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

[Zak S]

True.

2) You fudged in order to prevent this in-story event from occuring.

True or False?

False.

Ilbranteloth[/QUOTE]

Then why did you fudge, if not to prevent that event? (Or cause other events?)

 

[Maxperson]

Then define "break the game". Because so far the definition you gave was "make it less fun for the players I have who are players who don't want to die in minor fights" (which is totally a story-based value).

I have. It's defined as exceeding the mathematical bounds of the combat. In order for a level 4 encounter for level 4 PCs, the math must be contained in a finite boundary that corresponds to level 4. To exceed that boundary is to break the game.

Mere bad luck doesn't go outside those bounds. Extreme bad luck, however, does. It forces the difficulty of the encounter up well past where the game places it and destroys the party.

 

[Maxperson]

Then why did you fudge, if not to prevent that event? (Or cause other events?)

He already told you. He fudged to keep the party from dying in the first encounter. The story had nothing to do with that desire. It wasn't the story that required the party not die. It was the players.

 

[Zak S]

I have. It's defined as exceeding the mathematical bounds of the combat. In order for a level 4 encounter for level 4 PCs, the math must be contained in a finite boundary that corresponds to level 4. To exceed that boundary is to break the game.

Mere bad luck doesn't go outside those bounds. Extreme bad luck, however, does. It forces the difficulty of the encounter up well past where the game places it and destroys the party.

Destroying the party (during any fight whatsoever) isn't necessarily "breaking the game". TPKs are part of the game.

Destroying the party IS "breaking the game" when you define "breaking the game" as "making the players upset because they value story and drama stuff so they don't want to be TPKed in some 'inappropriate' situation which they decided was inappropriate because...........they have story-based values."

i.e. They think death should only happen at certain times in the story. That's a story value.

Your definition of "breaking the game" is circular and has to do with creating story situations your (not all) players don't like.

 

[Zak S]

He already told you. He fudged to keep the party from dying in the first encounter. The story had nothing to do with that desire. It wasn't the story that required the party not die. It was the players.

Ilbranteloth could not want that PC to die because his grandmother said she'd kill herself if that PC died, the fact is he still anticipated fudging would prevent/cause a given in-story event and did it because that prevented/caused in-story event (no matter what its ultimate point) was more important to Ilbranteloth than the advantages gained by never fudging.

Which means:

At the moment of that choice, and for the length of that choice, making a STORY thing happen or not was placed OVER making a challenge thing happen or not.

Even if making that story thing happen was itself in service of some other off-screen value.

 

[Hussar]

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



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



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.



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.



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.

I think we're talking past each other. The ONLY kind of fudging i am arguing against is secret fudging. If the fudging is done in the open, or, preferably, through modifications of die rolls using mechanics, then I have absolutely no problem with die rolls being changed.

Maps, and monster stats are only hidden insofar as they are there to be discovered by the players. The POINT of hiding the map is of the players to explore it. At no point is secret fudging meant to be brought to light.

 

[JohnLynch]

There are a few assumptions there, but that's because the situation wasn't fully described.

Sure.

The encounter with the bear was designed to be with the first character that separated themselves from the group in the woods. It happened to be a wood elf barbarian. The bear attack was always intended to be a single attack, not using all of it's possibilities, and then it would turn and lope into the woods. So the likelihood that it would result in a character death was slim.

And yet you still decided to fudge. Despite the fact that there was no actual reason to do so. All you had to do, to avoid fudging, was have the bear attack the first person who separated themselves from the group that wasn't a skinny little fellow who looks like a stiff breeze would knock them over. OR you could have had the bear deal subdual damage. After all, the bear wasn't trying to kill them, it was simply trying to get them to leave it's territory.

The entire thing was based off....So I figured it was a good enough starting point to set the stage. And it worked very well.

I'm not really sure what the real life inspiration has to do with the discussion at hand, except that you felt frightened of a bear despite not being attacked and wanted to convey that fear to the players. Fudging was not necessary.

I don't segregate creatures by level.

You are responsible for deciding what challenges the players are placed with and you are responsible for the possible outcomes that are on the table as a result.

I figured that the first encounter should make the point (although it could have come later if the situation didn't present itself). I just didn't want to kill a character right out of the gate. "Tough, perhaps too tough, but get used to it."

You have a whole suite of tools available to you that doesn't require you to fudge the dice. IMO fudging is a result of failing to present the players with an appropriate challenge (an appropriate challenge being one where all potential outcomes have a desired effect to the game). Failing to present an appropriate challenge or requiring that the challenge become appropriate by fudging is a failure on the part of the DM IMO. The exact same challenge could have easily been presented with the players being none-the-wiser. All that you required was to have this bear be slightly below average strength than the average bear. This is within purview of the DM to determine the strength of any given creature. Fudging was not necessary and a better DM would have found a way to have the exact same scenario play out without being requiring to potentially fudge anything.

I highly doubt that anybody would have suspected that I had rolled a critical even if I had, because the situation was clear that it was not an attack to kill, but an attack by a surprised animal that defended itself so it could get away.

Your reliance on ignorance of your players part does not make a persuasive argument for having a fudging DM. Either you tell the players "I may fudge some of my rolls" and they then choose whether they want to play with you, or you do not inform your players and rely on deceit to keep them at the table. If you aren't relying on deception (and you've stated several times that you tell your players you will fudge), then they know any given roll could be one that is fudged.

I understand that some people dislike that some DM's fudge. I don't quite get why they are so against it, but that's partly due to my indifference to it, combined with the fact that it's always been part of the game that I've known. So I don't think I'll ever see it as an outright failure either.

As a DM one of your jobs is to present players with challenges for them to interact with and then by their own action choose an outcome from a list of possible outcomes (this list need not be predefined or exhaustive). By fudging the dice rolls you are removing player agency by removing the impact their actions had on the sequence of events. You are presenting them with false choices and then forcing them to go onto a smaller subset of choices you deem acceptable. Nothing should be presented before the players if the players cannot choose it. Doing so and then taking it away from the player without them having any control over it is a failure on the DM's part IMO as it removes player agency.

Here's a classic example: DM tells the players that they're going to start a new game and to make new characters, including buying equipment. The DM then, in the opening scene, removes all of the player's equipment, leaving them with no recourse to ever get that equipment back. This sort of thing will result in a lot of players being unhappy (not all, but I expect a decent percentage would be), especially if they've spent hours selecting the best equipment. Why are the players upset? Because you've removed the consequences of the choices they made. This is what fudging does. It presents the players with a possible option, and then takes it away from them if they choose an option the DM didn't want them to. A better DM will simply not present them with the option in the first place.

It's no more or less dishonest than keeping stat blocks and puzzles secret, and not showing maps

Hiding the map can allow the DM to fudge and some DMs do it so that they can fudge. This was called in an internet post somewhere, the "Quantum Ogre". That is, presenting the players with choices to make and an array o potential consequences, and then then no matter what choice they make you force them to suffer the exact same consequence. This is the same as fudging in that both remove player agency from the game to one degree or another by removing the ability for the player to experience the consequences of their choices.

the fact that we had just started this and I was not going to kill a character in the first encounter.

Giving them a black bear with 13 strength would have also resulted in no player dying in the first encounter.

 

[steenan]

Wasn't this thread intended to give a player-side perspective on fudging?

It seems that it now repeats the same discussion that was in "To fudge or not to fudge" thread, with GMs arguing for and against fudging for pages after pages.

I'd really be interested on more arguments from players - being a GM myself I want to know how players outside of my group see fudging and why.

 

[Zak S]

I am speaking as a player. I mean, I gm, too, but I play just as much.

 

[JohnLynch]

I'd really be interested on more arguments from players - being a GM myself I want to know how players outside of my group see fudging and why.

I've had DMs fudge in my favour and fudge against me (and some even do both at the same time). Everytime I caught a DM fudging I've told them that I do not enjoy it and asked them not to do it again. One DM had such a bad game with the amount of fudging they did that I have not played with them as DM ever since. When given a choice of DMs I go with the one I know doesn't fudge.

Why do I dislike it? Because I want to succeed or fail by my actions. Fudging takes away my ability to affect the game. The more fudging a DM does, the less impact I have on the game. I'd rather die in a TPK in the very first encounter of a campaign then have a DM fudge.