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

[Maxperson]

Now there is a question. If you softball an encounter by say, changing tactics and allowing the pc's to get the upper hand, is that fudging?

No. Fudging is the DM altering a die roll after it has happened without there being another in game rule allowing it (i.e. a monster with a special rule allowing a die roll change). Softballing an encounter achieves a similar result, but the method is different.

 

[Libramarian]

I've heard that Ed Greenwood would have Elminster poof in to save the day when his players were about to TPK or screw up, and then Elminster would berate them for their ineptitude.

As irritating as that would be, I would still prefer it to secret fudging.

The problem with secretly fudging rolls is, because it's invisible, it puts an asterisk beside all the players' accomplishments for the whole campaign. It's unknown what the players did fair and square and what they were only able to do because someone was pulling strings behind the scenes.

"Fudging" the situation (or even changing die rolls in the open) is certainly an infelicitous DMing technique, but it doesn't undermine the integrity of the challenge in the same way because it's at least clear when it happens and when it doesn't. The players know when a super NPC showed up to help them and when they did something on their own.

 

[Maxperson]

I've heard that Ed Greenwood would have Elminster poof in to save the day when his players were about to TPK or screw up, and then Elminster would berate them for their ineptitude.

As irritating as that would be, I would still prefer it to secret fudging.

Not me. I'll take secret fudging any day over A DMPC coming to save the day. At least I won't know secret fudging ever happened, so it can't ruin my exerience.

The problem with secretly fudging rolls is, because it's invisible, it puts an asterisk beside all the players' accomplishments for the whole campaign. It's unknown what the players did fair and square and what they were only able to do because someone was pulling strings behind the scenes.

It's secret, the players will never wonder whether strings were pulled, or if they do, they'll wonder that whether any strings were pulled or not, so fudging or not fudging makes no difference.

"Fudging" the situation (or even changing die rolls in the open) is certainly an infelicitous DMing technique, but it doesn't undermine the integrity of the challenge in the same way because it's at least clear when it happens and when it doesn't. The players know when a super NPC showed up to help them and when they did something on their own.

It doesn't undermine the integrity of the challenge. It just completely invalidates it.

Party: We went through this whole fight and it was all for nothing! Elminster just came in and took care of it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Now there is a question. If you softball an encounter by say, changing tactics and allowing the pc's to get the upper hand, is that fudging?

I should hope by now that my answer of "not even slightly" is well on record. Unless--and again this exception is one I've said several times--the situation has already been very clearly laid out to create specific, and factually-supported, player expectations. The easiest example being "the characters acquired a guard duty roster"--that should be pretty specific about the disposition of guard forces at various hours.

Party: We went through this whole fight and it was all for nothing! Elminster just came in and took care of it.

Change "Elminster" for "the DM" and you have exactly how I feel about fudging. Add to it intentional deception and I consider it a recipe for disaster. I don't believe anyone is smooth enough, even if they only do it rarely, for me to never ever notice. So as far as I see it, it's not a matter of "if I find out," but "when."

Even when I never speak up about it, I almost always pay fairly close attention to how the DM runs the rules. It's not really a matter of being critical, and more that I just tend to learn the rules myself, and if there's a question or confusion, try to help. Can't really help if I'm not paying attention. Even if I never see the numbers themselves, and even if the DM always uses purely custom-made content (which I also consider pretty unlikely), I'm not really convinced that the "illusion" can be maintained indefinitely.

 

[Libramarian]

Not me. I'll take secret fudging any day over A DMPC coming to save the day. At least I won't know secret fudging ever happened, so it can't ruin my exerience.

It's secret, the players will never wonder whether strings were pulled, or if they do, they'll wonder that whether any strings were pulled or not, so fudging or not fudging makes no difference.

Well this is the "if a tree falls and no one is around, does it make a sound?" philosophical issue I alluded to earlier. I say that perception is not all that matters, fudging invalidates the players' accomplishments and thereby does harm to the game (to the extent that challenge is the goal) even if they don't notice it. This idea that the subjective playing experience is the only important thing would be considered bizarre and wouldn't fly at all when discussing other, more obviously gamist, games.

It doesn't undermine the integrity of the challenge. It just completely invalidates it.

Party: We went through this whole fight and it was all for nothing! Elminster just came in and took care of it.

It affects the risk management side to the game by changing the consequences for failure, but again because it's above board it can in principle be accounted for when judging the players' achievements.

Adventuring when you know Elminster has your back is like starting a business when your Dad is there to give you a "small million dollar loan". You're not taking the same risks as others but you're playing by the same rules otherwise.

Adventuring with a DM who fudges is like starting a business in Russia when you're married to Putin's daughter. Your success can not be compared in any meaningful way to others without that advantage.

 

[Quartz]

Now there is a question. If you softball an encounter by say, changing tactics and allowing the pc's to get the upper hand, is that fudging?

Absolutely, and I'd suggest that that's a good way to do it, assuming you can do it without the players noticing.

 

[Maxperson]

Well this is the "if a tree falls and no one is around, does it make a sound?" philosophical issue I alluded to earlier. I say that perception is not all that matters, fudging invalidates the players' accomplishments and thereby does harm to the game (to the extent that challenge is the goal) even if they don't notice it. This idea that the subjective playing experience is the only important thing would be considered bizarre and wouldn't fly at all when discussing other, more obviously gamist, games.

Nobody has yet shown that to be true. Perhaps you will be the first. How does giving the party a fighting chance once or twice a year invalidate their accomplishments? Does it affect the one single accomplishment slightly? Sure. Invalidate it? Not at all that I can see.

It affects the risk management side to the game by changing the consequences for failure, but again because it's above board it can in principle be accounted for when judging the players' achievements.

Nah. If I can count on Elminster to show up every time I get into trouble, nothing I do matters. It would be the same if the DM used extreme fudging and never allowed the party to lose. Both examples are of a tool being used improperly, not of a faulty tool.

Adventuring when you know Elminster has your back is like starting a business when your Dad is there to give you a "small million dollar loan". You're not taking the same risks as others but you're playing by the same rules otherwise.

You are not playing by the same rules as others when you have dear old dad around to give you a small million dollar loan. The rules everyone else plays by is to go to a bank and get turned down or get a much smaller loan, or else risk everything they have to secure that million dollars.

Adventuring with a DM who fudges is like starting a business in Russia when you're married to Putin's daughter. Your success can not be compared in any meaningful way to others without that advantage.

This is false. What you are describing is a misuse of the tool, not proper use of the tool.

 

[Libramarian]

Nobody has yet shown that to be true. Perhaps you will be the first. How does giving the party a fighting chance once or twice a year invalidate their accomplishments? Does it affect the one single accomplishment slightly? Sure. Invalidate it? Not at all that I can see.

Challenge is not just about the subjective feeling of being challenged, but the intersubjective recognition of good play, poor play, success and failure by the real people around the table. This can't happen properly unless the nature of the challenge is clear and publicly known. That's what you lose when you fudge.

Nah. If I can count on Elminster to show up every time I get into trouble, nothing I do matters. It would be the same if the DM used extreme fudging and never allowed the party to lose. Both examples are of a tool being used improperly, not of a faulty tool.

If Elminster shows up you DO clearly lose. That's why he mocks you.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Adventuring with a DM who fudges is like starting a business in Russia when you're married to Putin's daughter. Your success can not be compared in any meaningful way to others without that advantage.

It can't be compared to others in any case. Even if DMs don't fudge, they're the ones writing the adventure, choosing and running the monsters, interpreting the rules, and making their table a unique, irreproduceable experience in a hundred other ways. D&D is about the furthest it is possible to be from a standardized, uniform game. And it's not a competitive game, either, so who cares about comparing achievements anyway?

Adventuring in D&D with any two different DMs is like starting a business in two completely different countries.

On different planets.

 

[Hussar]

No. Fudging is the DM altering a die roll after it has happened without there being another in game rule allowing it (i.e. a monster with a special rule allowing a die roll change). Softballing an encounter achieves a similar result, but the method is different.

I gotta admit, I tend to agree with this. If for no other reason than it's pretty easy to do unintentionally. It's not like the DM is Sun Tsu and makes perfect tactical choices every time anyway. If I make a bad choice, I might not be doing it intentionally. OTOH, there's no real way to change the die roll unintentionally. I suppose you could misread the dice, but, I'm going to go with the idea that fudging has to be a pretty conscious decision to change the results of a die roll. I'd prefer not to expand that definition because it causes too much confusion.