D&D 5E To fudge or not to fudge: that is the question

[Mercule]

I rarely fudge. For the most part, I stand by the idea of real risks. That said, yeah, I tweak things, on occasion.

The first time the PCs ran into energy draining undead in 5E, I made sure the undead hit a PC, just to give them a feel for the mechanic in a situation with only one foe, rather than after they'd gotten in too deep with a horde. I've also saved PCs from going out like a chump or kept the BBEG around for long enough to do something, just so the group felt like they'd done something noteworthy (unless the PCs actually planned and surprised him).

I do not fudge to significantly increase or decrease PC survivability. I generally do it only to make otherwise predictable results more interesting or to decrease frustration with the game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No.

This is something every group should discuss and work out ahead of time. If everyone is on board with tweaks being made here and there to keep the flow going and thats the kind of game everyone wants then it isn't a problem. Change a value here, ignore a die roll there, and keep going.

 

[Imaculata]

I find it difficult to square the two bolded bits, here. Adding extra HP is mathematically equivalent to fudging the PCs' outgoing damage dice in the enemy's favor. What makes the former acceptable, and the latter a no-no?

Excellent question. I admit, it is a gray area.

Adding extra HP is a one time thing. You might notice that perhaps you may have given a monster insufficient stats to provide a fun and exciting fight, so you boost its maximum hitpoints. This does not negate the damage of the players entirely. It just means that the fight will last a few rounds longer, and will allow the monster to at least do something to provide a fun fight.

However, I'm against negating the way the dice fall. If a monster fails to hit a player, due to their armor class, then it would ruin the fun of the players if I would fudge in favor of the monster (by pretending it hit, when it really didn't). After all, armor class is there to prevent damage. What would be the point if the DM constantly ruled in favor of the monster? It would make armor class and attacks bonusses useless. I'm also not going to pretend the players missed a monster, when it fact it was a perfect hit. And if the monster rolls pathetically for the damage of its spell, then thats tough luck for him.

As a storyteller, I am secretly on the side of the players. The monsters are there to die, and they are all living on borrowed time. I'm not going to allow a monster to escape, when the dice say that the players win. That would be robbing the players of their victory. When I boost the maximum hitpoints of a monster, I don't feel like I am robbing them of their victory though. I'm just delaying their inevitable victory, to provide more game play. It has to be in service of more fun, and never the opposite.

This also extends to monster tactics. I've often made a monster switch targets, just to provide a more meaningful challenge to all the players, and to spare a player that was already down. The monster can be as clever or stupid as I want it to be, for the purpose of providing my players with a fun fight. Having the giant spider boss choose a strategy that is far from optimal, is perfectly fine, as long as the players are having fun.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

Fudging is the worst. It's narrative resolution masquerading as mechanical resolution. Either method is fine, but you lose legitimacy if you're pretending to do one while actually doing the other.

If I'm going through the trouble of rolling a die, I'm going to stick by the result. If you don't want a random result, just decide what happens. It's far easier that way.

Rather that fudging to get a preconceived result, DMs should practice coming up with interesting consequences for whatever happens.

 

[TerraDave]

In 5E you don't really need to.

I would say some older editions can make this a more difficult issue.

I do sometimes "estimate" if there is a hit or hp loss, but thats just to make math easier. Promise.

 

[Fedge123]

"The dice of Zeus always fall luckily."

- Sophocles

 

[GMMichael]

I make all rolls in the open whenever possible

Your players would hate me. I hide every single roll.

Two points:

If you feel a need to avoid fudging, you're forgetting rule zero: the GM is always right. Dice are what's needed only when the GM doesn't have a good answer. So, you could consider fudging to be a GM deciding that he's unsure about an outcome, heading to the dice, and then realizing that he is, actually, sure about an outcome.

Fudging isn't really necessary if your RPG is a little more flexible than, say, steel machinery. Pass/fail may work great for some games, and create an artificial need for fudging and :ahem: fail forward, but it isn't even an issue in a game where dice present opportunities instead of problems. See: Fate and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Fudging is the worst. It's narrative resolution masquerading as mechanical resolution. Either method is fine, but you lose legitimacy if you're pretending to do one while actually doing the other.

If I'm going through the trouble of rolling a die, I'm going to stick by the result. If you don't want a random result, just decide what happens. It's far easier that way.

I do want random results. That's why when the rogue rolls the die and rolls poorly, events happen. Or if the rogue rolls a '1' then something really bad happens. Or rolls a '20' something really good happens. The randomness is important.

What I don't find *as* important though is sticking with a set number that can't or shouldn't be fudged. I make that determination based upon what the NPCs have done, the story up to that point, what the players are trying to do in what fashion, how much time really needs to be spent in this encounter, or any other amount of mitigating factors that make me decide whether a DC (or HP total or damage total) needs to be a hard and fast number, or if it can afford to be a little looser for the enjoyment of the story.

A monster stat block has a HD number to determine hit points. It also has an average number of HP. I usually use that average number because I'm ultimately a lazy DM. But as the monster does have that method for determining variable hit points... each orc probably has a different amount. So when the rogue does the sneak attack and everything goes right, right up until being 1 point short of the damage needed for the average number of orc hit points listed in the stat block to get knocked out in one awesome blow... I make the call right then and there whether or not that orc actually had 1 hit point less from average, but I just didn't bother spending the time beforehand finding out. I improvised.

Anyone who is reading the 'Fail Forward' thread over in the General Roleplaying forum knows exactly where I am going with this. The more story-centric, narrative style of play versus the hard and fast reality, sandboxy style of play. Those who don't fudge (or who don't use 'fail forward' techniques) I suspect usually might fall in the latter category. Especially those players who find the word 'railroad' to be the absolute worst word in the RPG language and the most horrible thing to do (whereas those of us in the former category do not dismiss the concepts based around "railroading" completely out of hand.)

The long and the short of it is that I just don't find number increments to be so precious that a hard demarcation line between success and failure needs to always exist. The game can occasionally exist in the grey, and I and my players are fine with it.

 

[iserith]

Is it the position of some posters that "fail forward" (or D&D 5e's "progress combined with a setback") is fudging?

I cannot agree with such a position.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As a storyteller, I am secretly on the side of the players. The monsters are there to die, and they are all living on borrowed time. I'm not going to allow a monster to escape, when the dice say that the players win. That would be robbing the players of their victory. When I boost the maximum hitpoints of a monster, I don't feel like I am robbing them of their victory though. I'm just delaying their inevitable victory, to provide more game play. It has to be in service of more fun, and never the opposite.

From a game standpoint, if you already know that the players ARE going to win, and shuffle numbers around so that it happens when you think it most most appropriate, then you have already robbed the players of their victory.

Without a possibility of defeat, there can be no victory with any meaning.