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

[bloodtide]

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.

I'm not sure you get the "math". A couple of tweaks an I can make any foe near unbeatable or an easy target. Plus adding in the environment, setting, effects and foe tactics.

Example: I want the characters to fall into the trap at spot x.....so some foes attack and then run away to spot x. Like 99% of the time the crazy mad xp thirsty players will chase the fleeing monster...right into the trap. The "math" does not matter.

If I want some character death I toss in a 3d encounter...like being underwater. Many players get super frustrated with 360 attacks and it leads to easy character death.

I guess you are thinking that combat is just rolling a bunch of dice and seeing what happens? My point is that I don't do that. I don't hinge things I want in my game on such combat. I do LOVE tons and tons and tons of randomness.......but things I want happen as I create/alter the game reality.

 

[Hex08]

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

[Citation needed.]

If you are going to make claims that so many players get upset and don't give a citation then you can't really ask someone else for one when they say most don't.

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

Also, comparing a TTRPG to a video game is a bad idea. Most TTRPGs are not competitive (they are not GM vs players) but most video games are (PvE or PvP) and that's a fundamental difference. Also, when a programmer makes a poor design decision the players have to deal with it forever or until the game is patched. In a TTRPG the DM can correct the problem on the fly (fudging).

I don't really understand your vehemence here. Obviously fudging is ok at some people's tables and it's not really your place to judge. Similarly, I doubt anyone here who is arguing that fudging is ok is judging you or your game because you don't.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Okay. If a player challenged you over it, particularly during a session, what would you say? If you found out that one of your players actually does find fudging deeply upsetting, would you stop doing it? Or would you simply work to make sure they never find out?

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.

I don't care if you do it once every hundred sessions--that still means you're always willing to do so whenever you think it's warranted. You still stand between the action and the consequence, even if you deign to let things play on as they were most of the time.

No one would say Augustus was not passing judgment on the gladiators with his pollice verso, even if every single time he urged the attacker to do whatever they intended to do in the first place.

[Citation needed.]

If you are going to make claims that so many players get upset and don't give a citation then you can't really ask someone else for one when they say most don't.

As said above: Video games. A much, much bigger market than TTRPGs ever hoped to be. Players hate when video games cheat. A reveal that AI cheat in a game is understood to be a bad thing by game AI designers. MMORPGs exist specifically because it is possible to approximate the rule-adjudication functions of DMs using a video game--and I can guarantee you that MMO players absolutely despise it when it turns out creatures in the world can break rules the players are forced to obey.

 

[Maxperson]

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

A lie is an intentional deception. In all the years I was a player, nobody ever believed I was a human cleric of Tymora or an elven wizard, because I wasn't deceiving them(not sure how I even would) into believing that I was those things. Same as a DM. The game is not about deception of the players/DM, so it's not about lying.

 

[Maxperson]

As said above: Video games. A much, much bigger market than TTRPGs ever hoped to be. Players hate when video games cheat. A reveal that AI cheat in a game is understood to be a bad thing by game AI designers. MMORPGs exist specifically because it is possible to approximate the rule-adjudication functions of DMs using a video game--and I can guarantee you that MMO players absolutely despise it when it turns out creatures in the world can break rules the players are forced to obey.

This is a False Equivalence, though. Video games cheating is not the same as a DM fudging in limited circumstances. First, there is no real intelligence fudging in a video game. Second, it's usually some sort of glitch, and nobody wants to lose to a glitch. Third, video games have win/lose situations, so people playing them are going into video games with a different mindset than tabletop RPGs.

I'm sure there are more reasons that they are not the same and shouldn't be equated, but those three are more than enough.

 

[Hex08]

As said above: Video games. A much, much bigger market than TTRPGs ever hoped to be. Players hate when video games cheat. A reveal that AI cheat in a game is understood to be a bad thing by game AI designers. MMORPGs exist specifically because it is possible to approximate the rule-adjudication functions of DMs using a video game--and I can guarantee you that MMO players absolutely despise it when it turns out creatures in the world can break rules the players are forced to obey.

You probably replied when I was editing my post but if you go back and read it again you will see I addressed that point in my edit.

Okay. If a player challenged you over it, particularly during a session, what would you say? If you found out that one of your players actually does find fudging deeply upsetting, would you stop doing it? Or would you simply work to make sure they never find out?

I would stop doing it for that player, no harm no foul. However, as I said previously in this thread - in about 40 years of gaming I have never had a player complain about it. But once again, my point was that you were acting like we were hiding some big dark secret when that's simply not the case.

 

[Vael]

Depends. In online play ... since we all use a dice-roller, I don't fudge at all.

In person ... I've rerolled on random tables when I didn't care for the outcome that came up and in a few fairly rare instances when I believe I misjudged how difficult an encounter would be, turned a hit or two into a miss to give the PCs a bit of breathing room.

 

[iserith]

Easy. I do not adjust.

The closest thing I do that is close to fudging is to play some of the foes less than what would be considered optimal. And I do that only if it is a streak of incredible bad luck.

What players often do at my table is.... to flee away from the fight if the fight goes against them. That is why they have things such as caltrops, ball bearings and spells that remove them from sight and/or slow the enemies. Fleeing is often the better part of valor in my games. Enemies will try to flee, so will the players.

Same. It's not like I'm breaking out the slide rule to try and make the ultimate balanced encounter anyway so there's not really a situation where I'm thinking I've put something too powerful before the PCs. CRs and encounter balance has never been an exact science and it's all out the window the second the players start making decisions anyway.

If the players think it's too tough, they can have their characters try to flee. If they didn't prepare for that eventuality, that's on them.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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.

Yes well, perhaps you were clear. I entirely disagree.

To me the monster is malleable until XP is awarded. The only magic of having "entered play" is that I will not change attributes of monters that have already explicitly come up in play after they do so. But a D&D critter is not a single discrete thing, it is a bundle of decisions the DM has made which become relevant at different times. Players may have learned it's AC but that has nothing to do with it's Wisdom score which I reserve the right to change until it has made a Wisdom check. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Not that I change things often, or without what I consider a good reason. But when I do I would be no more likely to have a conversation with the players about it (as you advocate) than I would any of the other times I change the adventure in any other way (meaning sometimes I would, but I don't think it is necessary or desirable to do so as a matter of policy).

A lie is an intentional deception. In all the years I was a player, nobody ever believed I was a human cleric of Tymora or an elven wizard, because I wasn't deceiving them(not sure how I even would) into believing that I was those things. Same as a DM. The game is not about deception of the players/DM, so it's not about lying.

Sure. I really butchered what I intended to convey there. I meant to tease the poster I was responding to about a hardline stance on all fudging being lying given that historically many thinkers (c.f. Plato) considered theater a form of lying, or creating fantasy worlds a form of lying. But I forgot to put a "from some philosophical perspectives" qualifier in there.

I guess I roleplayed the part too well.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

Obviously, there's dozen of different examples of fudging and we would probably all have different opinions on them.

Let's look at other examples. Some from this very thread.

1. One of your players has missed his attack three rounds in a row. He rolls a 15, you look at your notes, that monster had an AC of 16. But you just decide to fudge the result and make the monster AC a 15. "You hit!". I may come from a good place, but I think this is destructive to the contract between DM, players and the game. If I fudge things to make them have success sometimes, how they can they be sure what when they truly succeed it was because of either their choices/their rolls?
2. The players blasted through an encounter, or outright dodged it because they were smart or found an ingenious way ahead. They have way more resources than what was planned when they get to the biggest fight of the dungeon. Should we tweak it to make it harder? It should be epic, it's the last fight. I think this is a bad idea. Your players made some decisions, they used their agency and they were rewarded. They'll reach that fight in a much better posture and will most likely heroically prevail. Why on earth would you steal it from them. It's a thousand times more satisfying to know that your wits allowed this outcome (something I often share with my players after the session) than to be forced in an outcome no matter what your choices are.

We've often discussed about the very different type of players and tables there are. The players acting versus the players describing their characters action, the ones that like optimizing their characters and the ones that don't. The ones that want some dungeon delving, and the ones that want a large drama with plenty of characters, etc. What's interesting is that, in my experience, every single type of player, in every single type of campaign that I ran, in every game, or setting always had its agency at heart. Any of these players, in any of these contexts would have felt robbed by some of the examples.

In my opinion, there's nothing more sacrosanct in TTRPGs then respecting the players' agency and the consequences of their actions. If your fudges or tweaks affects that, you're striking at sacred essence of the game you're playing.