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

[The Human Target]

It's always interesting to see where people draw lines of gaming principle.

 

[billd91]

That doesn't sound like a referee running a fair game to me. Perhaps you see it differently, but such a statement is fairly definitive of GM style to me. To me it sounds like the fix is in for the players right from the start.

Since when, in D&D (or really, any RPG), has the "fix" not been in? The rules skew solidly in the PCs favor, and always have.

 

[S'mon]

For example, I had an enemy pirate fall off a ship, and get grabbed by a crocodile. I didn't roll for damage, and just crossed that enemy off as dead. I gave the players a colorful description of how the crocodile ripped the poor guy to pieces, much to the delight of the players.

I wouldn't call that (declaring event without dice rolling) to be fudging. The GM never has
to use the dice. Fudging is using the dice then negating the result - "monster has 1 hp left, but I declare it dead anyway" - you can describe an entire "cutscene" diceless, no fudging involved -
unless players declared they were disrupting the cutscene and you pretended to roll dice to see if they could, but ignored the result.

 

[Skyscraper]

I like the following warning under this particular poll question:

"Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected."

Read: if you admit to fudging, your players will know.

 

[Waterbizkit]

If I'm going to call for a roll of the dice then I'm going to abide by the result. I make all of my combat rolls in the open for my players to see, so there's no chance of fudging those rolls even if it was something I wanted to do. Social encounters may involve secret rolls because allowing players to think they've successfully persuaded, intimidated or lied to an NPC when in fact they haven't can have delightful results. But if I'm making opposed checks in the open and they know for sure what the outcome was, I feel like that can be a lost roleplay opportunity. That said, I don't fudge the secret rolls regardless.

Really it just boils down to the idea that if I really wanted a situation to play out a specific way I'd just narrate it as such no roll required. But if I'm opting to allow for success or failure to hinge on a roll I see no reason to deny the results after the fact.

 

[Cody C. Lewis]

I would like to present a scenario:

Let's use a sneaky rogue, as has been brought up previously. The player wants to sneak up and make an attack on the guard.

The 'Fudger' DM:
This DM is not certain if the player can make a swift strike to actually down the guard. The guard is at... let's say 25 hp when the DM created this encounter. The rogue can actually accomplish 25 points of damage, but they might have to roll very high/almost perfectly. So this DM has the player roll, as he considers the guard may still instinctively try and defend himself in the last moment. The attack is successful. The player rolls damage and gets a result of 24. The DM, trying to reward his player for the clever play in addition to the exciting roll, has the guard drop. He fudged the encounter for the guard's total HP.

The player got to roll a successful attack, and the table got to cheer a bit at the exciting damage result.

The Stead-fast DM:
The above scenario takes place; the DM is unsure if the guard would drop, and decides to let the dice fall where they may. The guard drops to 1, but the encounter is not over, the table still got to cheer at the results of the dice, but they were immediately forced into initiative rolls to finish off the guard. Now this encounter can become more interesting with a call for help, but this should not be considered better or worse than what the above DM could do if the guard dropped as the party continued.

The Story Teller:
The DM decides if the guard fails his perception check (Which all three would do, this is not exclusive to this DM) the player just kills the guard. The player most likely feels as though he has been rewarded for his clever thinking, and the party has a 'win' moment. However, the player did not make any additional rolls. Furthermore, the player had no chance at failure.

Which camp do you guys feel like makes the most sense to you? I would argue that they are all equally good approaches.

Though, I know which I would prefer.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Steadfast DM, but not exactly like you say. The rogue gets his attack on a surprise round, so the guard can't act at all during that round. Taking the guard down from 25 to 1 hp would be handled like this by me:

"Your weapon plunges deep, and the guard falls to his knees; brought near to death." Initiative would then be rolled, but at disadvantage for the guard since he is wounded so grievously. Going from max down to 1 or even 2 hp is going to have some affect. Then again, I don't subscribe to the style of play that you're perfectly the same from 1 hp to max hp, even though the rules technically say that. There might not be a huge mechanical difference, but if you inflict near max damage that nearly kills the opponent, that's the perfect time to make a ruling and describe the situation as the example I have given.

 

[iserith]

I would like to present a scenario:

Let's use a sneaky rogue, as has been brought up previously. The player wants to sneak up and make an attack on the guard.

The 'Fudger' DM:
This DM is not certain if the player can make a swift strike to actually down the guard. The guard is at... let's say 25 hp when the DM created this encounter. The rogue can actually accomplish 25 points of damage, but they might have to roll very high/almost perfectly. So this DM has the player roll, as he considers the guard may still instinctively try and defend himself in the last moment. The attack is successful. The player rolls damage and gets a result of 24. The DM, trying to reward his player for the clever play in addition to the exciting roll, has the guard drop. He fudged the encounter for the guard's total HP.

The player got to roll a successful attack, and the table got to cheer a bit at the exciting damage result.

The Stead-fast DM:
The above scenario takes place; the DM is unsure if the guard would drop, and decides to let the dice fall where they may. The guard drops to 1, but the encounter is not over, the table still got to cheer at the results of the dice, but they were immediately forced into initiative rolls to finish off the guard. Now this encounter can become more interesting with a call for help, but this should not be considered better or worse than what the above DM could do if the guard dropped as the party continued.

The Story Teller:
The DM decides if the guard fails his perception check (Which all three would do, this is not exclusive to this DM) the player just kills the guard. The player most likely feels as though he has been rewarded for his clever thinking, and the party has a 'win' moment. However, the player did not make any additional rolls. Furthermore, the player had no chance at failure.

Which camp do you guys feel like makes the most sense to you? I would argue that they are all equally good approaches.

Though, I know which I would prefer.

My process:

1. The player describes his or her character's goal and approach for dealing with the guard. The DM makes sure the player is reasonably specific as to goal and approach and aware of any obvious consequences.

2. The DM decides, based on the fictional circumstances at that moment, whether the attempt is successful, not successful, or has an uncertain outcome. If the latter, go to 3, otherwise just narrate the result.

3. The DM invokes applicable rules to resolve the uncertainty, setting the stakes for success and failure. In the case of the example, it could be an attack and damage roll versus AC and HP. Or it might be an ability check - whatever is reasonably consistent with how other situations like this have been resolved in the past.

4. The rules/dice are resolved to determine the outcome one way or the other.

 

[Cody C. Lewis]

I am not not not saying your approach is wrong @iserith, or that my approach is better; just explaining my logic.

I feel that in the above scenario, I would lean towards the fudge approach. My reason is because it gave them a chance to roll. If there is a chance for the players to roll I typically go that route. Additionally, with an opportunity for them to not only have a roll, but for the outcome to be so close, I would grab the opportunity to create an awesome moment.

Like when Chris Perkins DM'd the latest AI game, he let the players down the Quagoth regardless of what their actual damage was. But he still had them roll, seizing the chance to let them roll instead of straight storytelling the scene.

 

[iserith]

I am not not not saying your approach is wrong [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], or that my approach is better; just explaining my logic.

Me too.