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

[Nytmare]

I've played and ran games with a lich on the random encounter table. Explain to me why that could never make sense? There's never a chance for the lich to come home while the pcs are looting his lair?

You know what, nevermind. My ignore list, that's going on 16 years just got it's 2nd entry.

On the off chance that there's anyone out there who is interested in my line of thinking: maybe I didn't do my homework and didn't look at the table ahead of time, maybe the party is only second level and is vastly underpowered to handle a fight with a lich, maybe liches don't make sense in this location, maybe liches don't exist in this campaign, maybe there's one lich in the story and he's the BBEG, maybe they just fought five liches in the other room.

Or maybe, as is usually the case with a list, I choose something off the list that makes sense to the story, but instead of starting at one and and reading through every item, I roll and start looking near where I rolled and pick the first thing I like.

 

[Zak S]

On the off chance that there's anyone out there who is interested in my line of thinking: maybe I didn't do my homework and didn't look at the table ahead of time, maybe the party is only second level and is vastly underpowered to handle a fight with a lich, maybe liches don't make sense in this location, maybe liches don't exist in this campaign, maybe there's one lich in the story and he's the BBEG, maybe they just fought five liches in the other room.

Or maybe, as is usually the case with a list, I choose something off the list that makes sense to the story, but instead of starting at one and and reading through every item, I roll and start looking near where I rolled and pick the first thing I like.

Unless the players had some way of knowing (and thus relying on) the encounter table in its entirety, I don't consider this fudging because the encounter table's not a "rule". It's a tool--a thing the GM uses for convenience sake that the players are not really basing decisions about tactics on.

Like: where it says how much a longsword does, that's a rule. The table you use to decide which weapons the monsters are carrying that you made or that the module made is not really a rule--it's just a thing you use to help make decisions.

Rules are things that need to be relatively stable for tactical and strategic conditions to be legible. A lot of random tables just happen the same mechanical bots as rules (ie dice and numbered lists).

If, on the other hand, the players knew there was a lich here and knew they might randomly encounter one at any time, then turning a lich encounter into a non-lich encounter is fudging. Because that was a risk the players chose to take and the consequences of that risk were nullified. Example: Players want to play x legendarily difficult module as written because they want to see if they can beat it.

 

[Hussar]

If you did ask, I'd ask you to leave the game. Not because of fudging, but because a player who doesn't trust the DM has no place in a game.



/snip

And this, right here, is why I'm so vehemently against fudging. The player is 100% right not to trust you. You ARE fudging. But, when asked about it, so that I can make an informed decision about whether or not I find this acceptable and want to play at your table, I get booted from the table.

And this is acceptable?
[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], we talked about this and here is why I question the practicality of the player bringing it up.

 

[Maxperson]

And this, right here, is why I'm so vehemently against fudging. The player is 100% right not to trust you. You ARE fudging. But, when asked about it, so that I can make an informed decision about whether or not I find this acceptable and want to play at your table, I get booted from the table.

There hasn't been a single person yet in any thread that has proven that fudging is wrong or untrustworthy.

 

[Zak S]

There hasn't been a single person yet in any thread that has proven that fudging is wrong or untrustworthy.

It's not wrong or untrustworthy, it simply creates an experience that many people would prefer not to have.

Anyway, can you answer the questions I asked you above?--it would help clarify your position

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

There hasn't been a single person yet in any thread that has proven that fudging is wrong or untrustworthy.

That is likely because no one has tried to prove that fudging is untrustworthy. There are only people that have pointed out the fact that fudging, and not being clear with your players that it is a thing which you do occasionally even/especially if they directly ask you if you do, is untrustworthy.

 

[Maxperson]

That is likely because no one has tried to prove that fudging is untrustworthy. There are only people that have pointed out the fact that fudging, and not being clear with your players that it is a thing which you do occasionally even/especially if they directly ask you if you do, is untrustworthy.

It's really too bad for you that what you just said isn't a fact at all. It's just your opinion.
[MENTION=90370]Zak S[/MENTION]

I'm not ignoring you. I'm trying to formulate a good answer for your second question. It happens so rarely that I really don't track those events, so I don't have anything specific to reference.

 

[Zak S]

This is a thing a person can say and believe and can have a conversation about:

what you just said isn't a fact at all. It's just your opinion.

This is being mean to someone who wants to talk to you about games for no good reason:

It's really too bad for you that what you just said isn't a fact at all. It's just your opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

This is a thing a person can say and believe and can have a conversation about:


This is being mean to someone who wants to talk to you about games for no good reason:

You're right. He's just been acting that way towards me a lot lately and I give what I get.

 

[Zak S]

Well right now we're discussing how to play a game.

And not even a part of it that touches on anybody calling anyone racist, sexist, or a Kickstarter thief, so probably any kind of animosity is uncalled for.

I get that he is implying you're dishonest, Maxperson --which is a serious charge, but in this particular case I think you can address that (and all of is would benefit most from a conversation where you address that, because this is a perennial forum topic on every game forum) without raising the temperature.