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

[Hussar]

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.

This is the boat I'm in too. I've come to realise that the dice often tell better stories at the end of the day than I might. If nothing else, it allows me, the DM, to be surprised by the outcome. And, for me, that's a good thing.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I most certainly do fudge dice rolls because it is an exceptionally useful tool if it is not abused. How often is irrelevant. I use it when needed and nonetheless try to avoid it. DM's, by definition, do not play by the rules. Ultimately they make the rules - not the game author and most certainly NOT the players. If other DM's feel better about not ever fudging dice well that is most laudable and I applaud them. They should game and be happy. I say the DM gives up valuable options for running the game if he feels that it's actually WRONG to fudge dice and even worse if they make all rolls in the open. Again, if that works for you then good on ya. I prefer not to allow players the unfettered ability to meta-game by seeing all dice results. If this is all something they can't tolerate then I'll attempt to convince them otherwise but ultimately I'll simply have to tell them they are free to seek another game under another DM.

 

[Zak S]

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.

"Time permitting--it's the best for everybody" is different that "its the best for everybody".

So far the only reason any fudger's really given not to have a range of rules for different situations is, essentially, lack of time to fix the rules.

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.

Incorrect:

Whether the fudging makes the game harder or easier, the point is the challenge in the game is about learning to do a specific thing: interpreting the fictional situation and the chances inherent in the game
(x chance in 20) to get a desired outcome.

If you are playing soccer and suddenly go "Ok, for the next 3 minutes, if your side has the ball, there'll be a whale in front of the goal" you have certainly _increased_ the challenge, but you've done it by setting up a different challenge than the ones the players signed up for. This means many strategies and tactics and training developed for whale-free soccer are suddenly invalidated. Especially if the whale barricade or a similar set up then never recurs.

If this happens repeatedly, challenge (i.e. the incentive to employ the mental effort necessary to think up better solutions) goes away. If you know that no matter what you do the GM will save the villain, you no longer have an incentive to think of clever ways to defeat the villain. You enter the encounter, lay your head on the table next to the Doritos and tell the DM to wake you when the encounter is over--your mental effort would be wasted.

YOu have not invalidated challenge by making the game easy--you have invalidated challenge by failing to incentivize players attempts to take game situations as a challenge.

 

[Hussar]

If this happens repeatedly, challenge (i.e. the incentive to employ the mental effort necessary to think up better solutions) goes away. If you know that no matter what you do the GM will save the villain, you no longer have an incentive to think of clever ways to defeat the villain. You enter the encounter, lay your head on the table next to the Doritos and tell the DM to wake you when the encounter is over--your mental effort would be wasted.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...n-Do-You-Fudge-Dice-Rolls/page6#ixzz3Ptv86yov

See, there's a whole lot of excluded middle here. We're not talking about railroading the PC's and making my Baron Von Badass unkillable. Everyone, I think, agrees that this is bad.

We're talking about the DM looking at the situation at hand, realizing that it's an outlier, likely because of a string of unlikely die rolls, and nudging things back within acceptable parameters. If you have a 50% chance to hit the baddy but miss 8 times in a row, for some people, that's not much fun. It's so unlikely that the rules won't cover this sort of thing, but, given the huge number of die rolls out there, it will happen from time to time at some table somewhere. So, the DM nudges the numbers and lets you hit on that last attack. If he's subtle enough about it, then no one notices and everyone is probably happier at the table. Plus, the game doesn't come to a screeching halt because a fairly routine encounter suddenly turns into a TPK.

Granted, for me, personally, I don't futz with the numbers any more. If I miss eight times in a row, I bitch about it, but, I don't expect or want the DM to throw me a cookie and let me hit. But, I know that some players would rather a smidgeon of illusionism to slavish adherence to die rolls. To each his own. It's not like there's some sort of moral imperative at work here.

 

[Zak S]

It's true there's an excluded middle--but as soon as you get fudged on once….you never can be sure it won't happen again.

Missing 8 times in a row? That's AMAZING--that is a story in itself. The improbability makes it a story.

 

[Hussar]

I agree but the point is not everyone does. Be careful of the onetruwayism you are exhibiting here.

 

[Zak S]

I agree but the point is not everyone does. Be careful of the onetruwayism you are exhibiting here.

We already went over that:

"
"Time permitting--it's the best for everybody" is different that "its the best for everybody".

So far the only reason any fudger's really given not to have a range of rules for different situations is, essentially, lack of time to fix the rules.
"

...so please do not accuse me of doing something that I would never do.

 

[Janx]

We already went over that:

"
"Time permitting--it's the best for everybody" is different that "its the best for everybody".

So far the only reason any fudger's really given not to have a range of rules for different situations is, essentially, lack of time to fix the rules.
"

...so please do not accuse me of doing something that I would never do.

The problem I see with your posts is that you keep saying this same thing that implies you don't accept anybody's reason for fudging or not "fixing it" to stop fudging.

Some chunk of us simply do not think situations where we think a fudge is needed are serious enough to warrant changing a game rule or process for evaluating monsters during the design stage.

there's not any rule I see fit to change with a hit being 1d20 + AC<= 1d20 + attack modifiers.

Nor is there any rule to change with how many CRs to pit against my Level 5 party. It's always an eyeball estimation of their strength vs. the challenge I want to present them without squashing them.

Since I'm not going to change games, I'll just keep eyeballing it and then make adaptations during run-time.

Given that I HAVE already acknowledged your point is generally a good process, but not applicable to my preference, if you don't want to be accused of "just repeating yourself", you might want to consider the same strategy in the discussion.

 

[Zak S]

Some chunk of us simply do not think situations where we think a fudge is needed are serious enough to warrant changing a game rule or process for evaluating monsters during the design stage.

Sure, and the fact that one of my socks has a small hole in it is a little annoying but not such a big deal that I've went ahead and switched socks. But if time was infinite and the sock fairy was just bringing socks all day I'd be like "Hey thanks for the new socks".

To address what I'm saying ("Time permitting--it's the best for everybody") and getpast hearing the same argument over and over, then you'd have to answer this question:

Theoretically, if there were a rule or procedure that guaranteed that you could use an entire ruleset as written and _never have to fudge_ while still enjoying the same playstyle you currently enjoy--would you use it?

Because it would seem to offer all of the advantages you currently enjoy plus get rid of that hole in your sock.

If not--why not?

 

[billd91]

Theoretically, if there were a rule or procedure that guaranteed that you could use an entire ruleset as written and _never have to fudge_ while still enjoying the same playstyle you currently enjoy--would you use it?

Because it would seem to offer all of the advantages you currently enjoy plus get rid of that hole in your sock.

If not--why not?

Because it doesn't, and I'd say probably cannot, exist.