D&D General How do players feel about DM fudging?

[billd91]

Lyxen specifically selected that word in his question to @loverdrive. Make of it what you will.

Indeed. And he chose it because she made it a point in a prior post. So if you're gonna pass the buck, pass it to the right place.

 

[Krachek]

I feel that the DM should play with style.
Fudging with style is better than sticking to his notes or the MM and get a boring session.
But the DM can fudge grossly and scrap the session for everyone.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Indeed. And he chose it because she made it a point in a prior post. So if you're gonna pass the buck, pass it to the right place.

I don't agree with that assessment, I think you are reaching. @Lyxen added the word, @loverdrive only mentioned there are other style games which remove the death by randomness from the game. In fact @Lyxen added further inflammatory commentary in a subsequent post.

And again, this is you assuming that your solution is better and that people are idiots for not seeing it and bowing before your wisdom.

 

[Cadence]

I think I'd be sad if the DM made things harder in a combat just because we were rolling well, for example, or came up with a clever plan. I don't think I'd want them to make it easier too often when their side was rolling well.

On the other hand, I don't think I'd even count it as fudging if the DM made changes to the pre-written notes before we even got to that part of the dungeon, say.

 

[loverdrive]

Sure, the rules take care of the story, well known fact...

They can. In D&D (and all old- and mid- school games), yeah, rules operate strictly with in-universe stuff, story concerns be damned. This allows for undesireable, from a storytelling (in this context, read as: creating a story that can stand on its own legs and isn't a collection of anecdotes from the trenches) perspective to happen sometimes. This requires fudging because the rules failed, and now the DM needs to manually override them.

What is the point of the rules, anyway? To prevent bad stuff. All rules, be it traffic code, code conventions, or rules of role-playing games. When they are fit for the job, they act as guardrails, saving you from accidentally falling into a pit. When they aren't, they get in the way of good stuff, and don't save from bad stuff. You have to hop the guardrail, and watch your step.

In, say, Fate, you never have to fudge for the story's sake (not like you really can, but anyway) because situations where fudging is warranted just never happen. PCs can't die in a random encounter with 2d8 goblins, they can only ever die in a climactic battle for everything they believe in. So, you don't ever need to fudge, don't need to worry that you'll accidentally kill someone, it's not something that would ever happen. So, you can safely focus on what would goblins do, how would they fight, all that, no extra mental workload.

A situation, where you look at the dice and decide that it's bad stuff is no different from your Photoshop crashing or your rifle jamming. Tap-rack-banging it every time will not make the issue magically go away.

 

[Umbran]

Indeed. And he chose it because she made it a point in a prior post. So if you're gonna pass the buck, pass it to the right place.

The idea is not to point fingers at who started it. The idea is to recognize problematic language, and not engage in it.

 

[loverdrive]

The DM literally cannot cheat. The DM is the rules, so abuses of authority are possible, but not cheating. Especially in 5e where fudging is literally sanctioned in the DMG, so not cheating no matter which way you go on DM authority.

Good ol' Oberoni principle still applies to fudging.

This my my [sic] take on the issue.

Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion: "There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

Several correct replies can be given:

• "I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
• "I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
• "I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Okay, I hope you're with me so far. There is, however, an incorrect reply:

• "There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."

It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.

Simple enough.

 

[loverdrive]

I'd appreciate if you stopped arguing with mod team about me.

 

[iserith]

It's literally recommendations for table rules to use. Those are endorsements. When a former president recommends a specific candidate, he's not endorsing politics. He's endorsing that specific person.

The Table Rules section is endorsing specific rules for use at the table. If it wasn't, they would have said, "We are recommending setting expectations." and left it at that. Instead, they went further and said that to achieve the goal of a fun time together, here are specific rules we are recommending(endorsing).

The sentence you quoted refers to the sentence before it. The recommendation is just setting expectations so everyone has fun together. It then offers a number of possibilities to support specific table rules like table talk or using a DM screen or rolling attacks and damage separately or together. It's not endorsing fudging as a practice, just as something one can do if the DM opts to use a screen as opposed to someone who doesn't. It's no more endorsing it than endorsing not using a DM screen (which it also doesn't do). It's neutral on these topics.

 

[Umbran]

It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.

Except, nobody here is actually following formal debate rules, and the only rules to discussion are about being good to people.

I get the general point that Oberoni is making, but the final conclusion is just about as flawed as citing Rule Zero in that manner.