D&D 5E Do you want your DM to fudge?

[wwanno]

The rules serve the DM, not the other way around. The rules cannot require anything of the DM.

Pointless answer. Too generic, too easy.
In the situation I painted (the dragon being extremely lucky on his rolls), it is not a rule of the game requiring the DM to roll, it is logic.
If the DM doesn't roll for the dragon attacks, the players will ask "why is the dragon just staring motionless at me? Is he dumb?"
The players will slay the dragon but will know that the DM helped them.
Something like this is worst than fudging dices.
1- the DM broke a rule anyway, he did not played the dragon as he should have done, as a creature with high intelligence.
2- the help coming from the DM was clearly apparent to the players, and now they will feel safe. But safety takes the thrill away.

Far better roll for the dragon and fudge his fourth 20 in a row into a miss.
TPK avoided, players unaware of DM's intercession, everybody is happy.
What you don't know cannot harm you.

I don't really care if character deaths or TPKs happen, but if I did, then I would change the goals and stakes of challenges so that they do not include the possibility of character death.

That means that your players will NEVER feel the thrill.
Avoid at all the chances of character death means that by knowing the character AC, you choose for him only opponents unable to hit him. This is the meaning of "do not include the possibility of".
I guess you understand this is not that good.

 

[Maxperson]

I would suggest that the DM not roll dice when one of the possible outcomes is undesirable (to the DM and players).

LOL So any time there's even a 1 in 160,000 chance that the outcome is undesirable, the DM shouldn't roll? That's crazy talk.

 

[iserith]

Pointless answer. Too generic, too easy.
In the situation I painted (the dragon being extremely lucky on his rolls), it is not a rule of the game requiring the DM to roll, it is logic.
If the DM doesn't roll for the dragon attacks, the players will ask "why is the dragon just staring motionless at me? Is he dumb?"
The players will slay the dragon but will know that the DM helped them.
Something like this is worst than fudging dices.
1- the DM broke a rule anyway, he did not played the dragon as he should have done, as a creature with high intelligence.
2- the help coming from the DM was clearly apparent to the players, and now they will feel safe. But safety takes the thrill away.

Far better roll for the dragon and fudge his fourth 20 in a row into a miss.
TPK avoided, players unaware of DM's intercession, everybody is happy.
What you don't know cannot harm you.

The DM can't break rules - he or she is not bound by them. There is also no requirement that the DM play a monster in a particular way, though I would suggest remaining reasonably consistent with established characterization is ideal. It is possible to play the dragon in a way that is believable and eliminates the possibility of character death and TPKs, if that's what you want to do. Which it is clear that you do, only you just ignore the die results you don't like rather than give serious thought to other matters like stakes. I don't roll the dice at all if doing so may result in something I don't like.

That means that your players will NEVER feel the thrill.
Avoid at all the chances of character death means that by knowing the character AC, you choose for him only opponents unable to hit him. This is the meaning of "do not include the possibility of".
I guess you understand this is not that good.

There are many failure conditions - death is just one, and even challenges that don't involve the possibility of death can be highly engaging. By fudging, you're also opening the possibility that your players won't "feel the thrill" either because they may discover that it wasn't their decisions and luck that won the day (be it life or death or some other set of stakes), but rather the DM helping them out.

My suggestion for those that resort to fudging to avoid character death is to start introducing different stakes in your game and/or prepare for character death by having the players create backup characters that are already written into the ongoing story so that bringing them into play is quick and logical. Then, either way, you'll have no problem rolling that die and living with the results.

 

[iserith]

LOL So any time there's even a 1 in 160,000 chance that the outcome is undesirable, the DM shouldn't roll? That's crazy talk.

The DM sets the stakes. Why would the DM set the stakes such that there is a possibility that one of the outcomes is not desirable? This leads to either fudging or having an experience you do not desire. Neither sounds good to me.

 

[Maxperson]

The DM can't break rules - he or she is not bound by them.

Yes, but if the DM is not consistent with his house rules and just changes them on a dime as you seem to suggest, then the rules serve no purpose and should just be gotten rid of. At that point, just DM fiat the entire thing and don't bother with a rules system.

If I'm going to just throw out the rules every time something I don't feel like being bound by comes along, I might as well not be playing that RPG.

 

[Maxperson]

The DM sets the stakes. Why would the DM set the stakes such that there is a possibility that one of the outcomes is not desirable? This leads to either fudging or having an experience you do not desire. Neither sounds good to me.

Possibilities are rarely 0. If I were to use your logic, I would almost never be able to call for a roll as it's possible, however unlikely, for virtually anything to happen and lots of that anything is unwanted.

No. I utterly reject your notion that I should abandon rolling for something just because extreme long odds are possible.

 

[iserith]

Yes, but if the DM is not consistent with his house rules and just changes them on a dime as you seem to suggest, then the rules serve no purpose and should just be gotten rid of. At that point, just DM fiat the entire thing and don't bother with a rules system.

If I'm going to just throw out the rules every time something I don't feel like being bound by comes along, I might as well not be playing that RPG.

If you want a game where the GM is bound by rules and process, they're out there. D&D isn't one of those games. The rules are tools the DM uses to resolve uncertainty; the DM's consistent rulings plus established fiction is what players use to make decisions. If you're going to turn to the rules (and dice) to resolve uncertainty and then turn around and fudge because you don't like the result they produced, what's the point of having gone to the rules (and dice) in the first place? Set your stakes so that both success and failure are acceptable before leaving it to fate and this isn't an issue.

Personally, when I see a DM that fudges, I immediately know that he or she doesn't have the skills to set stakes or to adequately prepare for character death and is typically a signal to me that the DM lacks other skills that will negatively impact my game experience. Fudging also necessarily reduces the difficulty of the challenges we face, and I do like difficult challenges.

 

[iserith]

Possibilities are rarely 0. If I were to use your logic, I would almost never be able to call for a roll as it's possible, however unlikely, for virtually anything to happen and lots of that anything is unwanted.

No. I utterly reject your notion that I should abandon rolling for something just because extreme long odds are possible.

Again, you're not understanding stake-setting here and how you can use this skill to avoid fudging. Stakes are what happens when you succeed and what happens when you fail. If both success and failure are fun (for the players, if not the characters) and lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story, then it doesn't matter what is rolled, does it?

 

[Maxperson]

If you want a game where the GM is bound by rules and process, they're out there. D&D isn't one of those games.

I agree. Where we differ is that when I alter a rule, it become a consistent house rule that I will follow thereafter. I don't just throw rules out willy nilly because I want things to be a certain way. That way lies anarchy. The players deserve to have a consistent rule system that they can rely on, including house rules due to DM changes, additions or subtractions.

The rules are tools the DM uses to resolve uncertainty; the DM's consistent rulings plus established fiction is what players use to make decisions. If you're going to turn to the rules (and dice) to resolve uncertainty and then turn around and fudge because you don't like the result they produced, what's the point of having gone to the rules (and dice) in the first place?

Because random chance only works in a game within certain parameters. Go outside those parameters due to extreme luck and the game breaks. I'm am willing to allow non-broken randomness. I'm not going to be a slave to the dice (something else the DM is not a slave to) and allow the game to break just because I called for a roll.

Personally, when I see a DM that fudges, I immediately know that he or she doesn't have the skills to set stakes or to adequately prepare for character death and is typically a signal to me that the DM lacks other skills that will negatively impact my game experience. Fudging also necessarily reduces the difficulty of the challenges we face, and I do like difficult challenges.

That's your flawed assumption and not any kind of fact.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, you're not understanding stake-setting here and how you can use this skill to avoid fudging. Stakes are what happens when you succeed and what happens when you fail. If both success and failure are fun (for the players, if not the characters) and lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story, then it doesn't matter what is rolled, does it?

If I follow your recommendation, I would not be able to call for rolls in combat..............ever. I refuse to let extreme bad luck break the game and extreme bad luck with die rolls in combat does that. Your response is that I should not roll in combat.