taking orders, or your off the team.

[War_lord]

If you just casually lie to your "friends" because you've decided that it's in their best interest for you to mislead them over a game, you are a jerk. End of. Yes, there's no stakes, but that just makes it worse. If I was friends with you, and I found out you were lying to me over a D&D game my reaction is not "oh, it doesn't matter that you can calmly lie to my face when it's expedient for you, it's only a game". My reaction is actually "if this person can lie to my face over a game, what are they capable of when they do have something real to gain from misleading me?".

That's if I don't drop you for talking about people who are playing a game with you like they're your employees. No, I'm not here for your amusement, and any DM who thinks of their players like that is an awful DM.

It's the same as if I caught one of my players cheating. It's not that you're being dishonest in the context of this game. It's that the ease with which you first justify and then carry out deception is evidence that you can't be trusted in a broader social context.

And incidentally, it is not like hiding a drunk's keys, because the drunk has limited faculties. What it's like is if you had a one night stand with someone, without telling them you are in a relationship, and then justifying it by saying "omitting the fact that I'm not single was a social lubricant, they wouldn't have slept with me if I didn't, and technically I didn't lie to get consent because they never asked directly". Multiple levels of skeezy.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I really am absolutely amazed every single time this topic comes up by just how outrageous some people's posts on the subject end up being. I don't like fudging. I think you're a ****ty GM if you fudge and I have no interest in playing with you. That's fine. That's my own opinion and I'm not declaring myself the God King of Tabletop Gaming. Groups can happily fudge if they want to and I'll just shake my head at them in a vaguely condescending way as I carry on with my smug elitist gaming over here.

But people who claim it's acceptable to lie to you about their GM practises to get you into the game because they know better than you what you'll like and what makes for good gaming are, frankly, disgusting. It is completely unbelievable that some people think this is acceptable behaviour. I shouldn't think "Don't lie to people to get them to do things on false pretenses" is something that needs to be said at all, let alone debated. But here we are. Consent is kind of important, guys.

[War_lord]

But people who claim it's acceptable to lie to you about their GM practises to get you into the game because they know better than you what you'll like and what makes for good gaming are, frankly, disgusting. It is completely unbelievable that some people think this is acceptable behaviour. I shouldn't think "Don't lie to people to get them to do things on false pretenses" is something that needs to be said at all, let alone debated. But here we are. Consent is kind of important, guys.

And for me personally this isn't even about the context of silly monster slaying dice games, it's that the advocates of this kind of dishonesty could very easily extend that mindset to any other human interaction they have.

[Cluedrew]

You consider lying?

It should be assumed DMs lie all the time. They are repeatedly required to mislead, deceive, manipulate, bluff, obfuscate and misdirect the players.

Woops, typo. It was supposed to say: "You consider that lying?" I don't, which is what the rest of the post is about

I would never lie as I consider the term (deliberate providing of misinformation) to other people in my game. But that is entirely different than not revealing certain information especially when you have laid out what sort of information you will not be sharing (which should cut off lie of omission).

Or I think people are raising objections thinking you are saying "I don't fudge dice" when you do (the lie). When you are actually saying "I fudge dice, but I'm not going to tell you when."

[GloatingSwine]

1: If an RPG doesn't have a "the DM is always right" rule, does that mean that it is by definition not an RPG?

No.

But it might mean the GM is by definition not a GM.

The point of the GM is that they're running the game. If the rules and dice are running the game and the GM is powerless before them, rather than in charge of reasonably and sensibly applying them, then are they meaningfully a GM any more?

[War_lord]

No.

But it might mean the GM is by definition not a GM.

The point of the GM is that they're running the game. If the rules and dice are running the game and the GM is powerless before them, rather than in charge of reasonably and sensibly applying them, then are they meaningfully a GM any more?

The point of the dice is to add a random element to the game in situations where leaving success or failure up to the GM's whim would cause problems. "fudging" just nullifies the whole point of introducing dice in the first place, you may as well just read the table a story.

[GloatingSwine]

The point of the dice is to add a random element to the game in situations where leaving success or failure up to the GM's whim would cause problems.

And one of the GM's jobs at the table is deciding when that is.

Certainly for D&D, the ability of the GM to sometimes overrule the dice for the good of the game is explicit, including advice for how to do it (particularly in when and whether to roll secretly so players can't tell you're doing it) (Pg. 18 3.5ed DMG).

[Malifice]

This thread is hilarious.

So many peeps complaining about DMs that are missing the key thing wrong.

[War_lord]

And one of the GM's jobs at the table is deciding when that is.

Certainly for D&D, the ability of the GM to sometimes overrule the dice for the good of the game is explicit, including advice for how to do it (particularly in when and whether to roll secretly so players can't tell you're doing it) (Pg. 18 3.5ed DMG).

The 5th edition DMG says the following:

"If you roll dice where the players can see, they know you're playing impartially and not fudging rolls"

It does go on to say "Don't distort die rolls too often though, and don't let on that you're doing it. Otherwise, your players might think they don't face any real risks - or worse, that you're playing favorites."

So the latest edition acknowledges that it's something that's going to be done by some DMs. But they do spell out that it's not impartial, that it means that there's no risk, and that there's a high potential for it to slip into outright favoritism. The whole point of dice is to add an element of luck and to remove the potential for DM corruption. What even is the point of rolling the dice at all if you're just going to void results you don't like?