As a GM, How Often Do You Fudge Dice Rolls?

[Zak S]

But that's the difference. baseball is such a simplistic game,...
Whereas D&D has a player trying to do a lot of different things.

Playing the game is accepting the challenge to deal with those "lots of things".

In many cases, it is far easier to simply fudge away some bad results than it is to stress about conducting a Post Mortem review on your last adventure and analyzing your next adventure for statistical design defects.

I am not talking about what's easy, I'm talking about what I think works best. If you had to fudge, it means the system you chose (and helped set up) failed. the best practice (assuming you have time) is to fix it.

Given that your just going to make mistake anyway on the next adventure, you might as well just simply learn how to adapt your material on the fly.

Or just don't make it again. That way the players are facing a straight, fairly-adjudicated challenge every time. And it's exciting because they know there's no "net".

Given that you wrote the adventure last night and made an encounter too hard, there is nothing so sacred to what you wrote last night, that you can't change it today during the actual game night. it's all stuff you made up and decided as the GM, regardless of when you decided it.

That doesn't change the fact that you still made the wrong decision and the best practice is to learn from it.

Again: not everyone has time for that. But that's my advice--you fudged, it's because you chose the wrong procedure to resolve whatever you were trying to resolve or set up a situation the likes of which you should not set up again.

 

[StormKnight]

Again: not everyone has time for that. But that's my advice--you fudged, it's because you chose the wrong procedure to resolve whatever you were trying to resolve or set up a situation the likes of which you should not set up again.

Again; or the procedure was just fine, but the dice didn't happen to come up in a good way this time.

Seriously, what kind of change do you think should be made in my demon-summoning example?

That way the players are facing a straight, fairly-adjudicated challenge every time. And it's exciting because they know there's no "net".

Not all players care about a "fairly adjudicated challenge". I have some players (and this includes me) that think the entire concept of challenge as applied to RPGs is absurd - the GM has infinite resources, and no one has victory conditions. What in the world is a "fair challenge" in this context? They don't play to "overcome a challenge", they play to have fun playing a character, and add in some game elements because some things are more fun that way than just narrated.

 

[Zak S]

Again; or the procedure was just fine, but the dice didn't happen to come up in a good way this time.

Then that table should not have been in use this time.

Seriously, what kind of change do you think should be made in my demon-summoning example?

Depends:

If this table is something the players have seen--their tactic depends on it and it shouldn't change unless having a suddenly skewed table is part of the scenario.

If this table has never been seen by the players, it's effectively not really a rule. It's just a tool to help the GM come up with ideas--like a random name table. So I think changing the result isn't really what I'd call fudging. Fudging is when the players and GM agree that a roll means a certain range of things and then the GM alters it.

Not all players care about a "fairly adjudicated challenge". I have some players (and this includes me) that think the entire concept of challenge as applied to RPGs is absurd - the GM has infinite resources, and no one has victory conditions. What in the world is a "fair challenge" in this context? They don't play to "overcome a challenge", they play to have fun playing a character, and add in some game elements because some things are more fun that way than just narrated.

There are two separate interesting concepts here:

1. Some players don't want a challenge.
Ok, then why play D&D instead of another, easier fantasy game?

2. Does challenge exist in a game where the GM is omnipotent?
Absolutely. A riddler can think up any riddle they want, but it doesn't mean the riddle is not a challenge for the riddled. A gym teacher can set up any obstacle course they want--it doesn't mean the obstacle course is not a challenge for the people running through it. A karate teacher can fight her student with one arm behind her back--it doesn't mean it's not a challenge for the student. In a baseball game the umpire literally redefines the strike zone on every pitch, judging by eye, it doesn't mean that the challenge of hitting a ball in baseball is nonexistent or wholly absurd.
If a player wants to survive and gain xp, it is fairly simple to set up an in-game problem that is mentally challenging such that thinking through the problem lets the player live and not thinking through the problem means they die. Examples abound. Some simple ones:

-For kids, you can set up a situation (like an entrapment circle) where there is literally no disadvantage to shooting a dangerous foe which has no distance attacks. One little kid will shoot the monster, the other runs up to hit it and gets mangled. They have been challenged. One has been found wanting.

-Literal riddles can appear in D&D. Since a riddle is a challenge (and, done properly, one with more than one answer, including ones the GM didn't think of) the situation is a challenge.

-You are fighting a big, slow hippo. All things being equal, targeting its dexterity is smarter than targeting it's constitution. Figuring that out, you have met the challenge.

Note also: none of these challenges are system-dependent and so don't require people to know the rules. Hippos are tough and slow in any kind of traditional fantasy RPG.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

My experience seems to match many others in this thread.

I used to fudge dice rolls quite a bit, usually in favour of the players, but occasionally against them. Often it was to lower the amount of damage rolled to avoid killing a PC or a TPK.

However, several years ago I just decided to start rolling in the open and let the dice fall where they may. I've definitely enjoyed that change as it makes combat much more exciting for both the players and myself. They know that what I roll is what I roll. So if I get on a hot streak, they could be in trouble. Similarly, they know that I won't have my big bad "make" a save even though I rolled a 1.

This has led to a couple of anti-climactic boss fights due to me rolling poorly on some saving throws. However, I think this is offset by other encounters being surprisingly difficult due to me rolling really well.

The only time I roll in secret is if I'm rolling spot checks to see if they notice someone, or sense motive checks to see if they could catch someone out lying. In those cases they shouldn't know how well or poorly they or myself rolled. So I'll make those rolls behind my hand.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

Often.

4E is deadlier than people think, or maybe it is my custom monsters, and 5E is as deadly as people think. I run both and I've resorted to some fudging to keep the PCs alive purely because they're all so invested in their characters.

I started a non-fudging policy in my new 5E game because one of my long-time players was interested 5E because of its deadliness. However, after his character with a fairly detailed background bit the dust in our second 5E session, he lost interest in that "theory". Since then, I've gone back to fudging quite a bit. The players don't know and I don't even know if they suspect. Mind you, they've been known to fudge rolls as well. I don't care as long as we're all enjoying ourselves (after all, it's not a competitive game) even though purists would be horrified.

 

[billd91]

I am not talking about what's easy, I'm talking about what I think works best. If you had to fudge, it means the system you chose (and helped set up) failed. the best practice (assuming you have time) is to fix it.

Oh, I don't think there's any hint of the system failing. Rather, I view anything I use within the system as being subject to my editorial control as GM - monsters in the encounter, environments in the adventure, and dice rolls that I make. The dice, as I see them, are no more sacred nor immutable than the other aspects of the game world that I'm in charge of as the game master. If I roll really well for the NPC and that seems like too much for the current situation, I'll edit them down a bit, though because I too usually roll in the open, I'll more likely just leave off a modifier or reduce it a little.

 

[Umbran]

I am not talking about what's easy, I'm talking about what I think works best. If you had to fudge, it means the system you chose (and helped set up) failed. the best practice (assuming you have time) is to fix it.

Big thing there - "assuming you have time". That is not a small requirement. Especially since we are not all game designers, or have access to playtesting resources to vet their fixes, and actually have jobs and lives.

Moreover, the world is full of cases in which, when you consider the full costs of fixing things systemically, a local one-time patch is actually the better choice. When the system works 99.9% of the time, a systemic fix isn't called for - a fudge will do. If you find yourself constantly fudging, then, maybe a systemic fix (or different choice of system) may be called for.

A culinary analogy - you're cooking dinner. Making pasta with an alfredo sauce. But, gosh darn it, the cream's gone bad. That dinner plan isn't going to work. Now what?

No, I do not need to buy a new refrigerator. No, I don't need to review and revamp all my grocery-buying patterns. I just need to order a pizza. Quick, simple, done, and we move on. This is just one meal among the thousands and thousands I will have in my life - that this one deviates slightly from the original plan isn't important - the fact is apt to be forgotten in a week anyway.

Ultimately, what works best is whatever gets a good experience for people at the table. Period. "Fair adjudication" takes primacy if and only if that has a heavy impact on player enjoyment. If you have people who cannot stand fudging at your table, then by all means, avoid it. But, there are lots of folks who aren't so worried about fair adjudication by known rules. Don't claim what works best for *everyone*, because there is no One True Way to play, or manage these things.

 

[Zak S]

Oh, I don't think there's any hint of the system failing. Rather, I view anything I use within the system as being subject to my editorial control as GM - monsters in the encounter, environments in the adventure, and dice rolls that I make. The dice, as I see them, are no more sacred nor immutable than the other aspects of the game world that I'm in charge of as the game master. If I roll really well for the NPC and that seems like too much for the current situation, I'll edit them down a bit, though because I too usually roll in the open, I'll more likely just leave off a modifier or reduce it a little.

There's a profound difference between:

A) Realizing a rule isn't working.
Changing the rule.
Letting everybody know the rule has changed.
Making sure they're cool with it.
Keeping it like that til further notice because this new rule is better.

and

B) Secretly "changing the rule" because following it makes this one situation not work out right.
Then secretly "changing it back" immediately after.

A is following the rules and produces the challenge of any game: winning or achieving desirable goals despite rules.

B is fudging. It's ignoring the rule so that a given story event will result or not result.

 

[Zak S]

Don't claim what works best for *everyone*, because there is no One True Way to play, or manage these things.

Go back and read through everything I said.

Do I, at any point go "this is best for everyone"?

No, I don't. What I do do is ask (not rhetorically) why--if you don't have a challenge-oriented crew--you would play a game which has challenge built in. If you could answer that--awesome. If not, fine, but please do not suggest I said a thing I would never say.

 

[Umbran]

Go back and read through everything I said.

Do I, at any point go "this is best for everyone"?

Your statement was general - time permitting, the best practice is always to fix, with no exceptions given. So, by implication, yes, you said it was for everyone.

No, I don't. What I do do is ask (not rhetorically) why--if you don't have a challenge-oriented crew--you would play a game which has challenge built in. If you could answer that--awesome.

Answer: Crews are not digital, with only one desire. Nor are their desires digital, "full-bore or none at all". Multiple desires with multiple levels of importance, that changes with time and situation. If the crew wants some challenge, then a system that includes it may be a useful thing. And "desires challenge" does to equate to "desires a GM that never fudges anything", anyway.

Fudging is not necessarily removal of all challenge, all the time. A fudge can be a rare thing, leaving the system (and system-dependent challenge) intact the vast majority of the time. A fudge can be a mere correction of pacing, not really altering the challenge or difficulty of the encounter. A fudge can be an *increase* in challenge (as players of videogames will attest, as a common way for the challenge to increase is for the computer to selectively break rules) - GMs do sometimes fudge to keep a bad guy alive, you know. So, overall, the challenge-orientation of the players is kind of irrelevant to whether fudging is an appropriate tool.

And also note that there is a non-system element to consider - the GM. Even if the system and players are all about challenge, the GM is *NOT PERFECT* - he or she can make mistakes, or misjudge. Fudging can be done to maintain the level of challenge desired that, due to GM misstep, was not achieved.