[RHat]

Four signs of a good GM (in this order):

1- Provide a fun game for the players.
2- Ensure that the PCs survive unless they do something unbelievably stupid (something on the level of taking a piss on Lofwyr's claw)
3- Provide an appropriate level of challenge (severe depletion of resources and severe injury of a PC--as in very near death--is a sign of an encounter that is either too much or needs an extra experience reward)
4- Have fun yourself. (While you should be enjoying the game as well, the players' enjoyment should be priority over your own.)

...  2 and 3 are highly subjective.  There are some players who don't consider it fun if they're not being pushed to their limit and if there isn't some risk of character death for taking the wrong action or getting a bad roll - and many more players find that the game is more fun in such circumstances.

There is 1 sign of a good GM - the ability to read your players to know what they want in a game, and to be able to provide that in a game you're able to enjoy yourself.

[All4BigGuns]

The bad roll...no. Bad dumb luck should never be what leads to a PC death. The other part, possible depending on unanimous group decision.

[RHat]

The bad roll...no. Bad dumb luck should never be what leads to a PC death. The other part, possible depending on unanimous group decision.

That is your preference (and, to be fair, mine) - but it isn't the only way to play.  In some groups, mechanics like Edge exist specifically as a sort of "second-chance" because risks like that exist, and some players like that.

[Shamie]

Four signs of a good GM (in this order):

1- Provide a fun game for the players.
2- Ensure that the PCs survive unless they do something unbelievably stupid (something on the level of taking a piss on Lofwyr's claw)
3- Provide an appropriate level of challenge (severe depletion of resources and severe injury of a PC--as in very near death--is a sign of an encounter that is either too much or needs an extra experience reward)
4- Have fun yourself. (While you should be enjoying the game as well, the players' enjoyment should be priority over your own.)

What authority would compel me to follow this i ask, just because you/someone else wrote something it doesnt make it law. But that aside

2) Is very subjective. I follow it but is subjective. I know Dm who play the way of "whatever says the dices happen, it happens" and their players are happy with that approach.

3) Is very subjective and it doesnt say "No fudging is acceptable".  "Provide an appropriate level of challenge" could mean put more enemies, make enemies thougher or fudge the dices. And i never said to almost kill the players i just say fudge the dices a little in favor of the enemies when dealing with the OP spirit of that player.

[All4BigGuns]

If you fudge in favor of the enemies it can very well get to the point where the players don't feel there is any point in doing anything anymore because no matter how well they do, the enemy will always "miraculously survive".

[RHat]

If you fudge in favor of the enemies it can very well get to the point where the players don't feel there is any point in doing anything anymore because no matter how well they do, the enemy will always "miraculously survive".

That would take a very extreme case.

[All4BigGuns]

If you fudge in favor of the enemies it can very well get to the point where the players don't feel there is any point in doing anything anymore because no matter how well they do, the enemy will always "miraculously survive".

That would take a very extreme case.

Not really. Fudging like that is a rather slippery slope. Do it once and get away with it and it just gets easier to get yourself to do it over and over again.

I have seen players that will walk out on a game the moment a screen hits the table because of bad experiences with GMs fudging.

[RHat]

But just because you fudge some stuff doesn't mean fudge creep (that sounds like a really strange dessert...) is gonna happen.  Those bad experiences are with extreme cases.

[All4BigGuns]

But just because you fudge some stuff doesn't mean fudge creep (that sounds like a really strange dessert...) is gonna happen.  Those bad experiences are with extreme cases.

Having encountered such players, I'm still going to advise keeping any fudging to being in the PCs' favor and keep it to that end myself. Less likely to cause a real problem that way.

[ZeConster]

You should never, ever fudge the dice, regardless of which way you want to fudge them. The risk of a bad die roll is part of the game, and if you start coddling the players, the game becomes less fun (unless you have a group of players that just wants to kick ass all the time and never have to worry about dying, in which case I'd say they should maybe play something else). Plus there's plenty of ways to get the players out of a bad situation without taking away the challenge part - all you have to do is attach strings to whatever escape route you provide them with.

[All4BigGuns]

"Challenge" does not mean "high chance of death". Character death should only come at dramatically appropriate moments. If a player's character can die just because of dumb luck in a game, it just ends up creating the Revolving-Door-of-Characters where everyone keeps stacks on hand for when that bad roll hits, not really giving a damn about any of them.

[SoulGambit]

1- Provide a fun game for the players.
2- Ensure that the PCs survive unless they do something unbelievably stupid (something on the level of taking a piss on Lofwyr's claw)
3- Provide an appropriate level of challenge (severe depletion of resources and severe injury of a PC--as in very near death--is a sign of an encounter that is either too much or needs an extra experience reward)
4- Have fun yourself. (While you should be enjoying the game as well, the players' enjoyment should be priority over your own.)

1 and 4 are the only one of those I agree with. But I'm a brutal GM. I make sure the PCs have a means of understanding the challenges ahead, and then leave how to tackle them in their hands... as well as whether or not to tackle it at all. After that, its on them. If they die, they die. I actually consider severe depletion of resources and severe injury of PCs to be a good sign most of the time, unless its unexpected by everyone. That means the challenge was real, it was difficult, and the PCs won on their own merits--I handed them nothing. The other trick I use is that I make the major antagonists not give a rat's ass about murdering the PCs, with few exceptions. Usually, I plan for a "bad end," where the PCs fail everything. I plan for a "good end," where the PCs accomplish most of their goals. And I often plan for a "best end," which includes feelgood sidequests.

Hrm. An example. Last month I was running a Changeling Game. In it, they were trying to rescue some children stolen by goblins. Throughout the story, I kept foreshadowing that the Big Bad Wolf was going to be let loose. I worfed my current antagonists and made sure the PCs understood the basics of the Wolf's trick--that he can just murder people who aren't being watched. The PCs decided they could control line of sight and free the girl anyways. Of course this was messed with, and for a split second one of the PCs wasn't being paid attention to--they almost died. The PCs took the girl and ran. They escaped, saved the kids (good end), but the Wolf followed them into the mortal world (not the best end). Fun was had by all.

Re: Fudging

I proffer to build trust with my players. Most of my rolls are in the open. I've even found ways to not have to fudge perception rolls per say. I find that building this sense of trust helps me when I want my NPCs to not play by the rules. The PCs are confident that my NPCs are playing by a set of rules, even if they don't understand what they are yet. On top of that, it helps the players feel like they are what accomplished things.

[Rythymhack]

"Challenge" does not mean "high chance of death". Character death should only come at dramatically appropriate moments. If a player's character can die just because of dumb luck in a game, it just ends up creating the Revolving-Door-of-Characters where everyone keeps stacks on hand for when that bad roll hits, not really giving a damn about any of them.

This reminds me of the Bard in "Gamers2: Dorkness Rising".

[ZeConster]

"Challenge" does not mean "high chance of death". Character death should only come at dramatically appropriate moments. If a player's character can die just because of dumb luck in a game, it just ends up creating the Revolving-Door-of-Characters where everyone keeps stacks on hand for when that bad roll hits, not really giving a damn about any of them.

"Really bad luck will kill you unless you burn Edge or the GM provides you with a plausible escape route" does not mean "high chance of death", either. If all you have to plan for is the average case, the game isn't challenging.

[All4BigGuns]

I actually consider severe depletion of resources and severe injury of PCs to be a good sign most of the time

Perhaps for the very last encounter of an adventure. Others should be rather easy so that the PCs aren't too drained before getting to that point.

To use a D&D reference, if the wizard and/or cleric only have their lowest level spells left when reaching the final encounter of the adventure and the fighter is down to less than half health, the initial encounters were probably too much.

"Really bad luck will kill you unless you burn Edge or the GM provides you with a plausible escape route" does not mean "high chance of death", either. If all you have to plan for is the average case, the game isn't challenging.

That's the whole point. You can't plan for bad rolls, and if bad rolls are the only reason a good plan fails then things need to be adjusted.