D&D 5E DMs, how do you fudge?

[Benjamin Olson]

Cheating is dishonesty or deception with regard to the rules. It doesn't matter if the books tell you you can or should do it. Being told "you can totally lie about this on your taxes" does not make it not lying.

Roleplaying is an acting and make-believe game. It is based entirely on forms of lying.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Roleplaying is an acting and make-believe game. It is based entirely on forms of lying.

No, it's not. Fantasy and lies are very, very different things. I get really sick of people parroting this line because it is completely false.

A fantasy is fictional, yes, which means it is not physically real. Not being physically real is not, at all, the same as being a falsehood about actually real things like dice or the rules for a monster.

 

[J.Quondam]

Then why the efforts to keep it secret--not just "not telling the players while you do it," but going out of one's way to actively prevent anyone ever finding out?

If it's so good for the game, why do so many players get so upset when they find out it happens?

Do GMs really go to great lengths to hide it? Do players really get upset about it?
If it was really such a taboo thing to do, why does this sort of question pop up so often across the interwebz?

I mean, sure, we hear lots of anecdotes to that effect around here, in a forum full of opinionated grogs. But surveys tell us that we here are not a representative sample of D&D gamers. Out in the rest of the world, among the vast majority of gamers who are newer, more casual, and/or have a huge diversity of reasons they play, I would seriously question this assumption about the sanctity of the dice.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

No, it's not. Fantasy and lies are very, very different things. I get really sick of people parroting this line because it is completely false.

A fantasy is fictional, yes, which means it is not physically real. Not being physically real is not, at all, the same as being a falsehood about actually real things like dice or the rules for a monster.

The rules for a monster aren't "real things" in sense comparable to a die roll. The DM either adopts them or creates them, and changing them at any point is little different from any other form of DM improvisation.

What is the point where you feel the DM is no longer allowed to use any of their creative freedom in monster design? Is it when initiative is rolled, or is it when they sit down at the table that day? Or can they only ever run vanilla, WotC approved monsters exactly as published? My stance is that they can keep making judicious adjustments to a stat block until the imaginary critter draws its last imaginary breath, so long as they do so in good faith.

 

[tetrasodium]

Then why the efforts to keep it secret--not just "not telling the players while you do it," but going out of one's way to actively prevent anyone ever finding out?

Misdirection, illusion through guided assumption, deception, & showmanship don't work as well if the audience is told how it was employed to draw out desired emotions or play off expectations. This is a great book on it because it includes sources where you can read deep into interesting topics over a wide range of subject matter.

If it's so good for the game, why do so many players get so upset when they find out it happens?

Most don't. I've been at a table where a player of mine who GM's mentioned how players would be shocked how often GM's fudge things in the PC's favor & openly discussed it without issue while running a combat. When the combat was over someone asked if I fudged anything & stared them dead in the eye with a flatly emotionless "no, I never fudge anything. dice rule all things & DCs are set in advance before I call for them." or something that left them with the exact impression of having no idea if I was being sarcastic honest or dishonest that I wanted to. The reason for why telling the players that something was fudged is the same reason a magician doesn't explain the trick to the audience & an adult doesn't tell a kid that they threw a game deliberately. Telling them spoils the illusion & resulting endorphin rush that goes with both the victory of a win and the tension that leads up to it.

IME players who get upset about things like that are playing to win a game that has no winners. Some might get frustrated if they feel like or suspect the GM is taking it easy on them because it cheapens the struggle & victory, but that's really not quite the same as being upset though.

 

[Blue]

I guess your saying having the player characters loose a fight is a bad thing? I see it as more of something that will happen from time to time.

Nope, not in the slightest. I'm for them losing fights occasionally. I actually brought that up in an earlier post in this thread.

I was addressing your claim "I don't "fudge" dice rolls. There is no need to. ... Combat encounters are built with a set, predetermined outcome as part of the game play. It's never 100%, but it's often 99% likely to happen my way."

Unless you always lowball and expect players to win, mathematically there is no chance to get anywhere near that success rate.

And that I think it the difference in play - there is uncertainty in combat, and with only a couple of dozen d20 rolls per combat - not nearly enough to expect statistical average all the time - we absolutely will get combat that swing far one way or the other.

So if you don't fudge because you don't need to because you get what you are expecting 99% of the time. But math says that you don't actually get what you expect with near that certainty.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I've only been a DM for all of one month now, so my n on this is too small for any confident claims about where I do or will "bend the results" of something. One thing on which I am firmly resolved, though, is where I will not fudge: under no circumstance will I fudge any results in order to (1) conceal a DM error, (2) avoid a scenario that taxes the DM's imagination, or (3) guarantee a scenario the DM planned on.

At heart, I figure, it's not my game: it's a world that I built, but in that world it's their game.

 

[Hex08]

Then why the efforts to keep it secret--not just "not telling the players while you do it," but going out of one's way to actively prevent anyone ever finding out?

If it's so good for the game, why do so many players get so upset when they find out it happens?

There's a fair number of unwarranted assumptions going on here. You make it sound like those who fudge are hiding some deep dark secret, we aren't. We make the choice to fudge and move on. We don't inform the players because it can ruin immersion. However, I have let it slip that I've fudged and in almost four decades I've never had a player get upset about it. Also, please remember that most who do fudge probably do it infrequently.

 

[Musing Mage]

Unless the fudge is made with maple, it doesn't come to my table.

Mmm... maple...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Do GMs really go to great lengths to hide it? Do players really get upset about it?
If it was really such a taboo thing to do, why does this sort of question pop up so often across the interwebz?

I mean, sure, we hear lots of anecdotes to that effect around here, in a forum full of opinionated grogs. But surveys tell us that we here are not a representative sample of D&D gamers. Out in the rest of the world, among the vast majority of gamers who are newer, more casual, and/or have a huge diversity of reasons they play, I would seriously question this assumption about the sanctity of the dice.

Sure we do. It crops up in a much, much, much bigger field than TTRPGs, as already mentioned earlier in this thread: video games.

Video games contain computer opponents, and a significant chunk of them cheat heinously. This is not, strictly, because designers want the computers to cheat--it is rather that the very limited automated "AI" scripts cannot hope to keep up with more than an extremely inexperienced player. Designing these "AI" scripts (they really aren't artificial intelligences--they're waaaaay to simple for that) so they don't need to cheat is very hard. Only a few games I've ever played reach that point, e.g. Galactic Civilizations has some really excellent AI that can do some very long-range plays, truly earning the "intelligence" part of the term AI.

Game AI designers are pretty open about this: they say "cheat wherever you can"...and also "never get caught cheating." That's not just for show. Getting caught cheating can really upset your players. It can upset them to the point where they will not just stop playing your game, they'll actively campaign against it, trying to encourage other people not to buy it. Machiavelli might have been writing satire with The Prince, but his advice was still good there: "Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated..." Probably the only thing that inspires more hate in gamers overall than cheating (whether it be player cheating or AI cheating) is a pay-to-win cash shop.

The rules for a monster aren't "real things" in sense comparable to a die roll. The DM either adopts them or creates them, and changing them at any point is little different from any other form of DM improvisation.

What is the point where you feel the DM is no longer allowed to use any of their creative freedom in monster design? Is it when initiative is rolled, or is it when they sit down at the table that day? Or can they only ever run vanilla, WotC approved monsters exactly as published? My stance is that they can keep making judicious adjustments to a stat block until the imaginary critter draws its last imaginary breath, so long as they do so in good faith.

I was very clear about this already. As soon as the creature enters the state of play, depending on what specifically the party is doing. Once the mini/token/etc. is on the battlemap (or has entered the combat if TOTM, etc.), they've entered play.

Also, you have taken me to a much, much greater extent than I said...even though I've been very clear about this several times in this thread. I didn't say DMs could do nothing whatsoever. I said they shouldn't do it secretly. Justify the changes. Make it diegetic. Make it something the players can potentially learn about...and, more importantly, do something about. You still have an enormous amount of creative freedom without needing to resort to fudging. This is not an issue of "never ever change anything." Nor am I saying "never make anything mysterious or unanswered." Instead, I'm saying, "if you change things, the players should be able to learn about and respond to that change." Give them exactly the same opportunity to discover the in-the-world aspects of what you're doing as they have for any plot-related stuff you're doing. You don't have to show them how the sausage is made, but you shouldn't tell them it's 100% all-beef sausage when it's 20% chicken hearts and 10%-30% vegetable protein.

Misdirection, illusion through guided assumption, deception, & showmanship don't work as well if the audience is told how it was employed to draw out desired emotions or play off expectations. This is a great book on it because it includes sources where you can read deep into interesting topics over a wide range of subject matter.

There is a difference between "showmanship"--which is a matter of performance--and straight-up lying to people about what things they're doing or achieving. Plus, at a magic show, people actually consent to being deceived, they (almost never) actually play any part in the trick, and (most importantly of all) have no skin in the game.

Most don't.

[Citation needed.] Video gamers respond exceptionally poorly to any perception of "cheating" on the part of the AI in a game. This is an objective fact. Indeed, they respond so poorly even to the perception of cheating that some games are designed with slightly player-favoring RNG to prevent the rare, but statistically completely possible, runs of success for the AI or failure for the player. (I've been dealing with a bit of this myself lately in a game--I was having chains of five consecutive "severe failure" events, when the game explicitly says this should only occur 15% of the time, meaning getting a string of 5 consecutive failures should only happen about one in every 13169 attempts...and this was happening on my third attempt at this event chain.)

I've been at a table where a player of mine who GM's mentioned how players would be shocked how often GM's fudge things in the PC's favor & openly discussed it without issue while running a combat. When the combat was over someone asked if I fudged anything & stared them dead in the eye with a flatly emotionless "no, I never fudge anything. dice rule all things & DCs are set in advance before I call for them." or something that left them with the exact impression of having no idea if I was being sarcastic honest or dishonest that I wanted to.

I feel like I'm missing something with this anecdote. That is, I understand what you've said, but I don't see what you're going for with it.

The reason for why telling the players that something was fudged is the same reason a magician doesn't explain the trick to the audience & an adult doesn't tell a kid that they threw a game deliberately. Telling them spoils the illusion & resulting endorphin rush that goes with both the victory of a win and the tension that leads up to it.

Okay but...hear me out...

What if you just didn't? You wouldn't need to deceive them. Then it wouldn't be possible to "spoil the illusion." It wouldn't be possible to take away the endorphin rush or ruin the tension. The tension, the win, the endorphins--they would all be real (for, y'know, an appropriate definition of "real" that allows for us being nerds pretending to be elves and half-demons and quarter-flumph ex-vampires.)

A magician's trick is not suddenly made pointless when it turns out the trick was real all along. Indeed, to reveal that it was actually real, rather than merely a known and tolerated illusion, usually enhances the experience greatly.

IME players who get upset about things like that are playing to win a game that has no winners. Some might get frustrated if they feel like or suspect the GM is taking it easy on them because it cheapens the struggle & victory, but that's really not quite the same as being upset though.

Well, I can certainly tell you that is not me. I do enjoy well-done tactical combat, but my true love is the roleplay angle. I adore a really good setting and context where I can realistically examine how my character would react to things and play through their struggles and moral choices. That's why, in the DW game I run, I've told my players not to worry about character death. Even if their characters die, that just means a new adventure for trying to bounce back from that death, possibly with yet further revelations as a result of their afterlife journey. Because the real challenges, the real victories and defeats, lie in the choices they make. The mistakes and the oaths, the alliances and betrayals. Challenging the numbers on their character sheet is easy. Challenging the player with choices where only they can decide what the "right answer" is...THAT is what is beautiful to me, as both DM and player.

And yet, I still vehemently oppose fudging.

So if you don't fudge because you don't need to because you get what you are expecting 99% of the time. But math says that you don't actually get what you expect with near that certainty.

You're committing the same error as the above: assuming that the only possible way to change things is secretly. It's not, and never has been. Sure, don't shout from the rooftops "I AM MODIFYING THIS MONSTER!" But you can make your changes diegetic, observable, accessible to the characters. The players may fail to capitalize on that accessibility, that's perfectly fine. But if you did at least make a good-faith effort at that accessibility, go ahead! Change literally anything that is reasonable to change, if it should lead to better results.

Again, I gave an example earlier in this thread of doing exactly this thing. I can control difficulty without needing to fudge. The extremely slight increase in difficulty is more than compensated for by, as noted above, turning it from magic trick to magic truth. And even then, I have not really needed to modify things that much--though some of that, I admit, comes from me being willing to let a fight be "disappointing" or "too strong" if that's what results.