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

[Nagol]

Even if it were 100% true that the reason you are fudging is prioritizing the drama over something else, is that a problem? If so, why?

The possibility that the DM might fudge can also be included in the player's calculations as well, and is also included in the game design as is extreme bad luck.

<snip>

Yeah, and it gets me killed a lot. Why? Because once I sense fudging I loosen my risk assessments and survival strategies -- after all, why bother? Eventually, I discover the limit the DM is willing to fudge.

This is one reason I roll in the open and make certain the player understand that I won't fudge rolls made privately. Freak luck is freak luck. Sometimes it will save the group (and that's their luck) and sometimes it will threaten the group and they better hope they can turn things around. I won't stop it and if they want a safety net, they better provide it themselves.

 

[Maxperson]

I think if they genuinely don't know that you fudge then, yes, it won't affect how they think and their feeling of challenge.

But it is still 100% true that THE REASON that you are fudging is 100% prioritizing in-game drama over something else. You openly stated that you were trying to go against "extreme bad luck"--a possibility all players could have included in their calcuclations, and one included in the game design.

In other words: you fudged in order to disallow a possibility the rules allow and the stated reason to disallow it was to create a situation where death from what your story considers a "minor" encounter is less likely than death from what your story considers a "major" encounter.

This is what I actually do, though.

I fudge in order to disallow a possibility the rules allow, but which breaks the game, and the stated reason to disallow it was to create a situation where death from what your players considers a "minor" encounter is less likely than death from what your players considers a "major". It is done because they dislike dying to what they consider to be minor encounters and it's not fun for them.

 

[Maxperson]

There is no appropriate time to reveal fudging.

There absolutely is, and the time is dependent on the group and the DM.

The advice in the DMG even specifically calls this out that you are not to inform the players that you are doing this.

Which does nothing to prevent fudging from also being public and semi-secret. Their advice can't change what fudging is.

See, AFAIC, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is focused on the wrong issue. The issue isn't really changing the die rolls - there are loads of ways to do that within the rules as they stand.

There is one, and only ONE way that the DM can change a die after it is rolled within the rules, and that's via fudging.

Good grief, you have Inspiration, the Luck feat, umpteen magical reactions, rogues can "take 10" after the fact on skill checks by a certain level, and I'm sure there are more.

All if this is entirely irrelevant. We aren't discussing the ways that players can alter die rolls. We're discussing the DM altering die rolls and the only way is via fudging.

If it was a good thing, you wouldn't be hiding it.

This is objectively false. Lots of things are hidden and good. Maps, monster stats, fudging, and so on. There is no difference between them in this regard.

 

[Zak S]

This is what I actually do, though.

I fudge in order to disallow a possibility the rules allow, but which breaks the game,

You have already stated but not described this "break the game"--the example you gave was not "breaking the game" it was..

and the stated reason to disallow it was to create a situation where death from what your players considers a "minor" encounter is less likely than death from what your players considers a "major". It is done because they dislike dying to what they consider to be minor encounters and it's not fun for them.

...which is the very DEFINITION of prizing drama over challenge.

That is exactly what that phrase means.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Yes, but if you fudge and they know--they are challenged LESS.

...and the reason you fudged is you were more interested in some other thing besides challenge.

...which, you have stated above, you are.



I'm not imagining your game. I am responding to things you wrote on the internet.




This is not quite a relevant framing:

If the "random dice roll" is in a rule that the players know about then managing the risk around that rule is part of the players' tactics and thus part of the challenge. Just as a military tactician must account for the weather. Managing risk is a part of challenge.




This is a textbook definition of prioritizing in-world story outcome over challenge. You are allowed to do that.



I don't see how that's a problem.


GMs should attract players who like their style of GMing.

That you like your style is a defensible proposition you do not need to prove.

That your players like your style is a defensible proposition you do not need to prove.

That MOST players like your style is a defensible proposition that we have no way of proving or disproving.

However:

That ALL potential players in the world like your style is NOT a fact...

...and that those people might not prefer it because they like more challenge is an entirely reasonable explanation for why


No, this isn't about feelings.

I _know for a fact_ two things:

-that if players become aware the GM fudges they feel less challenged
and
-that if a GM fudges it is because they are interested in some other value over challenge.

"...and that those people might not prefer it because they like more challenge is an entirely reasonable explanation for why"

To which I'd add, there are other possible reasons as well;

And your statement that this is fact:
"-that if players become aware the GM fudges they feel less challenged"

You may feel less challenged, others might feel less challenged, but not all will feel less challenged, therefore it is not a fact. I would be OK with 'it is a fact that some players may feel less challenged if they become aware that the GM fudges. Some may object on account of a perceived fairness or unfairness, often expressed as favoritism, for example.

My real point is that whether or not you fudge the die rolls is only a part of what makes a game feel challenging to the players. Nor do I agree that I feel it's more important than a challenge. And I think my example of the bear was a very straightforward one that showed my entire intent was to demonstrate the challenge of my game, which was entirely successful, even though I was prepared to fudge if I had rolled a critical because that wasn't helpful, necessary, or proved my point any better than what had actually occurred. In fact, I suspect had I rolled a critical and let it fly, I would have been perceived as more punitive than interested in creating a challenge.

Besides, the concept of feeling more or less challenged is a bit of a red herring anyway. Less challenged than what? The only really meaningful comparison would be the exact same encounter, with the exact same DM, presenting things the same way, only one time with fudging in play, and one time with fudging not in play. My house rules probably make my campaigns more challenging than many others. The fact that I tend not to go with recommended challenge ratings, nor do I prevent the PCs from encountering things beyond their capabilities, they must be prepared to find alternative solutions, which frequently includes retreat and running away, because they are very challenged.

One of the following encounters (2nd level party) was with a (fighting) mated pair of ettins. The danger was immediately obvious because an NPC who was trying to stop the PCs from confronting the ettins at that time was killed in one shot. Through creative tactics, and some lucky rolls, they managed to see one ettin killed and the other ran off, and they saved the captives they were after, although they had lost the one that was killed in the battle.

In this particular group, the topic of general style had arisen before the game, and I had said that the idea is to create a fun adventure, and that things will be challenging and deadly, but that I also don't let the dice control things 100%. So they were aware that the possibility of my fudging is there, even though I didn't. And none of them had any feeling other than it was very, very challenging and that they would be lucky to get out alive. They don't know whether I fudged or not, and after the sessions nobody asked. I started this campaign as a personal challenge to run a public campaign at a store to assess and improve my DMing skills.

In fact, in the next encounter, with an unknown number of spiders, and at least one ettercap (which they killed), the thought it was potentially too dangerous to continue, and retreated to go around that portion of the woods.

So I don't think anybody felt less or more challenged. They felt challenged. They felt that they were in serious danger. That's part of the point, it should feel challenging, even if it's not the only point.

Really, my only objection to what you're saying is that there is some sort of implication that I'm saying that:
--Everybody (or even most people) likes this approach (which is not true); and
--It's a fact that everybody will feel less challenged if the DM fudges if they know the DM fudges, (which is also not true).

Ilbranteloth

 

[Zak S]

If your players would be disappointed to die or TPK in a "minor" encounter, that means they prize drama over challenge.

 

[JohnLynch]

It's anticlimactic to see a beloved character offed by a kobold due to a lucky roll, before his epic quest comes to fruition.

If you don't want the possibility of a kobold killing your PCs, then take that possibility off the table. Alternatives are as follows:

• Have your PCs start at level 2 (a kobold cannot kill a Level 2 Wizard, even if that Wizard is on 1 Hit Point and the kobold scores a critical hit and deals maximum damage).
• Have the kobold deal subdual damage.
• Rule that creatures (or just PCs) cannot die from damage alone and only die from failed death saving throws.
• Have a fight on rule that allows characters to avoid death by taking a temporary penalty to their character. The duration of the penalty (and it's in-game narrative) can be determined either at the time by the DM and player or ahead of time (e.g. roll on a maiming chart). This gives control of the narrative to the players as they get to control whether they use the fight on rule or instead die.
• Rule that you cannot be killed by a creature of a CR = Player Level - 4 or lower and that any damage dealt by such a creature is automatically subdual.
• Give players more hit points at first level.

All of the above rules are less subjective than a DM getting to decide when he does and doesn't fudge. Fudging is not necessary to avoid the circumstance you have just described.

If [the players] don't know fudging is happening, how would that alter their perception?

So since they are both allowed by the rules, then the question becomes who gets to make that decision?

The DM doesn't even necessarily need to declare a preference. Fudging is one of the many tools (along with dice) that the DM has at their disposal. And at a given point in time, fudging might be the tool they feel is most appropriate. And RAW - that's fine. No apology or explanation required.

When I come to a table I expect to know the rules that will be employed in the game, including whether or not fudging will occur. I will ask the DM what rules they are using and I will expect an honest answer from that DM. Even if the answer is "here are the rules that I plan to use at this time. This list may change" that's fine. But I would tell the DM to just let me know when he's decided to start using additional rules (or removes some of the rules that he initially declared was in play).

If a DM secretly employed facing rules but didn't tell the group, he simply gave his monsters bonuses and penalties to their attack rolls and AC based on the direction they were facing, that is a DM I would not want to play with and would feel he was being dishonest. A DM that tells me "I will fudge some rolls" will result in me asking the types of situations where they'll fudge. Based on the answer I will determine whether or not I play with that person DMing. Secretly fudging without telling the group is the exact same scenario as a DM using facing rules but failing to tell the players. If the DM does fudge without telling me he may fudge at some point, then I will not play with that person regardless of whether they are a player or a DM as they've broken my trust and I do not wish to play a game with people I do not trust.

the intent of the rule allowing fudging is to ensure that the DM is in control of the game, and not the dice. The dice are tools, and the vast majority of the time are the right tool at the time, and should not be changed. But every once in a while, they aren't. And for those that would argue this point, 5th Ed DMG, pg 237:

"Remember that dice don't run your game-you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time you, can decide that a player's action is automatically successful. you can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll for foiling the character's plans."

At any time includes following a die roll.

I see fudging as a failure on the DM's part. Whether it's fudging dice or fudging the story. Everytime a DM fudges it meant the DM presented a set of choices and included one that they shouldn't have. I've done it. I've had a player uncharacteristically work on a grand speech for two weeks, give that speech and then had them roll a die to determine how good the speech was. One of the choices I initially presented was that the speech was bad. I shouldn't have presented that choice. It was a failure on my part. But I learned from it and have gotten better as a DM. Had I secretly fudged (and I did fudge, but I did it openly) I may not have put as much thought into the outcome that occurred and that would have required me to fudge in more scenarios in the future. Instead I learned how to adjudicate such situations without needing to fudge in the future (in this case the die roll would not allow failure, it would simply determine the degree of success with meaningful results based on the degree of success they had).

 

[Zak S]

My real point is that whether or not you fudge the die rolls is only a part of what makes a game feel challenging to the players.

And whether or not your teeth are rotting is only part of whether you are healthy, but you are objectively
LESS healthy if they are rotting than if they're not.

In fact, I suspect had I rolled a critical and let it fly, I would have been perceived as more punitive than interested in creating a challenge.

If your players view what the dice naturally did as "punitive" then they are not that interested in challenge.

They feel a result that is wholly within the possibilities of the game shouldn't be.

Besides, the concept of feeling more or less challenged is a bit of a red herring anyway.

Incorrect.

The statement I am making is: "Knowledge of fudging makes people feel less challenged. Some people like to feel as challenged as possible." Challenge is in no way a red herring in a statement entirely about being challenged--it is the topic of that statement.

Less challenged than what? The only really meaningful comparison would be the exact same encounter, with the exact same DM, presenting things the same way, only one time with fudging in play, and one time with fudging not in play.

Yes, and the one without awareness of fudging is going to invite more challenge-based thinking because the players have to be more aware to stay alive or at least to get the campaign to go the way they want.

My house rules probably make my campaigns more challenging than many others. The fact that I...

Again: whether your leg is healthy is not relevant to a discussion about whether rotting teeth make you less healthy.

Your campaign may be a BIG BUCKET O' CHALLENGE with a lich and a puzzle around every corner, but fudging is one element that makes it LESS of a challenge than it would be without that fudgery.

Really, my only objection to what you're saying is that there is some sort of implication that I'm saying that:
--Everybody (or even most people) likes this approach (which is not true); and

I never said that, you just made that up. Popularity of different forms of play is not something I'm arguing for or against.

--It's a fact that everybody will feel less challenged if the DM fudges if they know the DM fudges, (which is also not true).

No, only players who know what fudging is and does.

 

[ad_hoc]

If your players would be disappointed to die or TPK in a "minor" encounter, that means they prize drama over challenge.

What do you mean by prizing drama in this situation?

Personally I don't like fudging because it disrupts the story (and the dishonesty part).

Dying in a TPK is pretty dramatic.

 

[Zak S]

What do you mean by prizing drama in this situation?

Personally I don't like fudging because it disrupts the story (and the dishonesty part).

Dying in a TPK is pretty dramatic.

If your stated reason (emphasize that: Maxperson & co's stated reason, they said it out loud) for not wanting to be TPK'd is that you were TPK'd by a random (or "minor" encounter) than the placement of the death in the "story" of the characters is more important to them than being forced to worry about TPK every second of every fight because you've seen it happen before.

So you prize drama (events happening in such a way that makes thematic sense in the in-game story) over challenge (the feeling that every situation requires thinking as hard as you can because it is an attempt to avoid extremely undesirable consequences for not just your PC, but you as a player--usually starting over with a new, unlevelled, unadvanced PC that you are less attached to).

The nice thing about D&D is they very often go together and you don't have to choose one over the other. But fudging is a moment of deciding one is more important than the other