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

[Celebrim]

Bad, bad, DM!

Never let the players know!

 

[Umbran]

The only thing is, we're not supposed to let the players know.

I prefer to be up-front about it, like other playstyle choices. It shouldn't have come as a surprise to the player. At the start of my current campaign, I asked the players each individually if they minded if I fudged the occasional die roll. They were all quite okay with it, and I avoided the very situation the OP is in.

There are some GMs who drive the GM Fiat with a heavy foot on the accelerator and clutch, but in my personal experience they are rare. Most simply give a nudge every once in a while, and often enough it is effectively just to correct for a misjudgement they (or an author) made in adventure or encounter design.

Which is not to say you (you, meaning the OP, not delericho) have to like it - that's your choice. I would not, however, expect the game to change for you. You are one, and the rest of the group is many, after all. As Hobo says, in the long run, no single character is indispensable. Your tactical role can be filled by someone else, or managed otherwise. Your plots can be dropped or reshuffled. If you know you aren't going to like the game because of this, it is best to bow out early, so the group can readjust.

But honestly, I think you're probably making a mountain out of a molehill. Fudging rolls now and then is not tantamount to predetermining all results in the game, no matter what some folks around here may say.

 

[billd91]

You might want to sit down with the other players and discuss this. How many of them know he fudges? How many of them have particular feelings about fudging?

If the other players are OK with the fudging, it's your expectations that will have to change. But you may find that the others feel the same way you do, at least to an extent. In that case, the DM should stop fudging.

There may also be a middle ground. For example, I can't think of any instances in which I've fudged or would fudge in favor of the NPCs to thwart the PCs as a group (though I may do so to delay one PC in favor of another whose already got something really cool going on in the interest of sharing spotlights). I may retcon some things onto the NPC's sheet based on what PCs are doing or talking about because it was a good idea I didn't initially think of when designing them. But that's about it. I usually fudge to thwart my NPCs good luck with dice. I'll leave some of the damage modifier off a harsh, low-probability critical. I'll have them fail a save they otherwise would have made when the PC plan has been really good. You may be able to get him to agree to that sort of fudging.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The question you need to ask yourself, twitchboy, is what kind of game do you feel you are playing? Are you playing a boardgame, or are you playing a roleplaying game?

If you treat D&D combat like a boardgame (which many people do, and there's nothing wrong with that)... then sure, I can certainly understand why the fudging of rolls would be bothersome. In boardgames, the players are trying to 'win' the game through legitimate means. You wouldn't want dice fudging in Monopoly or Risk, so why would you want it here?

However, if you treat D&D combat as part of a roleplaying game... the central aspect of an RPG is 'story'. Every combat tells its own part of a larger story, and the hope is that every part of the story is interesting, compelling, and exciting to witness and participate in. However, the DM knows quite a bit more than the PCs do about the story that a particular combat is a part of... and if fudging a roll here and there helps maintain or even raise the excitement of the story, then in the long run it usually makes for a better game.

So for instance:

Your Ranger just Criticalled on the big monster and did some ungodly amount of damage that brought him down from not even bloodied to 2 hit points. The DM decides to wipe off those last 2 HP as well in order to make this huge attack be a massive killing blow... rather than have the monster take the shot but then wimper on the ground for a bit with 2 HP just to wait for another PC to walk over and finally clonk him over the head. Bit anticlimactic.

Or:

The party is climbing a mountain face to get to the dragon's roost and through a series of really bad rolls during the skill challenge, one of the PCs fall from the climb. And just through extreme sheer bad luck, the damage roll for Falling Damage is just so high (much higher than what the DM really expected to have occur for this encounter) that the PC goes directly to negative bloodied and is instantly killed. Now the DM planned for the climb to be treacherous and for the PCs to need to expend resources on their way to the dragon's roost, but not to completely eliminate one of the players before even getting there (since rather than continue onto the roost, the party would probably turn around and go home in hopes of getting a Raise Dead). So he fudges the damage roll so that the PC does not actually get insta-killed, just horribly maimed and lying on an outcropping halfway down the mountain. The PCs now have several compelling decisions to make rather than what would have been probably the single one of "go home".

Whether either of these decision points are worth 'fudging' or not are open to individual DMs and what they think would make for good drama (like I'm sure there are some DMs who would consider the death of a PC from a fall more interesting dramatically than having him maimed and unconscious on a ledge halfway down). But they do illustrate points where fudging rolls due to really unexpected results can help provide possibly better story or 'moments'. And at least in my opinion... when a PC gets to experience a 'big moment', or have to make a hard decision... that's when compelling and interesting drama or joy occurs.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Do you think you could compromise with your GM that they won't fudge rolls related to your character specifically? It would still give the GM freedom to fudge combats to make them more interesting but it would give you the let the dice fall as they may aspect that you want.

 

[Bullgrit]

Are you playing a boardgame, or are you playing a roleplaying game?

Either way, it's a *game*. Fudging takes out the game part of the exercise. And for me, the game part is at least half the reason I play RPGs -- they ain't called "Role-Playing Storytime" or "Role-Playing Theater".

I would and have quit games where the DM was fudging supposedly to make more fun.

Bullgrit

 

[Xer0]

Hello all, ive just recently run into a problem that gas never occurred to me before, as I'm a longtime DM but a new player, my DM revealed to me after only one session of our new campaign that he fudges rolls to make combat more interesting

I quickly expressed my opinion that combat rolls should not fudged and asked him to not fudge mine

I now however am in a awkward position because I do not believe I can trust my DM to do so, who says he doesn't make the high level boss I poison make his save despite a rolled one? Whenever I go into combat does it really matter what I do or what roll if he's just going to make it more "interesting"?

Essentially I'm at a loss of what I should do, but I feel that in an instant all my interest in the game has been lost to a single sentence, and I can't exactly quit as these players and the dm are all my close friends and I'm kind ofa needed character

So what should I do about this? Also what are your views about fudging rolls? Just based on this all my future games as DM I plan on rolling my dice in the open, this solution doesn't work in this current situation however as we play online

No fudging as a DM? Really? Wow. I just figured that was something that we all just did.

I'm in favor of fudging, when it's needed. If my fudging of the dice keeps my players alive long enough to do something awesome, I'm all for it. I want my players to be awesome. Dying, that's not awesome.

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.

Now, if you don't want your GM to fudge dice when you're involved, talk to him about it. Express your feelings on the subject of dice fudging and stress to him that you don't want rolls to be fudged. If he agrees, you're going to have to trust him. If you can't, time to find a new GM, because this game is all about trust.

 

[nedjer]

If the GM was using fudged rolls to beat-up on PCs constantly, or fudging so frequently that even dumb play and deliberately taking on impossible opponents doesn't hurt - then I could see the concern. However, until it came-up you seem to have felt that your PC was under threat at times, that the game wasn't a cakewalk for the PCs and that the party deserved its rewards (maybe not?).

So, it sounds a bit like the GM's taking you on an adventure and reckons you'd rather trade a more enjoyment for a bit less simulation

 

[JamesonCourage]

Unless thinking that you didn't "earn" the win isn't as enjoyable? That's how my players view fudging. But, if the group doesn't mind, of course, then maybe he can convince the GM not to fudge his rolls (which he has already asked for, mind you). As always, play what you like

 

[kitsune9]

As a DM, I can see that fudging rolls is okay to make the game interesting, but the DM shouldn't "show his hand" in that way, because then it does become a trust / cheating issue. A DM's idea of a climatic and exciting game now suspends the disbelief of the players who may not believe that the roll of the dice behind the screen are what they really are. I used to fudge rolls from time to time, but never, ever told my players that I did the practice.

Nowadays, I don't use a screen and all my rolls are in the open except for when the rules require a roll to be made in secret and those I no longer fudge. I have found that there's a lot more drama when the players see the rolls than when I roll and call out the result.