Keeping a Group Together

[Raith5]

Personally I dont find fudging a big deal. It was kind of a necessity in 1e and 2e D&D (and other more lethal games). I certainly wouldnt lose friends or stop a campaign over it. But I do prefer the open rolling of dice by all parties. I also like mechanics like action points that make interventions into the normal flow of the game transparent and limited (ie make the PCs "fudge" things rather than the DM).

 

[pickin_grinnin]

I always let new players know upfront (before they agree to play the game) that the rules are only guidelines, and that the GM is god. I don't tolerate rules lawyers. The game and the story are the important parts, and the goal is for everyone to have fun.

Having said that, if I "fudge" a dice roll, it is almost always for the benefit of the players. I do my rolling behind the GM screen, so the players usually don't see it, but if one did and objected to what I was doing my response would be "I'm exercising GM discretion."

 

[pemerton]

Everyone, remember it isn't cheating to do any modifications you want as DM.

<snip>

Some good reasons to modify during the game are to a) keep a PC from dying (this is far and away the best reason), b) to end encounter quickly, c) to make an encounter last longer, d) to improve upon your work, and e) to keep the players guessing. They are all important tools every DM should embrace.

I don't think (a) through (e) are reasons to modify hit points or do other fudging during play.

To keep a PC from dying, why not build resources (fate points, healing spells, whatever) onto the player side?

To end an encounter quickly, NPCs can surrender or retreat.

To make an encounter last longer, a second wave of NPCs can turn up.

(I'm not sure about (d) and (e). But if you want to keep the players' guessing, have a second wave turn up!)

Managing pacing and challenge is an important GM responsibility, but I don't think that fudging is the only way to do it, and personally I don't think it's a very good way.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Everyone, remember it isn't cheating to do any modifications you want as DM.

Why bother having a thread if you're going to fiat declare that the problematic element isn't actually a problem? If it's not "cheating" to rewrite the world however you like, whenever you like, with no limitations, and concealing this from your players while knowing that it would upset them if they knew you were doing it, what even is there to discuss? You've fiat declared that everything is fine.

Whatever you are trying to accomplish, try to be fair to everyone and develop your own style and procedures.

Okay, I think we need to clear up some definitions here.

How is it possible to be "fair," while also rewriting the world at any point where you feel like doing so? If you rewrite in a way that makes the players' goals harder, you are being unfair because you are setting the bar higher because they're succeeding. If you rewrite in a way that makes the players' goals easier, you are being unfair because you are denying them the ability to actually achieve their goals under their own merits.

Either way, you are purposefully making their success your responsibility, not theirs. You are denying them agency and self-determination; whether they succeed or fail depends in whole or in part on whether you decided they should succeed (you chose to reduce the challenge, or chose not to increase it further) or fail (you chose to increase the challenge, or chose to not reduce it further).

Some good reasons to modify during the game are to a) keep a PC from dying (this is far and away the best reason), b) to end encounter quickly, c) to make an encounter last longer, d) to improve upon your work, and e) to keep the players guessing. They are all important tools every DM should embrace.

If you don't want PCs to die, don't kill them. State that ransom is far more common in this universe, or that there is a thriving slave market, or some other reason why sentient enemies would not automatically kill all prisoners. Or, treat 0 HP (or even "dead") as merely "knocked out" or "grievously wounded" (presumably some kind of lingering penalty) as long as at least one member of the group survives to pull the rest out. So (a) is solved, without needing to do something you know would upset your players if they knew it was happening.

(b) and (c), as Pemerton noted, are both trivially solved. (b) is solved by applying morale rules, having enemy units flee or surrender, or even just making some units fight poorly (perhaps because they are too scared and/or poorly trained to fight well). (c) is solved by fielding additional units. Reinforcements, wandering monsters or beasts, etc.; no need to fudge, just add an extra 1-2 of one of the things you're already using, or (for a "single big bad" fight) add in some local flora, fauna, or previously-used enemies. Everything is above-board, and the goal is still accomplished.

What does (d) have to do with fudging? You improve on your work by *understanding what you did wrong,* and then *correcting that mistake in the future.* Fudging, then, is actively opposed to actually improving your skills as a DM. It becomes an easy crutch; "Oh, I accidentally made this situation too easy...WELP I'll just make sure nobody rolls higher than 5...and the monsters get some 'lucky' crits..." or "sh*t, the party's getting massacred. Guess the Big Bad Evil Gal just broke her sword by TOTALLY RANDOM CHANCE..." Either way, you're substituting actual learning for kludged in-the-moment solutions.

While I agree that fudging "keep your players guessing," consider exactly how it achieves that: the players have information, upon which they base their choices. That information *is actually correct*...until the DM starts rewriting the world. Suddenly, their choices are now based on information which SHOULD have been good, but is now faulty. Whether this helps or hinders doesn't matter--they are no longer capable of making informed choices. You are "keeping them guessing" by invalidating their choices. That is not a healthy relationship between player and DM. Instead, you could "keep them guessing" in a variety of other ways. Challenge their preconceived notions: give them goblins and minotaurs and full-blooded orcs that are Lawful Good, sentient undead that just want to be left alone and have no interest in affecting the living, supposedly "good" elves who think genocide is the only answer, etc. Give them incomplete or conflicting information; never tell them the whole story. Force them to choose the lesser of two evils, or force them to support one "good" and thus violently oppose another. All of these are from the top of my head with no planning; if I were preparing for an actual campaign, I'm sure I could come up with both more things and more specific things.

So...no. I reject the notion that "fudging" is a tool DMs should use, and I completely refuse to accept the idea that DMs should outrightly lie to their players when asked a direct question. Honesty is fundamentally important to all human interactions. Doesn't mean you have to tell others absolutely everything, but lying should be avoided in the majority of situations, particularly when your statements--whether true or false--are the only information another person has for deciding what to do.

 

[SirAntoine]

You should be ready to firmly defend it if someone calls it cheating. Likewise, the DM is not dishonest in deciding what information to give or deny the players. Your answers are telling them what they should know.

The fudging may be the easiest, least intrusive adjustment the DM can make in a particular situation. It's a time-honored technique that should be in every DM's toolkit.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You should be ready to firmly defend it if someone calls it cheating. Likewise, the DM is not dishonest in deciding what information to give or deny the players. Your answers are telling them what they should know.

A player asks you, "Did you fudge dice rolls in that fight?"

If you answer in the negative but actually had fudged the rolls in that fight, you have answered dishonestly. That is the definition of a dishonest answer: you are knowingly telling an overt untruth, when directly questioned about the subject. What would it take to actually be "dishonest" in your eyes? You don't have to have malicious intent to be dishonest. You just have to say things that you know are not true, but say them as if they were true.

Deciding, for example, not to tell the party that one of the "allies" they just befriended is actually a mole for the BBEG? That is not dishonest. That is fundamentally necessary to allow that particular plot point ("you've been betrayed!") to happen. What would be dishonest is if one of a DM's players--whether out of paranoia or actual investigation--successfully rolled a Sense Motive check, and then the DM fudged the difficulty level so that the player would fail. Or if the player failed it, but the DM fudged the difficulty so they would succeed. Both of those are dishonest on the DM's part. It doesn't matter if one of them is "better" for the player or not.

Again, I have to ask you: How is it not "cheating" if you, as the arbiter of the rules, decide to change the rules and conceal this from your players? How would you feel if your blackjack dealer changed the contents of the deck without telling you? How would you feel if the referees at the Superbowl re-wrote the rules of football every other pass? Doing things that would upset people if publicly known, and furthermore lying about it to prevent people from finding out, doesn't exactly communicate a "fair" or "forthright" relationship between DM and player.

The fudging may be the easiest, least intrusive adjustment the DM can make in a particular situation. It's a time-honored technique that should be in every DM's toolkit.

Well, they also say that politics and thievery are the second and third oldest professions (or something to that effect). I don't think that means we should all include gerrymandering and pickpocketing in our skillsets. Those would also be dishonest things that, if discovered, will upset the other people involved, and at least the former is definitely something done "for the best interest of the people" I'd wager (or, at least, the people doing the gerrymandering almost surely delude themselves with such rhetoric).

It is very easy to make arbitrary choices and decide on a whim what you want things to be. It is hard to be forthright and solidly consistent (with allowance made for learning to do things better, of course). But there are plenty of "hard" things to do that are, in fact, the right thing to do.

 

[Jack Daniel]

This is why I make most dice-rolls out in the open. With the exception of things like skill checks on sneaking and searching, which obviously have to be hidden from the players so that they don't immediately know the results of failed rolls (which would be information they can't possibly have), I see no reason to be furtive here.

If everyone can see the dice, then everyone can agree that I'm playing fair when I'm the DM. And fair play is pretty essential to a genuine feeling of success or failure during the game. If the monsters' hit points can secretly fluctuate, or if I can tacitly change the results of their attacks and saving throws, well, then why am I not just making it all up as I go? The game has rules, and my job is to referee them, to adjudicate the rules without favoring either the monsters or the players.

I'm pretty sure that just about everyone I've ever played with prefers it that way. They don't want to fight Schrödinger's monster, they don't want to ride a railroad, and they definitely don't want the outcome of their gameplay diminished by petty illusionism.

 

[Deset Gled]

If the player's can't if tell the DM is fudging, it doesn't matter if he does or not.
If the players can tell the DM is fudging, he's shouldn't be doing it.

If the players suspect a DM is fudging, something has gone wrong. There should be a frank discussion of the situation, and the players should describe where they believe the fudging occurred, and why they believe it negatively affected the game. If they were correct about the fudging, it is a sign the DM needs to step up his game, be more honest, and prep encounters better. If they were incorrect about the fudging, then they're just being whiny adventurers and need to step up their game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the player's can't if tell the DM is fudging, it doesn't matter if he does or not.
If the players can tell the DM is fudging, he's shouldn't be doing it.

I'm neither consequentialist nor deontologist, so I dispute your statement on philosophical grounds. "What they don't know won't hurt them" is a poor defense for pulling the rug out from under the players whenever things don't go according to plan--whether for good or for ill.

If the players suspect a DM is fudging, something has gone wrong. There should be a frank discussion of the situation, and the players should describe where they believe the fudging occurred, and why they believe it negatively affected the game. If they were correct about the fudging, it is a sign the DM needs to step up his game, be more honest, and prep encounters better. If they were incorrect about the fudging, then they're just being whiny adventurers and need to step up their game.

Again, I am left wondering: if people can and should get upset when they are aware that fudging occurs, why is it an okay thing to do? Agreeing that people SHOULD feel upset when they're aware there is fudging is equivalent to agreeing that fudging is a wrong committed against them (since, logically, people should only feel upset if they have been aggrieved). If a wrong has been committed, why does it matter whether the recipient of that wrong is aware of it? Does that mean it's perfectly fine to steal from others, as long as they don't notice it? Fine to plagiarize, as long as no one notices?

 

[Grogg of the North]

I've been aware of the DM fudging dice. I wasn't upset by it. Everyone at the table was aware that he screwed up on planning the encounter and that we were on our way to a TPK. The DM realized he had goofed and did his best to rectify it at the table. I, and I feel everyone else at the table, appreciated that the DM did his best to fix the situation. What was important to us was that the game kept going and we kept having fun.

Fudging a die roll is a tool at the DM's disposal. Like everything at a DM's disposal it is not inherently good or bad. How it is applied is what matters.