D&D 5E Fudging: DM vs player preferences

[Skyscraper]

From the Do you fudge thread and the Do you want your DM to fudge thread, we get the following results as of today, rounded:

Do you fudge:

• yes: 40%
• almost never: 40%
• no, never: 20%

Do you want your DM to fudge:

• yes: 25%
• almost never 35%
• no, never: 40%

This is pretty darn interesting. I'll venture into some analysis of these results.

Caveat: each game is unique, each table is unique, stats might not mean anything at a given table, evaluating statistics is not my job, you might and probably do see different things from these numbers, etc.. etc..

Now, on with my two-cent worth analysis

The first conclusion is that most players and DMs accept some measure of fudging, namely 80% of DMs and 60% of players.

While not aligned with my personal preference, this result to me suggests that many people are there for the fun of the story, as opposed to wanting to strictly follow a ruleset. (Myself, I'm all for the story first, but I'll accept the roll of the dice to dictate part of it.)

Second conclusion, is that players appear to want less fudging than what DMs do. Especially interesting to me in this respect, is that there are double the number of players that hope for no fudging at all (40%) compared to the number of DMs that want the same in their game (20%); and significantly more DMs are clearly in the Yes camp (40%) than players (25%).

This, in turn, perhaps means that DMs feel more responsability to adjust the game to minimize random events, than what players care for. This also corresponds to my personal experience: I've been in games where my DM decides to clearly fudge (sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly but you can sense it) or adjudicate something on the fly to save a PC from death, or otherwise influence an outcome that he feels is undesirable; and I'm left there thinking that I would have preferred that he leave the random result unchanged, including the death of my PC for example.

To me, apart from the middle ground that is essentially the same, the difference between the Yes and No camps in both polls is really what stands out the most.

This has been an enlightening pair of related polls.

If there is to be more discussion on this, please try to avoid what's been said over in the two other threads, and perhaps, if I may say so, simply accept that there are different acceptable ways of playing the game, and fudging or no fudging are clearly both acceptable in a hobby, no one is Better or Worse per the Laws of the Universe, the fudger is not a cheater and the no-fudger is not a slave to dice, and so on and so on. I like red, he likes blue, she likes pink, and the world is better for these different tastes (and the red costs less for me ).

Peace,

Sky

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the "DMs feel more responsibility" you mentioned is probably the crux of it. Because they are running the game, it falls on their shoulders to keep the fun at the forefront. Some of that is just making sure all the players are striving and playing with that goal in mind, but a lot is also making sure that everything they do aims the game in that direction as well. So I suspect that occasionally something completely unexpected might happen that might send the game bottoms up... and they always have that "tweak" in their back pocket for just such an occasion. Not to be used regularly, not even probably planned to ever be used... but it's still there. Just in case. Which is why perhaps so many DMs went with the 'Almost Never'... not because they feel like they want to use it, but merely because they know that *could* use it if everything fell apart and the game spiraled completely out of control and became no fun for anybody.

And I'd also suspect that many players just might not realize how many of the tiniest little things the DM is constantly juggling to make sure the wheels don't come off the game, and thus that the idea that a "tweak" in the back pocket is necessary is not something they think to be the case and would ever want their DM to use.

But at the end of the day... many DMs just admit to themselves that having the "tweak" on hand just relieves some of the tension of the job and makes everything easier to handle knowing they have an escape plan if the worst of the worst should ever befall the game.

 

[Noctem]

Here's what I suspect is happening. To be clear this is my opinion.

Starting with the numbers of players vs fudging:

It seems to be that the reason most people don't want the DM to fudge numbers, as players, is because of the perception that the DM doing it is unfair. Someone had posted in one of the previous threads something like "If I'm not allowed to cheat, the DM shouldn't be allowed either." I agree with this statement, of course. It's a game, no one should be allowed to cheat in a multiplayer cooperative game, after all. So then this brings me to the Why? Why do DM's fudge, when do they do it and what do they fudge?

From my experience fudging is done almost entirely within combat. Outside of combat, social die rolls just aren't of enough consequence in most situations to warrant the DM changing his rolls. Most of the time, the rolls revolve around information gathering, exploration and the like which the DM WANTS to have happen successfully. That's how you give information to the party and advance the story.

Now in combat however there's many situations that usually warrant a DM fudging rolls. Sometimes it's to protect an important NPC. Automatic success vs a spell effect for example that would have caused the NPC great harm is a common one. Another is automatic hit or at worse crit vs a PC. Sometimes done to force the party to expend resources to increase the war of attrition the party is going through during a day of adventuring. It can also be because the DM wants the encounter to feel more dangerous, so targeting a specific key PC and guaranteeing success via fudging. I mean there's all sorts of reasons, sometimes even plot or story line based people fudge the dice when they DM.

And finally, I think that the reason why DM's fudge in general is simply because they can. They perceive themselves as an authority at the table. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I believe that human beings are very easily influenced by the ability to control others. Those who fudge don't announce that they are fudging. They do so secretly, usually behind a screen.

Again, this is why I don't use a screen. I roll in the open. I announce all modifiers before rolling. My players know for a fact that whatever the situation is, the decisions they make aren't simply counteracted by my whims. And I think that's a good thing. It builds trust between DM and players.

Again this is my opinion, based on personal experiences. If you disagree, feel free to say so and why. I'll read your response with an open mind.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Keep in mind that the respondents in each poll could be an entirely different self-selected sampling, or, conversely, that there could be more overlap than you expect. And, keep in mind it's a poll about 5e in a 5e forum.

5e has swung the pendulum way back in the direction of 'DM Empowerment,' 5e DMs are autocrats in a way they haven't been since the 80s. It's not just a change in attitude, the design of 5e depends upon the DM making rulings and keeping play flowing. With that imaginary 'power' comes an equal helping of responsibility. The DM - not the system, not the players - is responsible for how well his campaign turns out.

Whether the DM exercises all that Empowerment above-board or takes a lot of it behind the screen depends not just on his style, but his players. Some players can cope with the understanding that the DM is ultimate arbiter of what happens in his campaign, and that they can't leverage the rules to somehow 'beat' him. Others need to feel that there's some kind of 'fair' contest or mathematical determinism (with rules & dice standing in for physical laws) going on. Most groups, IMHO/GX will contain one or more such players, so it's usually safest to take a fair portion of 5e resolution behind the screen, keeping not just maps, but monsters stats, rolls and rulings from the players' direct gaze, and showing them the world and the narrative, not the numbers.

You can use 5e to run an excellent campaign, that way, even if a lot goes wrong. It's a style that plays to the game's strengths.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It seems to be that the reason most people don't want the DM to fudge numbers, as players, is because of the perception that the DM doing it is unfair. Someone had posted in one of the previous threads something like "If I'm not allowed to cheat, the DM shouldn't be allowed either." I agree with this statement, of course..

This exactly is the attitude that makes me completely understand why the people who don't want fudging. And I have no problem with that attitude or feeling on the matter. But it's also an attitude that isn't universal. In my particular case, it's because this:

To say that things are "unfair" and that the DM is trying to "cheat"... give me the impression that those players are trying to "win" the game. The DM is setting the bar and the players are trying their best to get over it. The players want to use their ingenuity, tactical acumen, and skill to try and "defeat" the obstacles the DM has put before them. But if the DM moves the bar, then their efforts to clear it don't get to happen.

Here's the issue though, and why I disagree personally with this idea-- I don't play D&D to "win" anything. Rather, I'm improvising a story with my friends. That story might result in our character becoming rich and famous... it might result in our character dying. Or anything in between. But whatever that tangible result is... it doesn't matter. The journey of our characters and story is the important part, and not the results.

So whether the entire story is completely laid out for me and I'm just improvising my dialogue as the DM dictates the plot... or whether everything is completely open and we generate an entire story off the top of our heads... any and all of it is fine by me. I don't care. So fudging is like dice is like mechanics is like aspects is like DM authority is like player agency is like everything. They all just help us at the table create stories together. So there can be no "cheating", because there's nothing we're trying to "win".

 

[Noctem]

This exactly is the attitude that makes me completely understand why the people who don't want fudging. And I have no problem with that attitude or feeling on the matter. But it's also an attitude that isn't universal. In my particular case, it's because this:

To say that things are "unfair" and that the DM is trying to "cheat"... give me the impression that those players are trying to "win" the game. The DM is setting the bar and the players are trying their best to get over it. The players want to use their ingenuity, tactical acumen, and skill to try and "defeat" the obstacles the DM has put before them. But if the DM moves the bar, then their efforts to clear it don't get to happen.

Here's the issue though, and why I disagree personally with this idea-- I don't play D&D to "win" anything. Rather, I'm improvising a story with my friends. That story might result in our character becoming rich and famous... it might result in our character dying. Or anything in between. But whatever that tangible result is... it doesn't matter. The journey of our characters and story is the important part, and not the results.

So whether the entire story is completely laid out for me and I'm just improvising my dialogue as the DM dictates the plot... or whether everything is completely open and we generate an entire story off the top of our heads... any and all of it is fine by me. I don't care. So fudging is like dice is like mechanics is like aspects is like DM authority is like player agency is like everything. They all just help us at the table create stories together. So there can be no "cheating", because there's nothing we're trying to "win".

You're right that trying to win and having a player vs DM mentality isn't a good thing. But at the same time, the DM fudging the dice encourages that notion. The DM imo is there to be the window into the world of DnD for the players. He's not there to arbitrarily decide that the player's stealth roll doesn't matter and he's automatically detected because that's better for his NPC for example. And again I want to stress that fudging doesn't usually happen outside of combat. If you have a low combat campaign, where it's really not as important as the social and roleplaying aspects, and so you don't care about the DM fudging then that's totally cool. As long as everyone is having fun. The problem is that most players, based on the polls, would prefer to have the DM not fudge at all. The poll didn't go into much detail of course beyond "Do you want x" but it's still interesting.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The problem is that most players, based on the polls, would prefer to have the DM not fudge at all. The poll didn't go into much detail of course beyond "Do you want x" but it's still interesting.

That'd be true... except for that little problem of 55% of the players voting 'Yes' or 'Almost Never', so in actuality more than half accept some form of fudging. Your "most players would prefer to have the DM not fudge at all" claim is a little off.

 

[Noctem]

That'd be true... except for that little problem of 55% of the players voting 'Yes' or 'Almost Never', so in actuality more than half accept some form of fudging. Your "most players would prefer to have the DM not fudge at all" claim is a little off.

I just consolidated the "almost never" and "no" together considering that if given the choice and told "The monster is going to automatically hit you with his next attack because I've decided it will be so", it would almost certainly going to get a negative reaction. That's the other thing about fudging, the players don't know what is or isn't real.

I think that if the players knew everytime the DM was fudging rolls he told them he was doing it, it would remove quite a bit of the "yes" pile. That's because the DM does it most often in combat and most often in ways that aren't to the benefit of the players. Because let's face it, if you're doing for the benefit of the players, you're probably up front with them

 

[DEFCON 1]

I just consolidated the "almost never" and "no" together considering that if given the choice and told "The monster is going to automatically hit you with his next attack because I've decided it will be so", it would almost certainly going to get a negative reaction.

Well, sure... if you feel need to add on that completely over-the-top addendum in order to justify changing 'would allow fudging' to 'never wants fudging ever'... sure, I can understand you.

I, of course would rather just take the poll for its word. 55% of the respondents would accept fudging of some type at some point. Not always... not necessarily in all types of situations... but MOST players accept it.

 

[Ranthalan]

Has it been discussed exactly what's being fudged? (I confess I haven't followed the various threads very closely.) I'm a fudging DM and I almost never fudge a die roll, when I do it's almost always a damage roll, and always to reduce it. The only time I'll fudge an attack roll is to fudge away a critical hit (usually because there's already been a crit rolled). When I fudge, and it's rare once the PCs are past 3rd level, it will typically be HP or AC. I may lower a monsters HP during combat, but the AC of a particular monster will never change during combat. If the party is about to TPK, one of the monsters they haven't attacked yet, may suddenly find himself with inferior armor.