I’m pro-fudge; I view my job as to provide an entertaining game for all parties. I’ll happily fudge a roll for a player who’s had a horrible string of bad luck in an evening, nothing seems to go his way, and is clearly not having fun. I’ll fudge for story to make the encounter more memorable. I typically fudge in the player’s benefit. Rarely I’ll fudge against them, and typically only to add an element of uncertainty.

That’s due in large part to the fact that he has an excellent handle on when to fudge. In combat, he usually tells us the AC we need to hit — no fudging there. We’ve had some dramatic successes, but we’ve also had at least one very dramatic failure — and there was definitely no fudging in the latter case.

While I do fudge in combat sometimes, it’s only things that I can control: the NPC misses so that the PCs can get the glory of taking down the Big Bad, etc. I don’t fudge “static” things like Defense ratings so that a hit one round mysteriously becomes a miss, etc.

I believe that any good story (and game) must have the element of risk. I’m fine to let characters die through circumstances or poor choices, but rarely due to a string of bad rolls from faceless NPCs. I’ve had that happen to me in play and it’s not fun.

We game to have fun and I’ll do anything to achieve that, including fudging a roll when necessary. As of yet (20+ years of RPGs), no complaints.

Not to feed the flames, but that’s my quote. If you’ll check the post it’s in, I address your comments specifically and mention that I was once anti-fudging. I don’t consider myself an absolutist either way, but I do accept that there are appropriate times to fudge (just as there are appropriate times not to fudge).

I’ll repeat myself here. Yes, it is possible to reduce or cut off the “need” to fudge by proper game design and implementation. However, I am frankly not that good of a GM to predict every possible situation which may arise, so I leave the door to fudging open.

And in re-reading this page and the fudge-related forum pages before, I definitely think that the “purists” view fudging as some kind of a sin, judging by the language they use to describe it – cheating, metagaming, dishonest. I don’t think a single fudger has mentioned that the non-fudgers take up their tactics, but many of the non-fudgers have strongly suggested that the fudgers stop fudging.

But that’s just my humble opinion, and I’ll readily admit that it is not exactly objective.

Respectfully,

Telas

“Also, Fudging is metagaming, because metagaming is not soley concerned with the separation of player and character knowledge. Failure to do so is one very common form of metagaming. Metagaming is, literally, anything you do that supports the framework of gaming, that is not internal to the game itself.”

If that’s the definition you want to use CJ, I’m not going to argue with you. You originally asked why most people miss that fudging is metagaming, and I was answering that point. Most gamers, I suspect, don’t use a definition of metagaming that would include fudging.

Then again, I could be totally wrong

If done poorly it will take away from the enjoyment of the game, but that can be said of many things.

What I don’t get is why people from both sides of the debate seem to think that the other side “doesn’t get it”. I’m a very succesful person considering my background making six figures in a highly technical and competitive field. This is due to my ambition, work ethic, skills, and intelligence. Why is it assumed that I don’t get the points being made here? I don’t agree with them, but I do understand them.

Again, this is something that I see happening on both sides of the debate. If the non-fudgers find what the fudgers points are to be unflattering, well the opposite is probably true as well.

I’ve come to the conclusion that it isn’t even worth debating anymore here at TT. Both sides have made good and bad arguments, but so much crap has been thrown in to the mix that now I just don’t care. Fudge? Don’t fudge? Who gives a f***? If it works for your group do it. If you want to try something new and find that it works better, great.

GMs that aren’t firmly on one side or the other should experiment with fudging and non-fudging and come to their own conclusions, and they should invlove the group with those experiments. And whatever the end result is for your group that works best is what you should go with.

No, I’ve noticed that non-fudgers are offended by the partronizing way that fudgers tell us why we do what we do, and don’t listen to us when we correct them. If you’ll read very carefully in the previous posts, you’ll see that. Fudge or don’t fudge. I don’t care. (I repeat myself here, note.) Don’t come onto a message board and try to explain how non-fudging works, if you don’t know. If you haven’t tried it, seriously, THEN YOU DON’T KNOW.

I’ve also noticed that, with a few exceptions, fudgers rarely answer any argument made against their points. Now, this could be because we non-fudgers are not explaining ourselves very well. Thus I’m growing increasingly more blunt in an effort to get your attention, as in YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Do I have it now? Perhaps some of you would like to answer the points that I and others have made, or ask for clairification, if we aren’t clear?

The irritation comes because, if you take the fudgers take on non-fudging seriously, the obvious conclusions one would derive from that are rather unflattering to most non-fudgers. This is why Discordian is ticked.

Also, Fudging is metagaming, because metagaming is not soley concerned with the separation of player and character knowledge. Failure to do so is one very common form of metagaming. Metagaming is, literally, anything you do that supports the framework of gaming, that is not internal to the game itself.

I think it’s practically impossible to play a RPG without some metagaming. You pick the ones that work for you, and you avoid the ones that have too much baggage.

And despite my blunt language, I’m not angry with anyone here. Don’t get me wrong. It’s a useful discussion. But my suggestion is that non-fudgers concentrate on telling us why you fudge, and you let us non-fudgers tell you why we don’t. Deal?

“And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.” – Samuel Coleride, uh I mean Robert Frost

This kind of codified system may end up being fine for both sides. I believe Spycraft (gack!) has a mechanic in which the bonus points PCs receive are matched by a similar pool for the GM. It’s assumed that the GM is always abiding by the rules (no cheating) but that he can spend his points to modify things as drama calls for it.

The recent Expedition to Castle Ravenloft features another option. When playing the game in which action points are used (such as in the Eberron setting), the antagonist gains his own action points to spend whenever a PC spends one and still fails his action.

These kind of approaches get towards correcting the problem I have with fudging: they help restore fairness. If the players can modify the game in the same fashion as the GM, there isn’t a problem.

Many games also allow for risk-removal in some situations: A good investigator in a d20 game could probably take 10 and get the most out of a Search check; if he spent the time to take 20 he’s pretty assured of getting it.

But I must point out that you quoted Telas and not me.

Mark – I agree with what you said. When the players know and agree that it is okay for the GM to fudge if it is done for the purpose of heightening the experience it isn’t cheating. I ask my players now if they want me to fudge in order to tweak the game to their liking, otherwise it is a straight game. When you fudge without that consent it is cheating. When you have that consent it is taking advantage of a tool that all have agreed is at your disposal.

Speaking of respect: Fudging, unless explicitly stated by the DM, is a kind of deception. Of course DMs employ deception all the time. However, fudging is a kind of deception the players might not be cool with. Personally, that’s why I don’t like it.

Everyone has good points from both sides.

However, I am sure we all can agree on one thing: Honesty is ALWAYS a best policy. Thus, if a DM wants to fudge, I think his players deserve a heads-up before play. Otherwise, they might assume he doesn’t, and thus could be offended when/if fudging is discovered.