redrick
First Post
I think the "DM's don't have to reveal their information" argument fails to separate two very different things —
a) DM's don't have to reveal in-game information from their notes just because a player asks. Players certainly cannot expect the right to know things about their game world that their characters wouldn't know. Furthermore, DM's have the right to "lie" to players in the sense that PCs might "know" something that is in fact untrue. This is all in-game.
b) DM's do have to be honest with players about the kind of game that they are playing, because this is an issue of one player to another, not one character to another. As a human, if a player asks me if I am adjusting mechanics on the fly, I feel I would be obliged to answer truthfully. Now, I can say, "yes, but I won't tell you where I did it." or, "I reserve the right to make on-the-fly changes at my discretion, but I will never tell you whether or not I have actually done it." But if I say, "I did not fudge any rolls in that encounter," when I know damn well that I did, I'm lying.
When I play, I tell new players to my game, "You will encounter opponents who would kill you in a fair fight. And I will not fudge dice rolls to keep that from happening." We roll all of our dice in the open, except for discovery type checks. Personally, the sinking feeling of seeing the DM roll a natural 20 is far more satisfying, as a player, than having a DM announce across the screen, "It's a critical hit." I want players to ask me a lot of questions about apparent power levels of opponents, and then quake in their boots. I want players to see a PC take massive damage in one hit from an opponent and say, "oh crap, this is gonna be a TPK. New plan. Run away!" Hell, if it comes down to it, I want players to decide to leave one PC behind while everybody else sprints off. Maybe next time, they will come in with an exit strategy. And now I've got a strong plot hook to drive the game forward for a while. (Revenge. Maybe even finding the body of their fallen comrade for some resurrection magic.)
But if you want to run a game where you fudge die rolls, that's fine. You should be able to tell your players that, and they should be mature enough to be able to handle it. After all, if you are fudging, you are probably doing it because you are trying to make the game more fun. You don't need to fudge dice rolls to screw your players over. I have played at tables where the DM has announced afterwards, "I fudged a few die rolls there," as we packed up for the end of the night. I probably wouldn't want that in a regular game, but, whatever, it was a quick one-shot at a gaming store, and he just wanted to keep the thing moving, because he was working from a script and didn't have the time or energy to jump off the rails.
Ultimately, I feel that extemporaneous fudging is something that I do because I, as the DM, am not prepared to deal with the consequences of failure. When player characters need to flee a combat, or leave a character to die, I am forced to figure out, "oh crap, how do I keep this session going?" What happens next?
As for bringing in reinforcements, I see this as a little different from "fudging," because it's transparent — players see 5 more orcs come rushing in — and I can also usually pull those opponents from somewhere else in the dungeon. I'm making one encounter more exciting by eliminating another minor encounter. In fact, players should be prepared for any pitched combat to draw reinforcements. And, even if I do change the population of a dungeon (or wilderness area) on the fly, the players are getting the xp for facing more opponents.
a) DM's don't have to reveal in-game information from their notes just because a player asks. Players certainly cannot expect the right to know things about their game world that their characters wouldn't know. Furthermore, DM's have the right to "lie" to players in the sense that PCs might "know" something that is in fact untrue. This is all in-game.
b) DM's do have to be honest with players about the kind of game that they are playing, because this is an issue of one player to another, not one character to another. As a human, if a player asks me if I am adjusting mechanics on the fly, I feel I would be obliged to answer truthfully. Now, I can say, "yes, but I won't tell you where I did it." or, "I reserve the right to make on-the-fly changes at my discretion, but I will never tell you whether or not I have actually done it." But if I say, "I did not fudge any rolls in that encounter," when I know damn well that I did, I'm lying.
When I play, I tell new players to my game, "You will encounter opponents who would kill you in a fair fight. And I will not fudge dice rolls to keep that from happening." We roll all of our dice in the open, except for discovery type checks. Personally, the sinking feeling of seeing the DM roll a natural 20 is far more satisfying, as a player, than having a DM announce across the screen, "It's a critical hit." I want players to ask me a lot of questions about apparent power levels of opponents, and then quake in their boots. I want players to see a PC take massive damage in one hit from an opponent and say, "oh crap, this is gonna be a TPK. New plan. Run away!" Hell, if it comes down to it, I want players to decide to leave one PC behind while everybody else sprints off. Maybe next time, they will come in with an exit strategy. And now I've got a strong plot hook to drive the game forward for a while. (Revenge. Maybe even finding the body of their fallen comrade for some resurrection magic.)
But if you want to run a game where you fudge die rolls, that's fine. You should be able to tell your players that, and they should be mature enough to be able to handle it. After all, if you are fudging, you are probably doing it because you are trying to make the game more fun. You don't need to fudge dice rolls to screw your players over. I have played at tables where the DM has announced afterwards, "I fudged a few die rolls there," as we packed up for the end of the night. I probably wouldn't want that in a regular game, but, whatever, it was a quick one-shot at a gaming store, and he just wanted to keep the thing moving, because he was working from a script and didn't have the time or energy to jump off the rails.
Ultimately, I feel that extemporaneous fudging is something that I do because I, as the DM, am not prepared to deal with the consequences of failure. When player characters need to flee a combat, or leave a character to die, I am forced to figure out, "oh crap, how do I keep this session going?" What happens next?
As for bringing in reinforcements, I see this as a little different from "fudging," because it's transparent — players see 5 more orcs come rushing in — and I can also usually pull those opponents from somewhere else in the dungeon. I'm making one encounter more exciting by eliminating another minor encounter. In fact, players should be prepared for any pitched combat to draw reinforcements. And, even if I do change the population of a dungeon (or wilderness area) on the fly, the players are getting the xp for facing more opponents.