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

[Ruin Explorer]

You missed the point of what Aaron was saying. It's not about what DM's know vs what players know during play. It's that your statement puts the DM on a pedestal. That they know better than their players what constitutes entertainment for everyone at the table, one person deciding what is best for 5 others for example, without asking for input or discussion. Which IMO is what fudging is really about.

@AaronOfBarbaria

Correct me if I'm wrong

Oh, then Aaron misunderstood my factual statement as a value judgment. I'm saying the DM literally has more information, not that he's "better" or "smarter". They are unarguably better placed.

In the end you "without asking for input or discussion" only matters for groups who do not trust their DM to be reasonable, as by that rationale any DM ruling which isn't open to immediate argument (which is most DM rulings) is problematic. Which doesn't seem a tenable position long-term.

As we can see, at least 63% of gamers DO trust the DM on this.

 

[Hussar]

Personally, I think it's closer to the idea that 63% of gamers probably don't care that much to make a fuss about it, and since the DM is going to do it whether they like it or not, they might as well go along to get along.

But, that's perhaps too cynical of a take on it.

 

[Maxperson]

This is the

"But officer I had no consideration of how fast I was going. Only WARM PIZZA!"

argument, which you failed to address.

The officer would still be correct in saying "you prioritized speed over safety" even if the ultimate reason for speeding was you wanted pizza fresh out of the oven rather than a concern for speed as such or safety as such.

This is a False Equivalence. When you drive speed and safety are a dichotomy and have a direct relation to one another. One goes up and the other goes down. Story and challenge have no connection whatsoever. Story can go up and challenge can also go up. Story can go down and challenge can go down. Both can go up while the other goes down. They are independent of one another. That means that if I choose grandma as the reason, both story and challenge can go down together and equally. Grandma is the sole reason for my choice and I have not chosen story over challenge or vise versa.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Personally, I think it's closer to the idea that 63% of gamers probably don't care that much to make a fuss about it, and since the DM is going to do it whether they like it or not, they might as well go along to get along.

But, that's perhaps too cynical of a take on it.

I think that's extremely cynical and even a little perverse, given the question, the forum the question was asked on, and of whom the question was asked!

I was fully expecting like 30% of posters here to admit they were ever okay with it under any circumstances, and for half the posts to be fire-y condemnations of it.

But I was pleasantly surprised. With a few exceptions, people have been very reasonable and honest about.

 

[Halivar]

Whether my DM does, or doesn't, I'll never know. If he fudges, he's really good at not letting it show. He runs a good game so I trust him. I therefore neither ask him to fudge, or not fudge. As long as I know there's risk: in one campaign he killed my PC four times.

EDIT: I think we need to make a distinction between excessive fudging, either by an overly-adversarial DM or by a DM who Mary Sue's the PC's, and moderate fudging for the sake of compelling narrative and fun.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

EDIT: I think we need to make a distinction between excessive fudging, either by an overly-adversarial DM or by a DM who Mary Sue's the PC's, and moderate fudging for the sake of compelling narrative and fun.

I responded to this but forum ate my post so short form - bolded bit is a problem with the DM, not a problem with fudging. Take away fudging from the "I WIN, YOU LOSE!" DM and he'll just find another way to be more adversarial and your game will still be crap. Take away fudging from the Monty Haul DM (I presume that's what you mean by "Mary Sue's the PC's") and he'll just give them even more stuff or play the enemies even dumber or whatever.

I don't think there's much point in discussing fudging done by outright bad DMs. It's not interesting and stopping it doesn't fix their problems. It's like taking a chainsaw away from a serial killer when he still has a bunch of knives, a gun and a rocket launcher.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Oh, then Aaron misunderstood my factual statement as a value judgment.

Nah, I didn't misunderstand your factual statement as a value judgement.

I considered your statement irrelevant, since having more info about the game than your players doesn't mean jack in the context of knowing what they would want you to fudge and how they would want you to fudge it, so using that fact as support for fudging without player input is basically saying the DM knows better while technically saying something else.

In the end you "without asking for input or discussion" only matters for groups who do not trust their DM to be reasonable

That's nonsense. It's not about trusting that the DM is going to be reasonable - it's about trusting that the DM is going to actually match your preference, and knowing that leaving that to trust and hope is much less succesful than actually giving input on the matter since the DM can't read the players minds.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Nah, I didn't misunderstand your factual statement as a value judgement.

I considered your statement irrelevant, since having more info about the game than your players doesn't mean jack in the context of knowing what they would want you to fudge and how they would want you to fudge it, so using that fact as support for fudging without player input is basically saying the DM knows better while technically saying something else.

If you consider my statement "irrelevant", please don't bother responding to it. You'll feel better.

The DM has access to more information. If he is a good DM with a familiar group, he has a pretty good idea of the preferences of his players, like how they feel about fudging. They of course should respect his feelings on the matter too.

Also, you have literally re-interpreted a factual statement as a value judgement in the bolded bit, which is kinda funny.

That's nonsense. It's not about trusting that the DM is going to be reasonable - it's about trusting that the DM is going to actually match your preference, and knowing that leaving that to trust and hope is much less succesful than actually giving input on the matter since the DM can't read the players minds.

Successful at what? Ensuring a good game where everyone has fun? I very strongly disagree, but YMMV.

 

[Halivar]

That's nonsense. It's not about trusting that the DM is going to be reasonable - it's about trusting that the DM is going to actually match your preference, and knowing that leaving that to trust and hope is much less succesful than actually giving input on the matter since the DM can't read the players minds.

What are you going to do? Audit the DM's notes and monster stats? You're on the other side of the screen, and you have no idea what's going on on the DM's side. That's why the DM is the dungeon master, and you only pick someone you trust to run a good game, and whose rulings you're willing to follow. The players do not share dungeon master responsibilities and do not help adjudicate the game.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If he is a good DM with a familiar group, he has a pretty good idea of the preferences of his players, like how they feel about fudging.

Presumably because they have talked about it, yes? You aren't doing like others have done and insisting that the DM gets familiar with a group and gains a good idea of the preferences of the players without ever actually asking the players, are you?

Also, you have literally re-interpreted a factual statement as a value judgement in the bolded bit, which is kinda funny.

Not exactly. I've interpreted the reason why you would make a factual statement in a context that it is irrelevant.