"F" Is For "Fudging"

This is going to be my last post on this stupid, stupid subject. I really have other things I'd rather work on.

[for my prior posts see this and this...you might also want to check the comments as they elaborate on some of my thoughts/points. I mean, if you care about the elaboration of these things...]

"Is that a note of frustration I detect in your blogging, JB?" Yes. Yes you do.

BA wrote his own blog post on fudging yesterday, in which he lists many examples of which NONE I find to be "fudging," not even the one he claims is...at least it is not "fudging" in the way the term is generally used (and the way in which the original blogger of this subject intended the use of this term). However, in the comments on BA's post WQRobb gives a perfect example of fudging:

In my last gaming session I fudged a couple of to-hit rolls by the monsters the PC's were fighting because everything was just going so freaking badly for players that session. In the end the players still had a rough time and barely came out on top, but showing a small bit of mercy in the name of fun and keeping a game going isn't that big a deal in my mind.

THIS is what is meant by fudging. The DM made a decision that things were going "freaking badly" for the players that session, and so "fudged a couple of to-hit rolls by the monsters" (presumably calling attacks misses when hits were rolled) in order to show "a small bit of mercy in the name of fun." As WQRobb explicitly writes, in his own mind this wasn't a big deal. And BA would seem to agree.

I agree with BA that fudging one (or more) dice roll will not result in "The End of Days" nor prevent a person from getting to their particular afterlife. But I absolutely disagree that it's not a deal...a big deal...when it comes to a game that uses a fortune mechanic (i.e. dice rolling) to determine objective outcomes of play. WQRobb's fudging on behalf of his players has several effects:

• It declares that the result of the dice don't really matter.
• It declares that the rules of the game don't really matter.
• It declares a lack of trust in the players to deal with game consequences.
• It prevents players from learning from the experience of game play (becoming better players).
• It denies players a potential victory on their own earned merits (i.e. a real victory).
• It can break players' trust in a DM to be fair and impartial (depending on how aware they were of the DM's fudging).
• It can generate false feelings of accomplishment leading to poor play in the future that will in turn require more fudging (reinforcing the above points).

And even if these things aren't said out loud at the table, the action of the fudging itself will certainly plant these concepts in the psyche of the participants (certainly that of the DM who knows the fudging has taken place). And for a DM who has declared the dice results and rules don't matter (because they can always be fudged as needed)...well, they're just more likely to fudge again and again in the future.

When what should probably be happening is the DM should be learning their own lessons from the incident. Not a lesson of "crisis averted, fun had" but lessons of how to be a better DM:

• Maybe the players were having a hard time because monsters appearing were inappropriate (too tough) for their characters.
• Maybe the DM was failing to communicate the necessary information to the PCs that would allow them to escape death or determine a path to victory.
• Maybe the DM needs to develop a different mindset then "attack until all the players are DEAD." Maybe the monsters should have offered quarter, agreed to take a bribe, sought to have prisoner for ransom, or requested the PCs perform some task (like aiding the monsters against a different foe) in exchange for their lives.
• Maybe the DM needs to be a better teacher of the game to the players.

And it's certainly possible that after the session WQRobb took all those thoughts to heart and will adjust his methods of running games in the future to account for all these things. Possible...but probably not. After all:

"...showing a small bit of mercy in the name of fun and keeping a game going isn't that big a deal in my mind."

or so he wrote. Which to my mind sounds like a justification to just 'keep on keeping on.' Though I admit I'm making an assumption that the comment reflects his honest attitude and outlook.

I've gone back now and read Cavegirl's post multiple times, and the more I read it, the more asinine I find it. She has two main conclusions that are just...awful. I just want to address them one at a time:

#1 Fudging isn't inherently bad because it's a matter of individual taste whether or not one wants to fudge the dice.

Let me substitute something else for "fudging" and see if that logic makes sense:

Drinking and driving isn't inherently bad because it's a matter of individual taste whether or not one want to drink and drive.

Or how about:

Kicking your dog isn't inherently bad because it's a matter of individual taste whether or not one wants to kick their dog.

Or how about:

Posting hate-filled rhetoric on a personal website isn't inherently bad because it's a matter of individual taste whether or not one want to post hate-filled rhetoric.

But JB, you argue, that's different! You're hurting (or potentially hurting) people in all those examples! Am I?

• To my shame, I've driven many times when (probably) over the legal limit for alcohol consumption...never crashed, hurt myself (or anyone else), and never been pulled over. 
• A person's dog is their personal property, and I am legally allowed to euthanize the animal at any time. Would that be preferable?
• Hate-filled rhetoric? Don't read it if you don't like it. 

But okay...maybe all those examples are too despicable for the subject at hand. How about voting for a political candidate that's a climate science denier, anti-vax/-masker, who wants immigrant children jailed in caged isolation to teach their border-crossing parents a lesson? That's just a matter of personal opinion right? Nothing wrong with helping to get that guy elected...by whatever means necessary. Just exercising my right to vote. You can't tell me my choice is a poor one...it's just a matter of individual taste.

#2 Players should be allowed to fudge dice rolls because default assumptions of GM authority (i.e. traditional allocations of narrative responsibility) is kind of bullshit and anyway if the GM can fudge, why can't players? What's the big deal...it's not like they'll wreck the game or something.

Setting aside the underlying worthlessness of the premise (the given: "fudging is okay for GMs")...while I can see SOME logic in the conclusion ("why can't they fudge when I do?"), this is still a preposterous doubling-down on rule violation with regard to many RPGs, Dungeons & Dragons in particular. AD&D, at least, is explicit in that final control and authority lies in the hands of the DM. There are other RPGs where this is not the case (even games without a "GM" figure: see Fiasco, Polaris, Blood Red Sands, etc. for examples). In games where narrative authority is not firmly established in the instructions...sure, reasonable minds might agree to portion out some responsibilities to the players. But, again, it is the underlying premise ("fudging is okay!") that derails the whole of the discussion.

And that last bit gives me a chance to segue into the end of this post on a dumb subject (and to be clear, when I said it was stupid, I mean I'm being stupid for even writing about it...I sincerely doubt I'm going to change many minds here). There are many role-playing games other than D&D on the market...perhaps folks should be taking a closer look at what's out there.

Because a lot of this fudging subject seems to be a "D&D thing" or an issue for procedural RPGs of D&D's ilk. Does it not dawn on folks that D&D was designed a particular way to accomplish particular objectives? And that if you want it to play differently than the solution is to redesign the thing to meet your specific parameters? Why do folks continue to try pounding square pegs into round holes? 

All that means: change the rules, not the dice results.

Fudging is BAD. Fudging is WRONG. Fudging, by definition, is violating the rules of the game, which is the epitome of CHEATING. Regardless of whether or not fudging is okay with your "personal taste."

Have I fudged a die roll before? Yes, more than once. And on BOTH sides of the screen. And for all the usual stupid, wrong reasons. I've done LOTS of bad things in the past that I'm not proud of. As I get older and (somewhat) wiser, I'm trying to do better. To not do wrong. That's the best I can do. 

Not fudging dice rolls any more is one of the easier fixes.

Disagreement On Every Level

Recently, it feels like every time I comment on someone else's blog, it's almost always some super-negative, ranty bit of spite and bile. Which (and I'm sure I've written THIS before in multiple blog posts) isn't all that helpful/constructive: telling someone "you suck" is a good way to get them to ignore you and continue on their merry way, wrong-headed or not.

Also...ugh...I don't need to swim in the negativity. I already spend too much time swimming in that particular sea on a mostly daily basis. And my life is awesome! Jesus H, I have nothing to complain/worry about...why I bother getting worked up about shit like climate change or racist politics or folks dying of some disease that I'm vaccinated against. Shit...why should I care? I bought a share of Moderna stock back in February when it was around $150...that bitch just hit $492 yesterday! Life is good, the weather's sunny (again...been a lot of that this summer). Probably grill up some steaks for dinner tonight while the family reclines in front of our flatscreen, checking out some mindless show like Holey Moley or Family Game Fight.

*sigh*

This morning I read this post from Cavegirl on fudging dice that...well, I just found her conclusions to be stunningly bad. Which is to say, I disagree with most about every sentiment expressed in the post. Which is...um, fine? Everyone's entitled to an opinion? Something-something-or-other?

But me being me, there's some stuff I can't just let "sail by" unchallenged. And rather than post some sort of ranty, batshit comment on her blog, I'll scribble it up here:

What the F?! What are we doing here? I mean, what exactly is the point of playing these games? What is the reason for designing them and writing them down and selling them and buying them and running them? What is the point of including randomizers and fortune mechanics like dice and card draws and coin clips? What is the reason for establishing rules and boundaries and limitations?

Why don't we just hang out with our buddies, sipping tea (or beer or vodka or whatever) kabitzing about interesting shit and having a grand old time? Why don't we just watch a movie? Or read a book?

Are we out of money? Are we out of ideas? Are we out of options? Or are we just some sort of delusional idiots going through monkey-see motions, an ancient ritual of play long-ago established in our formative years and repeated now like a superstitious canticle to ward off the specter of boredom or the miseries inherent in daily life? What the actual hell?

Let's think about this for a moment...I mean really think about this. About what the point of it all is. If it's pointless, well, okay then, Do As Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the law. But then...why are you bothering to play such-and-such game? Why are you wasting your time with this? You may be dying of cancer and not even know it...isn't there some other way to enrich your life?!

But if we want to play a game...any game! Pick your poison!...I assume it's because this particular game (any game!) is one that we want to play. And the game has rules. And the rules are part of the game. And we like the game (that's why we want to play) and we like the parts that make up that game (including the rules). 

Ugh. Words are failing me at the moment. It's like trying to explain elementary principles like, I don't know, how to breathe or something. "You suck air down your throat, and then you blow it out again." Something. My brain is melting here. Maybe I'm the one that needs a deep breath.

[*inhale*]

I'll try this a different way: in a role-playing game that uses a fortune mechanic (like a die roll), the mechanic is presented for a particular reason and that reason isn't simply to give the participants a physical action to perform while sitting around the table. 

[at least not in an RPG that's had some thoughtful design go into it]

Instead, the fortune mechanic is provided to give a random chance of some particular in-game event occurring: success or failure, a spread of potentialities, a degree of achievement, whatever. In my experience, thoughtfully designed games generally have sensible reasons for calling for a particular die roll (i.e. for the use of a fortune mechanic). If the system/setting/design would deem use of the fortune mechanic to be inappropriate or nonsensical, then no such use of the mechanic is preformed.

In other words: don't roll dice if there's no question about what's supposed to happen in a given instance.

As an example: these days I've been playing AD&D. Many of the die-rolling mechanics found in AD&D pertain to combat. That's because the game models battle to be an iffy, chaotic affair that could result in death or defeat for either side depending on tactics, abilities of the combatants involved, and the whims of fate. The "abilities of the combatants" provide the probabilities (a high level fighter is more likely to hit and damage an opponent) while the dice account for the "whims of fate." Tactics, however, can influence both of these things: striking from ambush increase the probability of success (a bonus to attack rolls) as does use of weapon (more or less damage) and may even negate the whims of fate altogether (cutting the throat of a bound prisoner or sleeping opponent results in an auto-kill without dice rolling). 

I can totally understand that some people may not enjoy the "iffy-ness" of AD&D combat. They are certainly welcome to play other games that are more to their liking. They are certainly welcome to modify the AD&D system to their liking, creating their own game...perhaps one where PCs automatically hit or where damage from monsters can never "kill" a player character, only knock them out or something. That is fine and dandy, so long as everyone at the table can come to an agreement that THAT is the game they all want to play.

Because games have rules. When we sit down to the table, we are agreeing to play by the rules of the game being played.

There is never a reason to "fudge" the result of a die roll. There are times when dice are rolled by mistake ("oh, wait, I didn't need to make you roll for that...that's automatic") and a DM who has made a mistake in calling for a die roll at an inappropriate or nonsensical time has two options: 

1. fess up to the error and reverse ("retcon") the events that occurred due to the die roll, or 
2. plow ahead with the results. 

Generally, option #1 is recommended unless the result of the die error was either A) trivial in nature, and/or B) provided a favorable result for the players at the table.  But if the die roll was made appropriately (i.e. not a mistake) then there is no reason to not stand by the result of a die roll.

A die roll expresses a number of possibilities: it should be used only when a range of different possibilities are needed.  If my dungeon has a balrog wandering the halls of the 6th level and I want there to be a chance of a dithering bunch of adventurers encountering said balrog while they debate the best choice of a particular crossroads to take, I may roll a die to see if such an encounter occurs...given that there is also a possibility that such an encounter does not (because the balrog is in a different wing of the level, perhaps dining on some corpse the party left in their wake). On the other hand, I may know with absolute certainty that no balrog will be encountered at all (because it was called away on a mission for Sauron or something) OR that it will be 100% encountered (because it has no interest in eating corpses but incredible interest in slaying interlopers and its keen sense of smell allows it to track the bloody bandages of wounded party members), and in such cases no die roll is needed at all. In these latter cases, even rolling a die would be a mistake on my (the DM's) part.

Rules are present in a game for a reason. Secret doors make some things difficult to find (unexplored sections of a map, special monsters, super-cool treasure, etc.). If a DM wants something to be absolutely definitely found by the players, then it shouldn't be located behind a secret door. If there is a clue that the DM absolutely must have the PCs discover, then don't hide it, and don't assign a "random chance" of discovery. Just have them find it. It's not really a "clue" at that point, but a piece of exposition ("the bandits will be meeting at the old church at midnight!") which the players can then choose to ignore or not. 

Don't complain about die results: design and run your adventures better. 

"Playing by the rules" is not something "subjective" or "a matter of taste." If I'm running out of money in a game of Monopoly and I fudge my die roll to not land on my opponent's hotel (or if I slyly gift myself with a no interest "loan" from the bank funds) I am failing to play by the game rules, clear and simple. Yes, it IS cheating...literally, "violating the rules" is a definition of "cheating." Choosing to ignore the result of a die roll is just that. 

Now, rather infamously (since I mentioned AD&D) Gary Gygax wrote in his DMG (with regard to rolling dice) on page 110:

Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. 

The emphasis is added by me. Note that Gygax is not advocating for the result a die roll to be fudged; he is instead arbitrating a penalty more-or-less equivalent to death (remember characters can be returned to life in D&D), in order to allow a PC to survive...albeit maimed, blinded, captured, etc. 

Earlier in the same section, Gygax writes it is the DM's "right" to "control the dice at any time," a phrase some might interpret as authorizing the fudging of dice results. I disagree. For me, "controlling" the dice simply means the DM is the one who says when and how (and by whom) the dice will be rolled. Gygax also writes that the DM "has every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur." Again, I see this as a mandate to call for there to NOT be a dice roll (when a desirable result is a certainty) rather than a call for the DM to fudge actual dice results.

*sigh* (again)

There are so many problems in the world, and here I sit, complaining over the way someone wants to play their particular game. Stupid of me. Oh so stupid. And writing all this up (or any of it) won't make a whit of difference as to how people play their games...I'm just, once again, pissing all over their "fun" and telling them their way of doing things is bad/wrong. They will cite references found in all manner of RPGs saying things like "never let a bad die roll get in the way of telling a good story." And they shall remain unmoved by one old man's ranting on the internet.

You know what else you shouldn't let get in the way of telling a good story? Wasting time with a game. Just go tell your story! You don't need a game to do that! Find a damn writing group. Get your friends to collaborate with you. Start a community theater thing, or some shared oral storytelling tradition or something. Theme it with tropes from your favorite RPG setting if that's what floats your boat. But why waste time with dice and instructions ("rules")?

Anyway. 

This is a stupid thing to rail against...I admit that. It's stupid to get worked up about...and I am worked up about it. And, no, it has nothing to do with challenging "assumptions about GM authority." The GM shouldn't be "fudging" (i.e. cheating) to get a more desirable result any more than a player. And (sorry Cavegirl) I really, REALLY disagree that the subject is "subjective" or a matter of "individual taste." 

There's playing a game by rules. And there's cheating.

OR (I suppose) everyone can agree that the rule of the game is "there aren't any rules, at least not when they inconvenience one or more participants at the table." In which case, you're not really playing a game; you're simply playing. Which is fine, by the way...but you don't need dice for that.

Okay. Spleen vented. Sorry about all that.