Fudging

[copeab]

Since this was brought up in the 'Boom You're Dead' thread, I thought I'd discuss it on it's own. For, you see, I'm a GM who fudges.

A lot of players and GMs hate fudging; they consider it cheating. Others consider it a normal and expected part of GMing. A lot has to do with how the GM chooses to fudge and how often they do it. A lot depends on why the members of the group are playing -- players looking for a form of entertainment are less likely to be offended by fudging than players looking to immerse themselves in a simulation. Like so many campaign styles, the decision ti fudge depends on the mindset of the participants. There is no absolute right or wrong to it.

The least obvious way to fudge is to change the number and skill levels of NPCs encountered, based on the party's situation. A GM might change a platoon of Veteran soldiers to a squad of Novice militia if the party got really beat up recently.

Changing die rolls is a little more heavy-handed and might be impossible if the GM rolls dice in the open. If I choose this method (I usually don't) I normally won't change the first or second damage rolls -- I have no problem letting PCs get hurt, I just find dead PCs fairly useless.

There is finally, the deus ex machina route, where the PCs are suddenly saved by the arrival of NPCs or discovery of a useful piece of equipment. However, this can work if the arrival or discovery is foreshadowed well enough. For example, discovering a small cache of weapons after hearing there was such a cache in the area, or being saved by a militia patrol the PCs have met, helped and are on friendly terms with. Even so, this can be overdone.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by copeab

Since this was brought up in the 'Boom You're Dead' thread, I thought I'd discuss it on it's own. For, you see, I'm a GM who fudges.

A lot of players and GMs hate fudging; they consider it cheating. Others consider it a normal and expected part of GMing. A lot has to do with how the GM chooses to fudge and how often they do it. A lot depends on why the members of the group are playing -- players looking for a form of entertainment are less likely to be offended by fudging than players looking to immerse themselves in a simulation. Like so many campaign styles, the decision ti fudge depends on the mindset of the participants. There is no absolute right or wrong to it.

The least obvious way to fudge is to change the number and skill levels of NPCs encountered, based on the party's situation. A GM might change a platoon of Veteran soldiers to a squad of Novice militia if the party got really beat up recently.

Changing die rolls is a little more heavy-handed and might be impossible if the GM rolls dice in the open. If I choose this method (I usually don't) I normally won't change the first or second damage rolls -- I have no problem letting PCs get hurt, I just find dead PCs fairly useless.

There is finally, the deus ex machina route, where the PCs are suddenly saved by the arrival of NPCs or discovery of a useful piece of equipment. However, this can work if the arrival or discovery is foreshadowed well enough. For example, discovering a small cache of weapons after hearing there was such a cache in the area, or being saved by a militia patrol the PCs have met, helped and are on friendly terms with. Even so, this can be overdone.

I've been known to do that too. No one wants to see their PC(s) die and if they run their characters well, I might fudge a little from time to time. I also borrow the concept of "fortune points" from the old TSR game, "Top Secret," where a player can use one to avert death but they might still have to give up something like their prized rifle or whatnot. They can buy fortune points with experience as well or earn them through "good karma."

Chuck

[Caradhras]

I started RPGs way back in the early 80s with expert/AD+D and it was a strict dice game, no 'cheats' by the GM. This continued through .. T2k ,MERP, Cthulu, Runequest and Rolemaster until I played Vampire which is more a story based game than dice run, although dice play a part.

I learned from this more free form game, probably coupled with >20 yrs Gming and becoming more mature (omg!) that a balance is ideal for (imo) the perfect gaming experience. Sometimes the dice alone can spoil a great game/story/campaign, also too much 'fudging' can make the players feel seperate from their fates and kill the interest. Sometimes a bad guy has to escape, and sometimes if a player gets shot....he gets shot - the element of risk of loss of the char has to be present.

ATM I am running my own created game of Napoleonic British Riflemen in the Peninsula war based on the Rolemaster system following the history accurately but using a few ideas from Sharpe etc. Anyway, Rolemaster is a very viscious (accurate!) system especially with firearms and battles and i needed to devise something to give the chars a chance of not losing the head to a round shot or a musket ball through both lungs too regularly. In the end I hijacked an idea from HARP system called a Hero point. Basically, when I roll the result of the nasty musket ball etc I can say to the player 'you trip and see a round shot take the head off a trooper behind you - cross off your hero point' or such like.

It isnt ideal, but they know I am keeping it pretty honest and fatal yet they have a lifesaver from the evils of a fateful dodgy dice roll once every now and again.

Hmm sry - didnt mean to waffle on so.

[headquarters]

I think a similar solution was devised in the Warhammer system ,that I also played in my tender youth.

You could use your points to beef up your chances at making it or have a bad result softened by applying the points after the fact or some such .

By all means Sir,do waffle .

I must say that grey areas arise in all GMs campaigns ,the situation were killing the characters would devestate months or years of careful campaignbuilding - accidental PC death isnt very alluring prospect then .Also in some cases ,the players are very thick,and killing the PCs doesnt improve /educate like you would imagine .Sometimes a gentle nudge or 10 is better than a firm hand and one slap to the face .

When that is all said - I cannot say strongly enough how important it is to make sure the dark and hungry beings that reside in the dice are kept sated with the HPand blood of player characters from time to time .I have sinned in this respect some times and the campaign grew too soft and some found it tedious.

After reigniting my vicious and bloodthirsty side I have rediscovered the joys of GMing that had been too long supressed.

I now strive to make the sessions present a tactical conundrum ( or sometimes a moral one -which is far worse for my lot -evil basterds that they are ) were the partys actions most likely will lead to one or more fatalities or grave injury that later will lead to slow and terrible death from infection.

( We do tend to have humorous sessions though -its not a bad mood cult )

I think creating a situation that will kill a PC should they not all pull their weight with prudence and valor pr session is important .Some luck should also be needed of course .

I say,my waffeling isnt half bad either !

Originally Posted by Caradhras

I started RPGs way back in the early 80s with expert/AD+D and it was a strict dice game, no 'cheats' by the GM. This continued through .. T2k ,MERP, Cthulu, Runequest and Rolemaster until I played Vampire which is more a story based game than dice run, although dice play a part.

I learned from this more free form game, probably coupled with >20 yrs Gming and becoming more mature (omg!) that a balance is ideal for (imo) the perfect gaming experience. Sometimes the dice alone can spoil a great game/story/campaign, also too much 'fudging' can make the players feel seperate from their fates and kill the interest. Sometimes a bad guy has to escape, and sometimes if a player gets shot....he gets shot - the element of risk of loss of the char has to be present.

ATM I am running my own created game of Napoleonic British Riflemen in the Peninsula war based on the Rolemaster system following the history accurately but using a few ideas from Sharpe etc. Anyway, Rolemaster is a very viscious (accurate!) system especially with firearms and battles and i needed to devise something to give the chars a chance of not losing the head to a round shot or a musket ball through both lungs too regularly. In the end I hijacked an idea from HARP system called a Hero point. Basically, when I roll the result of the nasty musket ball etc I can say to the player 'you trip and see a round shot take the head off a trooper behind you - cross off your hero point' or such like.

It isnt ideal, but they know I am keeping it pretty honest and fatal yet they have a lifesaver from the evils of a fateful dodgy dice roll once every now and again.

Hmm sry - didnt mean to waffle on so.

[Caradhras]

That reminds me of a story I heard at one of my early RPG groups..

A new guy turns up to play high lvl D+D and brings his own char. This char is basically beyond reason - 17th fighter/20th cleric/33rd MU or something with xmas trees worth of top magic items. The players and GM all know each other well and exchange knowing glances. One of the first rooms has a chest in it as they open the door and in walks the superhero, down drops the Lurker Above and begins to kill the player. The rest of the group walk carefully past the gruesome scene and continue on their adventures, much to the players protestations. He didnt play again

[leonpoi]

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.

[pmulcahy11b]

Fudged: When the event called for either detracts from the story line the GM is trying to present, or contributes nothing to it. It's not a fudging tactic a GM should use too often, but every so often the dice call for an event that will seriously screw up the progress or events of a campaign, without providing any decent or satisfying alternate events or story line. Then, the GM has to fudge. Needless to say, you don't do this very often, or get too heavy-handed with it, or the players will realize they are being led around by their noses, and will begin to think that they have no actual say in what their characters do.

And remember: Just because a campaign isn't going the way the GM intended, because the players decided to go in a different direction, doesn't mean that the campaign suddenly becomes unplayable or unsalvageable. A GM has to be far more flexible than the players. A good tactic for this to to have something akin to what we called in the Army "hip-pocket classes" -- a good NCO always had ready in his head a set of classes that could be taught quickly and with minimal training aids, but carried good training points. A good GM should have a good set "hip-pocket events" and "hip-pocket encounters" to carry his campaign along on the fly until he comes up with something to fit the direction the players want to go. (And meanwhile, there is a lot of panicked, rapid thinking going on in his head that he's trying hard to conceal from the players...)

[Raellus]

That's great advice Paul. My players rarely take the paths I've laid out before them.

In terms of fudging, when it comes to combat, I usually give my players' PCs one "miracle" escape each. After that's been used up, it's all up to the dice. I use quick-kill for my players' PCs too. No kid gloves.