My DM just told me he fudges rolls....

[Bullgrit]

If a DM fudges die rolls to make the experience best, why roll the dice at all?

If the DM will ignore a failed save to avoid a first round defeat of the BBEG, why roll the die at all? If the DM will change the damage dealt to avoid killing a PC, why roll the die at all? Etc. etc. etc.

Bullgrit

 

[The Shaman]

So what should I do about this?

Ask the referee to roll anything that pertains to your character in the open.

For an online game, you can uses something like the dice-roller here on EN World. Both of you can see the results in seconds, and you both have a permanent record of what was rolled when, by whom, and for what.

If that doesn't work, then you need to decided how important the game is to you if you can't trust the referee. For me, no gaming is better than bad gaming, and if I don't trust the referee, then that's bad gaming.

Also what are your views about fudging rolls?

I roll everything in the open and I let the results stand.

I like the uncertainty that the dice bring to the game.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have said this before I won't play with a DM who will not fudge or rolls in the open.

As a DM I sometimes fudge. I fudge and lessen the HP on an NPC if I think I have overpowered it or I can see that my players are getting bored and frustrated with the combat. I have also increased the HP if I think the encounter is turning into a cake walk and it has been awhile since they have had a tough encounter.

I have players who hate dying it is not fun for them to die especially if it over something stupid like bad rolls so yes I fudge and bring them to -8 instead of out right killing them.

As a DM I don't find a huge turn over on characters because they keep dying a whole lot of fun it means I have to keep readjusting the story to fit in a new character.


My players like to role play and they hate the you look trust worthy join us and oh here is a bunch of magical equipment that is worth a lot of gold but we are just going to give it to you out of the goodness of hearts style play.

Now if I have player that says don't fudge on my character then I won't I will let the dice fall where they may. And yes I expect the player to trust me if he does not then I don't want him at my table.

But as the DM I reserve the right to adjust encounters on the fly. I had an experience with a DM who was very rigid he didn't believe in fudging at all on anything. I learned a lot of what not to do from him.

At the start of the game he gave everyone a magic item mine was a bow that had worked against elves. We were playing Eberron and my character was a ranger heading towards Cyrean Avenger and my first favored enemy were elves.

We played every other week for a year and I never saw any elves. Finally we encountered some evil drow cultist who were about to sacrifice a child to open a gate. No one was close enough to stop him so I used my bow and rolled and confirmed a crit. It was the first time the bow's special quality came out in play. I rolled max damage and with the extra damage I did 101 points of damage.

I was so excited because I felt that wow it is finally my turn to shine in combat I thought it was going to be one of those moments you talk about. But no the DM had given the cultist a brooch of shielding with 120 charges. Which he did show me after the game he knew I was very upset. So my attack did nothing.

He was not cheating and I guess by the rules he really didn't do anything wrong and those are the breaks. Oh yeah it was my last arrow so I didn't get another chance and in the end it was the druid, cleric and rogue who took out the cultist like they did in almost every combat we ever had.

As the DM he was in control he could have quickly readjusted the NPC and let me have a chance to shine and since it was the first attack no one would have known anything different.

 

[Desdichado]

double post... crap, ENWorld has been sluggish lately.

 

[Desdichado]

If a DM fudges die rolls to make the experience best, why roll the dice at all?

If the DM will ignore a failed save to avoid a first round defeat of the BBEG, why roll the die at all? If the DM will change the damage dealt to avoid killing a PC, why roll the die at all? Etc. etc. etc.

Bullgrit

Look, just because a GM fudges rolls that are obviously "unfun" in his estimation doesn't mean that suddenly there's no place for dice, for randomization, for there being a game at all. Stop trying to take such an absurdist, binary approach.

 

[Asmor]

Even DMs who try really hard not to fudge the dice almost all do so at some point. Very, very few DMs can honestly say they have never fudged anything. (And if you try running a game for a couple of months, you almost certainly will, too.)

I'm willing to fudge most things, but not dice. Dice are sacrosanct.

Every time I roll a die, the spectrum of outcomes is set before the roll. Whether it's a roll to look up a table, a roll for damage, or a roll to hit, any applicable modifiers are all set beforehand. The roll itself is made in the open for all to see.

The moment you start screwing with the dice, just get rid of them. Some people say they only fudge dice "when it matters." Well, if the dice are reliable except when it matters... Then the dice don't matter.

That said, I generally don't fudge things in the middle of combat, except if I have made a mistake and a combat that wasn't meant to be anything more than a quick skirmish looks like it might destroy the players through no fault of their own. In that case, I prefer to fudge things without altering the rules. Enemies might suddenly make less optimal moves, provoke more attacks of opportunity, not use their strongest power, etc. The rest might run away when one of them is killed. That sort of things.

Most commonly, my fudging will be to add or remove enemies to or from a combat as I'm setting it up, in order to tailor the difficulty to the group on the fly.

 

[Bullgrit]

Look, just because a GM fudges rolls that are obviously "unfun" in his estimation doesn't mean that suddenly there's no place for dice, for randomization, for there being a game at all. Stop trying to take such an absurdist, binary approach.

I’m asking a question of those who say things like this:

fudges rolls to make combat more interesting

As a DM i fudge dice rolls all the time.

final climatic battle end in one round because of a failed save

I'll have them fail a save they otherwise would have made when the PC plan has been really good.

I'll fudge the dice if needed to keep the villain alive just that bit longer to make the story better. For me, it's all about the story, the dice are just along for the ride.

As a DM, I can see that fudging rolls is okay to make the game interesting

I have also increased the HP if I think the encounter is turning into a cake walk and it has been awhile since they have had a tough encounter.

In situations where the DM will only accept a certain result, (will fudge a roll to get the result he/she wants), why roll at all? It’s a simple question, for explanation. It’s not meant to antagonize anyone.

I'm not suggesting that fudging on one roll means all rolls should be thrown out. I'm asking about the roll that gets fudged -- if the DM will only accept a certain result from the roll, why roll that particular chance at all? If the DM doesn't want the BBEG to fail this first round saving throw, and will change the result to a save if it fails, then why roll that die for that situation?

Bullgrit

 

[billd91]

I'm not suggesting that fudging on one roll means all rolls should be thrown out. I'm asking about the roll that gets fudged -- if the DM will only accept a certain result from the roll, why roll that particular chance at all? If the DM doesn't want the BBEG to fail this first round saving throw, and will change the result to a save if it fails, then why roll that die for that situation?

In the case of many rolls, particularly damage rolls, it's not that a particular result is in mind as much as particular results that come up may be unacceptable and are changed to ones that are. For example, on a 4d6 scorching ray, I'm content with the vast majority of outcomes. But I might not be so keen on a crit result that comes up higher than 40.

For pass/fail checks, why not roll them? If they come out the way you want them, no need to fudge, right? It's only when the dice don't give you the preferred result that you fudge in the first place. Besides, sometimes it's only in the moment that you intuitively feel that the story unfolds better with a particular result.

 

[Storminator]

I’m asking a question of those who say things like this:In situations where the DM will only accept a certain result, (will fudge a roll to get the result he/she wants), why roll at all? It’s a simple question, for explanation. It’s not meant to antagonize anyone.

Bullgrit

I've embraced this philosophy. If I have no interest in a failed roll, I don't call for a roll. Frex, in our last session the assassin wanted to kill one of the palace bureaucrats and blame it on a rival clan. I called for a Thievery roll. The outcome of killing the commoner was a forgone conclusion, it was only the quality of the frame up I was interested in.

So sometimes, don't roll at all.

PS

 

[Umbran]

It’s a simple question, for explanation. It’s not meant to antagonize anyone.

It is a simple question, but let's be clear - first you asked:

"If a DM fudges die rolls to make the experience best, why roll the dice at all?"

Then you asked:

"In situations where the DM will only accept a certain result, (will fudge a roll to get the result he/she wants), why roll at all?"

Surely you see those are different questions, no? The first is kind of absurd. The second is better, but shows a lack of understanding of what the GM is probably doing.

When I fudge a die roll, it is not because I have a clearly preconceived and detailed notion of exactly how things should turn out. It is that I see the immediate result of one die roll as being particularly undesirable. I am not forcing all dice towards one conclusion, I am forcing one die away from one conclusion. There's still a world full of other results that I'm not going to alter.

Why did I let you roll the die at all? Well, there are several possible reasons. First off, I may not have foreseen that conclusion - I'm not perfect, after all. Second, there's the concept of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I'll let the dice speak until they start using foul language, and then only bleep the really bad bits. That doesn't mean I've written their script in full, you see.

So, the BBEG rolls an attack, and hits. Well, that's okay. Rolls a crit. That's still okay. Rolls max damage such that he'll drop the PC in one stroke before that PC has even gotten to act in this climactic battle, so the player's going to be sitting out for the next half hour of the session feeling useless? Maybe not. Maybe I'll tone down that damage.

That doesn't mean I wont let the PC die. Just not on that particular hit.