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

[iserith]

I could have phrased it better. I mean essentially that the DM is specifically setting the DC based on the bonus of the person rolling. So what matters is the die roll, not the modifiers.

So in effect deciding "if joe rolls an 11 or better on the die, he passes" rather than setting a DC based on some attempt at objectivity about the setting, and letting Joe be better or worse at passing the check based on how much he has invested in the skill.

It's a peculiar form of quasi-fudging, but I ran into it a few times 10-15 years ago when I played public games with unknown DMs.

The place it really falls apart is when multiple people attempt the same thing, and you sometimes see someone with a lower overall result surpass someone with a higher result, because they rolled higher on the die with a smaller bonus. That's also when a suspicion that the DM is running things this way can be confirmed.

Typing hastily on my phone, hope it is a little clearer this time.

Yep, it's clear (thanks) and that is weird to me. I guess it's no different than just rolling percentile dice though, right? It doesn't quite fit the D&D 5e paradigm for task resolution, but I don't think I'd call it fudging as long as the DM carried through with whatever result the dice produced. File this in Another Thing I Don't Do.

 

[MostlyDm]

Yep, it's clear (thanks) and that is weird to me. I guess it's no different than just rolling percentile dice though, right? It doesn't quite fit the D&D 5e paradigm for task resolution, but I don't think I'd call it fudging as long as the DM carried through with whatever result the dice produced. File this in Another Thing I Don't Do.

Yep, not surprised.

It's technically not fudging, because they presumably have decided "a roll of 8+ passes this check" or whatever... So if they are consistent there, okay, not fudging.

But boy oh boy is it obnoxious. It's stuck with me all these years for a reason!

 

[Ilbranteloth]

...Your success can not be compared in any meaningful way to others without that advantage.

This is an interesting statement (and I know it was partially in reference to a business, not necessarily gaming directly), but I think this illustrates a major reason why I don't have any problem if a DM fudges in a game I'm a player, nor did I ever really think of it as being 'a problem' as a DM.

I've never thought of 'success' and 'failure' within the RPG structure. A great story and a great time playing is what the game is all about to me. One die roll, fudged or not, really has no bearing to me. 'Comparing sessions in a meaningful way' is to me is remembering the shared experience, the story, and yes sometimes the great rolls. But let's say that 20 that you rolled that took out the Ogre didn't really do enough damage to kill the ogre, but the DM fudged the hit points and let it happen anyway.

From a competitive or comparative point of view, I guess I can understand why it would bother some people. But I don't really care about that. The DM saw that the ogre was going to die in the next hit or two, even if it hit a PC for another couple of hit points it wouldn't have much impact, and the next hit for a handful of hit points wouldn't be as dramatic or memorable. I'm not suggesting that DMs should do that, but I'd be OK with it if they did, and it wouldn't change my perception or memory of the event either.

Invalidating the character's actions doesn't really compute to me in another way, since to me the combination of the DM and the dice make the framework of the world for the players and their characters. The DM fudging isn't effectively any different than having, say, a fate die that is occasionally rolled to modify the results.

Yes, I know that some of you are going to say that a 'fate die' rule is known ahead of time, and has mechanics and such, but the reality is that the DM also decides when to use the fate mechanic in a lot of games, and thus directly influences them by DM decision. Fudging is the same thing, the DM altering the events by their decision, except that randomness is removed from the equation.

If the setting has Gods (which they generally do), the DM is playing the part of the Gods and fate, etc. at least in part. So I just don't have a problem if the DM assumes that roll to modify the result of a die roll every once in a while.

Even Elminster appearing to help out can be fun if not overused. And I guess that's the point for me, it's not so much of a question as to what the tool is, but how it's used, and how much. Overuse is a fluid concept, what's too much for some people or some games is fine for others. Other than to say that the Elminster or fudging save shouldn't be a regular occurrence.

As for people being able to tell when I fudge (already assuming that the players have indicated that it's OK for me to do so), I doubt it. Rolling a die and glancing down at it and deciding the number is different than what is rolled is just not something that I think anybody would detect without seeing the die. A DM would have to fudge an awful lot to statistically change the probabilities of an entire game session to any significant degree. And more so for that bias to be noticeable.

Totally understand that others don't feel the same way, but as a player it doesn't matter to me. The memory of the game and the time with friends does.

Ilbranteloth

 

[iserith]

I've never thought of 'success' and 'failure' within the RPG structure. A great story and a great time playing is what the game is all about to me. One die roll, fudged or not, really has no bearing to me. 'Comparing sessions in a meaningful way' is to me is remembering the shared experience, the story, and yes sometimes the great rolls. But let's say that 20 that you rolled that took out the Ogre didn't really do enough damage to kill the ogre, but the DM fudged the hit points and let it happen anyway.

From a competitive or comparative point of view, I guess I can understand why it would bother some people. But I don't really care about that. The DM saw that the ogre was going to die in the next hit or two, even if it hit a PC for another couple of hit points it wouldn't have much impact, and the next hit for a handful of hit points wouldn't be as dramatic or memorable. I'm not suggesting that DMs should do that, but I'd be OK with it if they did, and it wouldn't change my perception or memory of the event either.

Invalidating the character's actions doesn't really compute to me in another way, since to me the combination of the DM and the dice make the framework of the world for the players and their characters. The DM fudging isn't effectively any different than having, say, a fate die that is occasionally rolled to modify the results.

Speaking for myself, I care a lot about success and failure within the RPG structure (as you put it) and I also care about pursuing and achieving the goals of play - that is, everyone having fun and creating an exciting, memorable story. I think what makes a game a game is the existence of challenge which is a test of one's abilities. What do I need to do to be successful in this situation? How do I go about it? Can I pull it off? I find this to be fun and a necessary component in a game. Fudging removes challenge by modifying the accepted stakes - that is, what is gained by winning or lost by losing. If the DM fudges to my benefit, rather than succeed or fail due to my skill and luck, I succeeded because I basically couldn't lose. My skill and luck mattered less or not at all. Without challenge, the game is missing a critical component. I cannot have fun and thus fail to achieve the goals of play, even if we managed to create an exciting, memorable story in the doing.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Even take the idea of targeting. If a creature has three attacks, if it focuses on one PC it will be far more effective than if it spreads its attacks.

Is it fudging to spread attacks?

Well, I'm not sure I would specifically call it fudging. But it's another of the many related DM tools available for altering the course and difficulty of events. Adding another creature, removing creatures, modifying the hit points of creatures, having a fateful event, like something related to terrain, weather, etc. that wasn't pre-planned, all of these can have an impact, and some are visible to the players and characters, others are not. Which is another example of why the DM fudging doesn't bother me.

Think of it this way, when fudging, the DM doesn't necessarily alter the course of events, instead, they are altering the degree. In my example of the bear attack, there was no alteration of whether the characters could detect the bear or vice versa. The chance that the bear would hit, as well as the characters hitting the bear didn't change. The only thing that changed is that they bear couldn't score a critical hit.

But think about this - nobody cared that I had the bear hit with one claw attack and not use its bite, then immediately turn and run. I did that in part because I thought it was realistic. But that had a greater effect on the amount of the damage the bear could cause, since it was more than 50% likely that the bear would hit with any attack, and thus deal more damage. But the idea that I removed a 5% chance of it scoring a critical is something that seems to bother people more.

With all of that, it still comes back to my own personal connection to my character and their accomplishments doesn't hinge on every die roll, or any specific die roll. Sure, a single die roll can have a major effect, and the dice themselves are a lot of fun - even after 30+ years, a 20 is still exciting. But it's still a fleeting and passing thing.

I will say that I do get the argument that fudging is perhaps a 'lazy' way out, and that a good DM can avoid using it altogether. Of course it's also possible for a DM to just decide not to use it and have to find alternatives. Those are reasonable arguments, and as I've said, if the players don't want me to fudge as a DM then I can do that.

But, I make mistakes. Sometimes I'm not prepared - not just by having things all ready for the session, but my brain is not running optimally. Life happens, and sometimes I'm just not at the top of my game. Having fudging as an option to fix a boneheaded mistake is much less disruptive than many of the other options, particularly those that break the flow of the game and the story. If the players really want to know, I'm happy to say something after the session, just so they know. I don't subscribe to the idea that it must remain secretive, although in the moment I think it can be more effective that way.

When I sit down at the table, my expectations of the DM is that they will run a great game. I'm not that concerned about balance, being 'fair' and things like that. I'm there to play my character to the best of my ability, and that includes reacting to whatever comes my way. I want the rules and the 'game' part of the game to be a secondary part of the evening. They are there to help us to form a plausible story. That a given die roll is modified by a couple of points doesn't really have an impact in my mind in that plausibility. I do like the rules, and I don't want to play a free-form improv story-telling game. But I don't want the rules to be the focus of the game.

Unless it's a bad DM, my focus is on my character, the world, the other characters, and what's going on. I let the DM worry about being DM, and to do what they feel is appropriate at the time to make the game enjoyable for all of us. And a DM who obviously fudges, and does so often, would be a bad DM to me. Not necessarily because they are changing the odds, but because their manipulation of it has become obvious, and brought attention to the mechanics of the game, rather than on the game and story.

Yes, allowing the DM to fudge puts more control in their hands. I'm OK with that, as long as they don't abuse it. I'm there to play in their world, and inhabit their vision. If that's what they feel they need to do to make that work, so be it.

Ilbranteloth

 

[iserith]

But, I make mistakes. Sometimes I'm not prepared - not just by having things all ready for the session, but my brain is not running optimally. Life happens, and sometimes I'm just not at the top of my game. Having fudging as an option to fix a boneheaded mistake is much less disruptive than many of the other options, particularly those that break the flow of the game and the story.

What kind of mistake are you imagining where fudging is a solution?

 

[pemerton]

the DM is specifically setting the DC based on the bonus of the person rolling. So what matters is the die roll, not the modifiers.

So in effect deciding "if joe rolls an 11 or better on the die, he passes" rather than setting a DC based on some attempt at objectivity

boy oh boy is it obnoxious. It's stuck with me all these years for a reason!

That sounds pretty bad to me too. What's the point of investing build resources in a skill, or of investing in-play resources (eg items that grant a bonus to the check) if that investment doesn't make a difference to the chance of success?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

What kind of mistake are you imagining where fudging is a solution?

Well, a common one that I've seen people mention is just too powerful of a monster. Or too powerful if played with solid tactics by the DM.

But more often is not a mistake as just freak dice rolling, like two or three criticals in a row.

Ilbranteloth

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Speaking for myself, I care a lot about success and failure within the RPG structure (as you put it) and I also care about pursuing and achieving the goals of play - that is, everyone having fun and creating an exciting, memorable story. I think what makes a game a game is the existence of challenge which is a test of one's abilities. What do I need to do to be successful in this situation? How do I go about it? Can I pull it off? I find this to be fun and a necessary component in a game. Fudging removes challenge by modifying the accepted stakes - that is, what is gained by winning or lost by losing. If the DM fudges to my benefit, rather than succeed or fail due to my skill and luck, I succeeded because I basically couldn't lose. My skill and luck mattered less or not at all. Without challenge, the game is missing a critical component. I cannot have fun and thus fail to achieve the goals of play, even if we managed to create an exciting, memorable story in the doing.

Which is fair, and I'm fine with that too. But I think that this, like many statements, over-estimates the effect of fudging. In my bear attack example, the only fudge would be on a critical hit. Is not that you couldn't lose, but that you couldn't lose on a surprise first shot.

If a DM fudged only every once in a while, it's really having a minimum impact of the challenge of the game as a whole. I seriously doubt that in a dozen sessions of play, that preventing a single critical hit against you would deprive you entirely of fun.

Plus, the fudge to eliminate a critical on that first attack does nothing about the challenge for the remaining combat, it just means that you have one extra round to work with. You still have to react to what you are given.

Really, the only difference is that the DM instead of the dice at that very moment decided (in part) your fate. The fact that the DM did it doesn't inherently remove challenge, although it may modify it.

The DM has a significant influence on the challenge by their selection of opponents (if not entirely random), tactics, etc., They set DCs, and other situational modifiers, although with the advantage/disadvantage system is more streamlined and less susceptible to a change from +1 to +2 for example. The only difference is that the modification of after the die roll.

I don't find this any different than real life. There are many times you think you know the stakes, only to find out they are different after the fact. Sometimes you don't ever find out, you just go with it and move on. Your skill isn't affected, just your preventing odds.

Ilbranteloth

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think you missed my earlier post where I said that the dragon will usually be smart in its attacks. I used that word for a reason. Yes, there will be exceptions, but those exceptions will not involve the DM being deliberately stupid with attacks. A dragon reacting to a successful intimidate check isn't the DM just being deliberately stupid with dragon attacks.

Technically speaking, you said "almost always" rather than "usually." The latter implies a lot more room for exceptions than the former. I might be mincing words with that, but I certainly got a different sense from your original statement than from this one.

This is one of the reasons I consider any distinction pointless. I'm the GM - I edit things on my end of the game. It may be a monster's stats, it may be my die roll, it may be a tactic I choose the NPC/monster to take, or it may even be a rule. I consider all of these things, on my side of the screen, mine to adjust to produce a better and more enjoyable campaign. None of these, whether published or generated during play, are sacred.

And you can think that if you like. But when you start modifying stats (HP, AC) in the middle of combat, you are literally doing exactly the same thing as modifying a player's die rolls. It doesn't matter which side of the equation you manipulate--the effect is mathematically equivalent. And when the changes you make have tangible--if not always visible--impact on the results of player choices, the information they base their choices on, even if only approximate, is no longer reliable. Hence, as I've said before, it deeply interferes with the players' ability to make informed choices. The "informed" part dissolves, and at times even the "choices" part gets shaky--if you reserve the right to interrupt the connection between choices and results (even where that is mediated by dice), then in a certain sense, the only events that happen are events you allow to happen. The more the DM fudges, the more they're actively deciding what happens. Fudging occasionally, then, is a matter of passively deciding what will happen--you act primarily by allowing. Only when there is no fudging at all--when the DM never interrupts the connection between player choice and observed result--is it strictly true that the results of a player's choice are determined by that choice (which includes the choice to risk the involvement of dice).