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

[billd91]

One big problem I have with fudging is that, if it's not known to the players, they can't make proper decisions - they don't have enough information. They don't know the game they are actually playing.

They don't know the stats of the monster behind the screen either. So I don't see how lack of knowledge of fudging is any different.

 

[LostSoul]

They don't know the stats of the monster behind the screen either. So I don't see how lack of knowledge of fudging is any different.

I would argue that the players need at least some idea of the monster stats behind the screen in order to make informed decisions. But anyway.

The way monster stats work is part of the system. They interact with the choices that players make. In order to hit a certain AC, you need to roll a certain number "to-hit". Choosing Weapon Focus changes the to-hit number you need. Players consider this when choosing Weapon Focus over Weapon Specialization or Toughness or other feats. In addition, in combat, you know that you can get bonuses to your to-hit roll if you execute specific tactics, eg. flanking.

At those times when the DM fudges, those choices don't matter. A PC is hit and taken down to -10. The DM fudges so that the PC is at -8. There's no incentive to take Toughness over Weapon Focus.

The player needs to determine why and when a DM fudges in order to make informed decisions. If the DM fudges when PCs take dramatic action, then you can invest in flamboyant character build options and rely on dramatic action to save you.

I don't have a problem with that style of game; what I criticize is that it's hard to get information to the players if the DM hides the reasons for and occurrences of fudging. It's easier to allow the players to make informed decisions if you make those fudging instances a transparent part of the system. If the players are informed that, for example, dramatic action is going to save your PC - since that's the kind of style that you want to play - and you make that known to the players, I think you'd get more of it. Sounds like win-win to me.

But.

I can see this being a problem, however, if the players don't want to know that the DM is fudging things. They want to believe that "things just worked out the right way," that luck & fate conspired to make that encounter come out in a satisfying way. So when you make that last-ditch stand to save the party with the odds stacked against you, and you come out on top, you don't want to know that the DM fudged the results so that the odds were in your favour. That would cheapen the experience.

That makes sense to me, even if I don't share the same aesthetic.

 

[Celtavian]

A little secret

I eliminated the problem you are facing by making all my rolls in front of the players. I never make a roll behind the screen for combat. Not saves, not to hit rolls, or damage rolls. So if the thing rolls a 1, they can cheer around the table. And they can groan when it rolls a 20.

I don't let them see stealth or perception checks though. They don't need to see that.

But hey, come closer, a little closer. I don't want my players to hear. It's a secret. I do fudge the hit points or modifiers at times. Sometimes I do it in the player's favor, sometimes in the monsters favor. Depends on how I want the combat to go. I think it's the better way to do things. Fudging rolls makes players really paranoid. Fudge the modifiers or hit points or numbers, they never know better. Much wiser than fudging rolls.

If you mention anything to my players, I'll tell them you're a mentally ill conpiracy theorist that needs to be locked up.

Hope this post helps.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

oops double posted.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I eliminated the problem you are facing by making all my rolls in front of the players. I never make a roll behind the screen for combat. Not saves, not to hit rolls, or damage rolls. So if the thing rolls a 1, they can cheer around the table. And they can groan when it rolls a 20.

I don't let them see stealth or perception checks though. They don't need to see that.

But hey, come closer, a little closer. I don't want my players to hear. It's a secret. I do fudge the hit points or modifiers at times. Sometimes I do it in the player's favor, sometimes in the monsters favor. Depends on how I want the combat to go. I think it's the better way to do things. Fudging rolls makes players really paranoid. Fudge the modifiers or hit points or numbers, they never know better. Much wiser than fudging rolls.

This is exactly how I do things too and feel they should be done.

 

[Janx]

But hey, come closer, a little closer. I don't want my players to hear. It's a secret. I do fudge the hit points or modifiers at times. Sometimes I do it in the player's favor, sometimes in the monsters favor. Depends on how I want the combat to go. I think it's the better way to do things. Fudging rolls makes players really paranoid. Fudge the modifiers or hit points or numbers, they never know better. Much wiser than fudging rolls.

this touches on another aspect of the fudging issue.

playing with the dice rolls in public view and vowing to never fudge sort of assumes the system is so perfect and balanced (and run correctly by the GM), that all encounters are "fair". I quoted that word and use it loosely for a reason.

In the realm of not changing die results, but changing HP on a BBEG, how is that different than the work you did during adventure design, where you decided the BBEG would have 200 instead of 100 HP?

What rules guided you that said 200 HP is fair for the NPC to have when you designed the encounter?

If you can build unreasonable or unfair during the design stage legally, what makes changing things during the execution stage illegal? Functionally, the outcome is equivalent.

Personally, if I have decent challenge level calculations that I follow during the design stage, I then can assume that my BBEG is of a correct difficulty level over the party, and that whatever happens from the dice rolls should be accepted as fair.

I don't know about 4e, but prior editions have yet to hit that mark. As such, I think that drives some GMs to make in-game corrections when they are realized.

When I fugde, it is generally to save the life of a PC that would otherwise die so quickly that the player cannot make a course correction. Frex, round 1, the BBEG hitting the PC for enough damage to kill him. The PC would have no chance to realize he is in over his head and withdraw. Whacking him down to 2HP makes it pretty clear that his next action should be to change tactics, or he will die. You can bet, the next round will kill the PC if I score a hit and the PC was dumb enough to stick around.

I never give the bad guy more or less hitpoints. I never negate a saving throw to spare the bad guy. I might be a softy for giving the PCs a second chance from damage, but that's about as far as I go.

 

[Bullgrit]

I'm asking a question/making a suggestion here -- I am not condemning anyone's play style.

Those of you who will fudge to have an opponent, (NPC), make a save against something like a first round save or die effect: Do you tell the Players this? Would it be a good table rule to have agreement between the DM and Players that any first round of combat should not include save or die effects?

When I fugde, it is generally to save the life of a PC that would otherwise die so quickly that the player cannot make a course correction. Frex, round 1, the BBEG hitting the PC for enough damage to kill him. The PC would have no chance to realize he is in over his head and withdraw. Whacking him down to 2HP makes it pretty clear that his next action should be to change tactics, or he will die. You can bet, the next round will kill the PC if I score a hit and the PC was dumb enough to stick around.

You know, it's sad to me that every time I've seen this scenario come up, (even with no fudging on the DM's part), the Player/PC rarely takes the hint. And when they do get the hint, I've seen many times when the PC, instead of changing tactics to protect themselves, they pull out their biggest gun in the thought of offing the enemy with their next, (and probably last), shot. I have seen so many PCs get dumber after being hit with the clue bat.

Bullgrit

 

[billd91]

You know, it's sad to me that every time I've seen this scenario come up, (even with no fudging on the DM's part), the Player/PC rarely takes the hint. And when they do get the hint, I've seen many times when the PC, instead of changing tactics to protect themselves, they pull out their biggest gun in the thought of offing the enemy with their next, (and probably last), shot. I have seen so many PCs get dumber after being hit with the clue bat.

Hey, at least you gave them the chance to do something smarter. If the players fail to make use of it, then they get what's coming to them.

 

[prosfilaes]

If you can build unreasonable or unfair during the design stage legally, what makes changing things during the execution stage illegal? Functionally, the outcome is equivalent.

If the outcome were the same, you wouldn't be fudging. In that one instance, the results may be indistinguishable, but over the long run, a statistician would have no problem proving that you were fudging, and your experienced players would know it. You would take some of the variability and randomness out of the game, and I think some people want that variability and randomness.

 

[Janx]

If the outcome were the same, you wouldn't be fudging. In that one instance, the results may be indistinguishable, but over the long run, a statistician would have no problem proving that you were fudging, and your experienced players would know it. You would take some of the variability and randomness out of the game, and I think some people want that variability and randomness.

Let's say 100HP BBEG is the standard. If I design the adventure, and crank it up to 200HP, then the fight will be longer/tougher.

Contrast that to writing down 100HP during the design stage, but deciding to crank it to 200HP during the execution of the adventure. The result is, the fight is longer/tougher.

That's the example I'm citing because some people fudge the hit-points.

I think it's poor design to amp the hit-points out of specification, and bad practice to increase the stats during the fight. My point though is that the activity is functionally the same. The outcome is the same and the math is the same.

There are no controls or policies on design. So assuming the game exists in some non-fudging pure form that your dice rolls are fair, etc is incorrect. You don't know if your GM designed the adventure with the wrong stats. Therefore, there is no true test of anything going on.