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

[Psikerlord#]

I personally think dice fudging is a bad idea for both players and DMs. Always roll combat dice in the open, I say - DMs have many other more preferable ways of influencing a combat outcome than fiddling with dice.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, in the global sense. Define a probability value for "miracles," and "miracles" become commonplace. But that doesn't make it necessarily wise to plan around them, does it?

Exactly, which is why the game breaks when these extreme odds happen. The game doesn't plan for them, so it can't handle them when they happen. It's the DM's job to step in at that point and make corrections.

Then, by the logic I've used elsewhere, that wouldn't be fudging, under my definition--it would be theatrics (I've twice now called it equivalent to "giving NPCs funny accents"). I still don't care for it, but I see nothing really wrong with it either. You're not using the dice for any mechanical thing, only for an aesthetic thing.

What if the DM has decided before the roll that the roll just can't crit?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Exactly, which is why the game breaks when these extreme odds happen. The game doesn't plan for them, so it can't handle them when they happen. It's the DM's job to step in at that point and make corrections.

And I think "ignoring the dice when they don't do what you want them to do" is not an appropriate type of correction. I've given many, many other examples of corrections that can be applied that don't do that, by just not using dice in the first place. And, as said in the other thread, I probably shouldn't be continuing to discuss this with you; only doing so because you replied to me, and because...

What if the DM has decided before the roll that the roll just can't crit?

...this is an interesting question. One could argue that it is "ignoring" the dice despite using them, but one could also argue that it is merely a different form of the "grades of success/failure." Having thought about it for a while, I'd say I fall more on the latter side. You're still asking the dice whether the attack will land or not. And, presumably, you could still allow that a natural 20 is always a hit, even if it isn't therefore a crit. If I were to formalize it (which I would prefer, if it is to be used), I'd probably put it as "normally, crits don't need to be confirmed, but sometimes the DM may call for a confirmation. And sometimes, the DM may decide that the confirmation just fails, without a roll."

The nice thing about a rule like that--requesting, or simply denying, confirmations for crits--is that it would address much of the "divergent event" stuff. Both "the party did supermax damage and killed it before it even got to act" type (perhaps player and monster crits always need to be confirmed on round 1?), and "the baddies have gotten roll after roll in their favor" type. Still a bit arbitrary for my taste on the latter count, but it's an improvement, and one shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Because we don't treat dice results as binary-- yes or no.

You make a skill check with a DC of 10. Rolling plus your modifier gives you a 15 might mean you succeed normally. Rolling a Nat 20 on the die might mean you succeed extraordinarily. Rolling the dice and adding your mod that gives you a 9 might mean failure but the DM might "fudge" it to give you success but at a cost. Rolling a 1 on the die might mean a spectacular failure.

The dice are tools to help us determine levels of success and failure, and let the DM and the rest of us improvise results we might not otherwise have thought of or did. Sure, we absolutely could improvise our stories with no dice at all... and that's not exactly a big whoop seeing as how many "roleplaying" parts of the game have some tables do that with no dice rolls whatsoever. But when we want to use the dice, the dice give us a whole variance of possible results.

Dice are a tool for variance in results. We use them as such.

I think that you are talking about a different thing from what others are when referring to fudging.

Others, myself at the very least, are not talking about a process where in the DM decides "roll that die to see how well your success goes" and a low roll means barely succeeding while a high roll means a more spectacular success, but maybe the exact benchmark for "high enough for barely succeeding" isn't set in stone before the roll. I.e. roll 1d20; 1-5 fails, 6-12 probably succeeds, 13+ succeeds, and a 20 is even coooler.

We are talking about a process where in the DM decides "roll that die to see if you succeed or fail" and has actually arranged things in their head so that no matter what result the die shows, no matter how high, how low, or if the thing spins on a point for a solid minute before dropping out of this dimension of existence, the outcome will always be the same. I.e. roll 1d20; 1-20 succeeds. Or roll 1d20; 1-20 fails.

And in the second case, which is what I thought you were talking about before but this more recent post reveals you are not, I ask "Why not just skip the dice rolling and go straight to the outcome that has already been decided?"

 

[Manbearcat]

<snip> ...I ask "Why not just skip the dice rolling and go straight to the outcome that has already been decided?"

Because the illusion that the player's action declaration and/or the system's resolution mechanics have dictated the outcome of this particular instance of play (and the implications this has on future play), rather than the GM's will, will be exposed. This has implications on future play in that the technique of Illusionism (covertly applying GM Force to an instance of play) requires either (a) "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" buy-in at the social contract level by the players (Participationism) or (b) keeping the curtain firmly between the man and his audience.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Because the illusion that the player's action declaration and/or the system's resolution mechanics have dictated the outcome of this particular instance of play (and the implications this has on future play), rather than the GM's will, will be exposed. This has implications on future play in that the technique of Illusionism (covertly applying GM Force to an instance of play) requires either (a) "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" buy-in at the social contract level by the players (Participationism) or (b) keeping the curtain firmly between the man and his audience.

My experience is that said illusion adds not one useful thing to the game-play experience.

 

[Rushmik]

I enjoy playing roguelikes, where instant and seemingly unfair death isn't abnormal. D&D's crits can have the same effect. Every round I spend in combat there's the knowledge that a conspiracy between dice might spell my end, but my strange love for roguelikes has taught me to almost enjoy that small sense of dread. I would feel more ripped off if my DM let me survive an "insta-gib" scot-free than if I lost my character to a hellish dice roll.

That said, roguelikes also taught me to enjoy hopping from one character's shoes to another moment by moment. I suppose I make a better DM than a player in that respect.

On another note - probably influenced by roguelikes too - I can't help but feel like my actions are more legitimate if we're being honest with the dice. I don't want the DM to hold my hand - try and kill me you sonofabitch!

 

[Maxperson]

And I think "ignoring the dice when they don't do what you want them to do" is not an appropriate type of correction. I've given many, many other examples of corrections that can be applied that don't do that, by just not using dice in the first place. And, as said in the other thread, I probably shouldn't be continuing to discuss this with you; only doing so because you replied to me, and because...

We have a difference of opinion on that, but that's fine.

...this is an interesting question. One could argue that it is "ignoring" the dice despite using them, but one could also argue that it is merely a different form of the "grades of success/failure." Having thought about it for a while, I'd say I fall more on the latter side. You're still asking the dice whether the attack will land or not. And, presumably, you could still allow that a natural 20 is always a hit, even if it isn't therefore a crit. If I were to formalize it (which I would prefer, if it is to be used), I'd probably put it as "normally, crits don't need to be confirmed, but sometimes the DM may call for a confirmation. And sometimes, the DM may decide that the confirmation just fails, without a roll."

The nice thing about a rule like that--requesting, or simply denying, confirmations for crits--is that it would address much of the "divergent event" stuff. Both "the party did supermax damage and killed it before it even got to act" type (perhaps player and monster crits always need to be confirmed on round 1?), and "the baddies have gotten roll after roll in their favor" type. Still a bit arbitrary for my taste on the latter count, but it's an improvement, and one shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

So then it seems that those few times I do fudge rolls, you wouldn't consider it fudging. I don't ignore the rolls. I just set limits to what can happen once extreme luck breaks the encounter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I personally think dice fudging is a bad idea for both players and DMs.

It's not generally an option for players. But, it's only a bad idea to the degree that sitting by and letting the game suck would be a good idea.

Despite recognizing that this is the 5e forum specifically, I generally tend to take questions like this as applying to any game. Would you say the same of games generally?

No. 5e is a very DM-driven game, and a 5e DMs need to take full responsibility for the player experience, that includes fudging (among many other things) "as needed." Other games are more player-driven or even system-driven or simply have less need of such DM techniques. So it's very much a matter of degree.

I do think it is incorrect to employ the dice, AND THEN say, "Y'know what? No, I'm NOT going to use the dice."

You can think of rolling dice when the roll won't matter (or even when there's nothing to be determined by the result) as a sort of placebo for players who need to believe their experience isn't being orchestrated by the DM but is somehow more 'real' or emergent or 'immersive' than that.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

But, it's only a bad idea to the degree that sitting by and letting the game suck would be a good idea.

That implies there are only two options (fudge, or sit by and let the game suck) which is nowhere near true.