Fudging rolls and player agency

Yeah, I think you explained yourself well, and thanks for providing an actual play example! (maybe the moderators should split this thread? @thekernelinyellow). I don’t want to sound too confrontational, but I genuinely think you robbed that player of the outcome of his choices. The fact that they liked the moment doesn’t remove the fact that the moment wasn’t true. You lied to your player.

I think real player agency happens when they make actual choices and live with the consequences. If this doesn’t happen, if you’re playing for story or other types of protagonism, then I would just change game to something that doesn’t provide these undesirable outcomes (for example, Dungeon World, but could be anything), and where the actual choices can be about something else (answering thematic questions, for example).

If I play B/X D&D, characters die. It’s a part of the game. Don’t get attached. That’s how it works. I don’t cheat, and neither should anyone. (and again, sorry if this sounds harsh, I’m not trying to spoil your fun, just to explain my point of view).

1 Like

Eh, totally fair POV! I am totally at peace with “lying” to my player in this one, single circumstance. I don’t play D&D 5e, too overpowered/too hard to die/too many hit points. But, I also do not play B/X D&D ! Too lethal for a my group of newbs many of which have only been playing for a few weeks with me. I play Basic Fantasy RPG, which in my mind finds a really nice middle ground, PCs are very weak compared to 5e and die way more often, which is exactly what I want. But it is not going to happen on my watch that they die all! the time, especially if it means everyone has less fun or enjoys the game less or possibly people stop playing. A game that is rigged, one way or the other (too lethal/too easy) in a way that does not suit the group, is not one I want to GM. I want to challenge the hell out of my players and they are going to die, but within reason. YMMV! Which is completely fine, different GM, different players, different styles.

3 Likes

Oh, I don’t really know Basic Fantasy RPG – it’s not really popular where I’m from, so I don’t have a good line of reference to judge. But it is fair that if you don’t like lethality you would go for a more lenient game system. I still think that every time you feel the need to fudge or cheat it’s the game system failing on you, and that should bring some sort of reflection: am I playing the right game? Should I introduce some sort of house rule?

(I’m also not a big fan of 5E; for similar reasons as you)

One very light way that some games solve this problem is to introduce some ‘hero’ points that players can spend to occasionally tweak die results in their favour. Another way is to change the rules on what happens when a PC hits 0 hitpoints. Maybe a PC has some sort of long-term consequence but doesn’t die right away, unless the hit was particularly fatal. Maybe you roll on a table for that consequence (I’ve seen this applied).

PS. (pretty please @thekernelinyellow split? this is a really cool discussion).

4 Likes

Stop writing as I split, I’m already too slow!

On a more serious note, this topic started out as a bit confrontational and, while it’s doing well, it’s the kind of discussion that often heatens up, so please be careful with your word choices, everyone :grinning:

3 Likes

Sorry about that, blame my enthusiasm and excess of zeal. Thanks!

3 Likes

A post was merged into an existing topic: The bounds of OSR

This really highlights why I only run and play in groups that do (pretty much) all rolls out in the open. At my home table I have a dice tower and hexagonal tray in which all dice are rolled if they are too be counted. Online I roll all dice publicly. I also run a highly transparent game myself and also do rolls like weather checks, luck tables and random encounters out in the open. I like to give my players as much information as I dare and then let the consequences fall wherever they may but my players also know exactly what is being rolled for so it’s all fair game.

2 Likes

It is all good Froggy, I for sure respect your stance and tbh with experienced players I would roll everything open and not fudge either! :slight_smile: So it has to do with the type of players and game. And possibly also because we play every 3 weeks on average. If we spend a lot of that scant session time dealing with death and rolling up new characters that is almost a shame/waste of the playing times (my players and myself don’t necessarily love the aspect of building a character, we just want to play).

I like the hero points thing, I think I will start doing that!

But the way I look at any RPG is that no matter how good or suitable for your group/the GM the system is, it will! fail you sooner or later. But that doesn’t matter. The GM can in theory pick another system or houserule or tweak endlessly, but instead I sometimes simply choose to step in and do what I think is right or most fun. The longer I play, the fewer rules (especially etched in stone ones) I want to use. Always rulings over rules when I feel the rules are getting in the way of fun, speed, or even realism sometimes. Of course that has to do with this group. I have played with very strict/more rules based/crunch groups and that can have it’s fun moments and appeal, but it is not really my preference.

At the end of the day, whatever group is having the most fun, is winning! in my book, no matter what rules they use or how strictly they stick to them. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

Fair, but ask yourself,… why! is there a GM screen at all? … It is not just to obscure GM only info. Why do the vast majority of GMs have a screen and roll at least some, if not a lot rolls behind it,…? :slight_smile: Yet I do agree with you in a way, i am tending towards rolling fewer and fewer rolls behind the screen, id say atm I am about at 20% of my rolls behind the screen, down from way more when I started. I figure with a very experienced group that wants that, in future, I will likely roll everything out in open. But not in this newbie group, at least, not yet! Maybe in a few sessions.

1 Like

Well, I’ve played a good number of games from different eras, genres and “scenes” and a good chunk of them don’t have a use for a GM screen at all and many (including some OSR games) don’t have the GM roll for anything at all. I would say they are useful for certain agendas of gaming and less useful for other agendas. I started off my OSR gaming just in the last few years and I stuck with the full GM screen deal and being careful about hidden rolls like Hide in Shadows but we always rolled all combat and immediate effects out in the open.

However, the last few months I’ve been toying with some of the non-retro clones like Maze Rats, Into the Odd/Electric Bastionland and Mausritter. Between the advice in Bastionland that leans highly into transparency and this blog post my table is enjoying a whole new way of playing that’s really revolutionized our (virtual) table. Also, just to be clear, there’s no judgment here for how you run your tables. I think the town is plenty big enough for multiple playstyles.

4 Likes

A very good conversation. I don’t want to lie, even if it’s for players’ own good. Yet I do, mostly after rolling on a random table, then realizing none of the results fit. I feel bad afterwards, feeling like I cheated.

As a rule, I try not to roll at all if I’m not willing to accept the results. In those cases I think it’s better to straight up dictate what happens.

A potentially lethal roll (like a damage roll or a Save) is made openly, and i make sure players understand what dice result is needed for them to survive. This brief conversation builds the tension and prepares us all for what might come.

3 Likes

One big thing I’ve learned from the OSR, is that the DM is a player too. I’m entitled to some fun, some unpredictability, getting to go on a rollercoaster ride with the other players, not really knowing what will happen. When fudge rolls, I ruin some of the fun for me, and it gnaws at the illusion that the world exists without the players, neutral. I want us to feel like we’ve wrested our rewards from the hands of an uncaring world!

4 Likes

That’s something I learned in OSR too.

I’ve been having conversations in another forum, more focused on story games, about how the OSR and the story games scene converge on certain themes. One of the strongest point of contact is the fact that both, in their own way, had (re)discovered certain elements of play.

1 Like

I don’t think re-rolling or fudging on a random table – if used for dungeon generation – is the same thing as fudging a die roll for damage, conflict or task resolution.

Random tables are oracles for inspiration. Sometimes the results can’t fit the established fiction in any way. Do your best effort to make them fit, but if they don’t, choose the next result or re-roll.

Even game texts that are pretty hardline on “roll in the open, GM can’t fudge rolls” (Blades in the Dark, Ironsworn come to mind) indicate that random generation table results are for inspiration only and can be re-rolled if they don’t fit.

4 Likes

Good comments! But I think we also always need to remember that most of us here are people who either got into the Old School play-style organically or, we even grew up with it! We are used! to lethality, even if it sometimes can feel unfair or less than logical, the idea is that playing the game is super risky and you are more likely to lose (die) rather than win on a long enough time line of say 3 to 10 sessions. We all also know how to make a new character quick. We are not playing our first character ever, and can detach a little. We have probably had at least one of our characters die before.

And now there is an influx of new players! An unprecedented amount of new people super interested in trying D&D for the first time. If they have any exposure at all to the tropes, mechanics and risk level associated with D&D it is very likely to be with 5th edition and what they have seen in play-throughs of famous GMs on Youtube or TV shows. In those games the power level is much higher and typically characters die seldomly. That is not my kind of game and I stopped playing 5th for exactly those reasons.

But, if I want to bring in new players into the OSR style of play and gaming systems, I always try to factor in their lack of experience. To, slowly introduce them to the fact that OSR is more deadly and risky and that we play different. Because I know if I slaughter half or even the entire party within 2 sessions, the odds of them all coming back or even playing any RPG ever again, are drastically reduced. I have found players who play with me longer, become way more open to trying new rules or upping the risk and challenge level. Again, I feel the need to re-state, I almost never! fudge life and death rolls, once every few years perhaps on average and only with inexperienced players and for very good reasons. It is not my go to.

It is a bit like if you show up at a gym to learn how to box, if an experienced person you trusted to show you the ropes instead goes full throttle and messes you up during sparring, did you really have fun and did you learn a lot? Will it make you want to come back?

I see your argument, but at that point is it not better, more honest and more pedagogic as well to let the lesson be learned, and then openly tell them that you’re going to change the outcome to a less extreme one to be lenient, rather than lying about the result of the dice?

Either that, or directly implement the death leniency mechanics that I suggested above, so that a meaningful price can be paid without affecting the character’s survival. For example, instead of killing a character you might take them out of the fight and give them a permanent scar.

2 Likes

I think it is far more pedagogical if the rules and dice rolls aren’t altered at all but the difficulty of the adventure (the types and number of adversaries, the fiendishness of traps and puzzles, etc.).

2 Likes

One thing about boxing is that you have to get punched in the face. Nobody likes it and it’s going to happen and that’s just part of it. So punch them in the face the first time, I say. Punch them pretty hard. Let them know that this is for real and it’s only going to get harder from there. No amount of jump rope, bag or glove work is going to prepare you for being punched hard in the face so might as well get over it.

4 Likes

Where my analogy and your idea of “punching them in the face pretty hard from day 1” falls flat is that you can not eventually, successfully box or spar without getting punched at least a little. But you can! play RPGs and even an OSR-style game without needing to make it super lethal and stick to the rules and their consequences 100% time, no matter what players experience level is or what the situation is. Hell, even on this forum, there is Chiquitafajita, she is super interested in / busy using OSR, but is looking for a game that is very low on darkness and combat and very cosy, I think that is a totally viable and possible way to do Old School gaming. High lethality is only one of five-ish components that make up an Old School experience for me.

(New) RPGers can absolutely learn how to play the game and have a ton of fun and be extremely challenged without the GM needing to be 100% strict from the get go. After a few sessions (when the newb players know at least the basic rules!) you can of course make a breaking point and be like: “From now on stuff gets real, we are going to play more strict and your PC might die, often even. So let’s all make another back-up character and remember to play more carefully.” You gotta make them want to come back! And perhaps ramp up the difficulty based on their experience. Otherwise you run the risk that OSR becomes what old D&D originally was accused of: only for nerdy people, really hard to learn and by definition dark or violent. I don’t agree with that assessment of D&D, but I do want to reassure new people of that by showing them.

Even in boxing, there is no! reputable boxing gym in the world who would do that! -> Punch a total newb hard in the face during the first lesson ever. Hell, most won’t let you spar or even in the ring until you have a decent amount of lessons = know the rules/basics! If you can not defend yourself or know the rules, it is not fair to apply the rules to the max or to make you play (box) at full tilt with people that will demolish you. Then there is also weight classes, innate aptitude/athleticism etc, that a good trainer would 100% consider.

Hell, some of the most respected boxers of all time and some current champions are so respected because they get hit extremely little, Mayweather, Fury. Never mind fairly recent knowledge on CTE/brain damage, most professional fighters spar at 60% of power or less, with headgear, even with extremely experienced opponents.

To bring it back to RPGs and even OSR a little more, some people box or play RPGs to relax, or to get fit / a bit better at it, some people are going for hyper realism and rules as written, all the time. Neither is “wrong”. But I do think if you don’t tailor your game a little! to the experience of your group (whether that is using way too many rules and overpowering them because 5e book says to do that) or making them feel like they fail or suck at DnD by being super harsh, 100% of the time from the first second they play,… I think in both cases it might miss the point. The point is to have fun. When the style of play or rules get in the way, you throw it out the window. Even Gygax was a huge proponent of that, it is in the DMG, nonwithstanding how harsh he liked to play.

And he played super harsh with experienced roleplayers and wargamers or people that knew exactly! what they were getting into because Gygax had that reputation. Other than co-inventing RPGs it was what he was and is most famous for.

Even in certain OSR systems, with inspiration or action points or advantage, those are all really arbitrary decisions the GM makes. When you give them, why, how good a player needs to describe things or how good the plan must be before you give them those boons,… it is not hard and fast and set in stone at all.

I might give a total newb player advantage or more likely inspiration if she grasps and successfully uses a bit complex mechanic for the first time ever and proceeds to roleplay that action rather well, but an experienced player I would expect a heck of lot more off, before I gave them advantage or inspiration.

At the end of the day, if your players are having a lot of fun and feel very challenged and keep wanting to play with you, you are doing it right! I just always try to remember that what is very challenging and fun for one (old hand), is likely nigh on impossible and even severely demotivating for another (newb). But yeh it does appear we might have to agree to disagree. :smiley: Everyone has their own experiences and preferences and style.

I see your point, but I also extremely disagree to that for a simple reason: if they don’t know which rolls you fudged before they have no idea about how hard the next part is going to be. Maybe you made a single critical hit a normal hit, maybe you halved the damage from the dragon’s breath just once, maybe you did it more.

I think there are three ways to approach what you are trying to do:

  1. What Skerples did in The Tomb of Serpent Kings (take a look especially to the “false tomb”): progressively ramp up the difficulty, keeping clear patterns and without changing the rules. I’ve run the Tomb with people who never played an RPG before and not only they loved it, they learned from it. They have tackled far more lethal dungeons without much trouble. In fact, if your main concern is how to introduce new players in the OSR style of playing, you should read Skerples’ post on the Tomb. He did a very good work at addressing the topic and, whether you choose to follow the same lines or not, it will be helpful.
  2. Roll the dice and the be explicit when you decide to overrule them. Tell the players what the consequences of the dice roll would be and why you are changing the result. This way, when you decide to tell them “now things get serious” they have a nice grasp of what is going to change.
  3. Stick to dice but throw them lifelines: “the Ork hits you with his axe but…”. I don’t like this solution as much as the two above, but, again it has the nice advantage of giving agency back to the players. Things have gone bad, but they can somehow salvage the situation if they think smartly.

In general, the problem with fudging rolls is that you change the rules in a way that is both unreliable and unknowable to the players. When they decide to take a risk the have a more or less precise idea of the success chances. If you start changing those chances (and maybe you don’t do it the next time) you are impairing their judgment. That’s why most games, when talking about rulings, state that you should tell the players immediately when you make one, write it down and apply it consistently. This way the players know how it’s going to work and can rely on the rules to make their decisions.

6 Likes