I think fudging is fine, if everyone agrees on the outcome and it's done for the right reason - to have fun. I GM (when I can get a game going) and I've taken a lot from recent "indie" rpgs that have a great sense of narrative and also a great emphasis on defining what the outcomes of success and failure will be.
Here are some examples of when I've fudged and where I would not have fudged:
Not fudged: when the players know that what they are doing is dangerous and they know the risks.
Players launched an ambush on a vehicle as it stopped at a road block at night. The APC pulls up, they sprint from a woodline 100m away, get within short range, aim, but miss with their only LAW. Now they are in trouble as fire opens up and the turret starts to swivel towards them.
They know they are stuffed if they run directly away in the same line from the turret so they make the conscious decision to run perpendicular and in different ways - even though they know that the side of the road is mined (they've been watching people mine it for days). I explain that they are about to run through a minefield to evade the fire, but they accept the risks and cross their fingers. If they had stepped on a mine I would not have fudged anything.
Fudged: when a player dies because of sheer dumb luck.
A protracted firefight at long range. PCs are in good cover, a round strikes the PC in the head, bypasses the helmet and gets a quickkill. PC is dead because a 2 or less was rolled on a d20, then a 1 on a d10, then a 5-6 on the d6, then a d20 roll less than the damage roll. They knew the risks and you could argue that they knew bullets are dangerous but I say, " how about the round strikes the helmet, damaging it enough so that it's unusable, causes a serious wound so that they are KOd, but they are not dead"? Everyone agrees and the PCs get the body and withdraw.
|