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

[FrozenNorth]

That's a bit of a nasty comparison, to be honest. Again, it depends on what your expectations are, but 55+ years people with 40+ years experience in roleplaying can also grow very attached to their characters, their story, and would be very affected by something untoward happening to their character, it would certainly make the rest of the campaign not as interesting to them, or certainly lessen theirs motivation to continue.

You were the one talking about having a run of bad luck “ruining someone’s evening”. Two of my players have abysmal luck with dice. It doesn’t ruin their evening: sometimes they laugh it off, poor dice doesn’t prevent them from contributing in a “role-playing game”, and when their luck changes, the entire table cheers them.

I was pretty sure that I detected some condescension in your tone and now I'm sure of it. True, all people who have characters dying are idiots who need a DM to compensate for their lack of brains. sigh

The condescension is entirely on your end, not mine. It absolutely is a good tip for DMs to both consider and lay out options for characters to contribute that aren’t reliant on dice rolls.

Such guidance is frequently referenced, but unfortunately often forgotten, even by experienced DMs.

And why would you assume that I am attacking players for poor play in a discussion that is specifically about runs of bad luck?

 

[billd91]

You were the one talking about having a run of bad luck “ruining someone’s evening”. Two days of my players have abysmal luck with dice. It doesn’t ruin their evening: sometimes they laugh it off, poor dice doesn’t prevent them from contributing in a “role-playing game”, and when their luck changes, the entire table cheers them.

Vive la différence.​

This is, ultimately, part of the point of the Colville video that sparked all of these fudging threads. People play differently - some laugh off bad luck as you say, some don't want to play that way. Surely, the latter aren't playing incorrectly, are they?

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I agree that curb-stomping an epic encounter can be fun and memorable, but I also think what's good for the goose has to be good for the gander; and that sometimes it'll be the PCs' faces meeting the concrete in ways unintended unless they realize things have gone sideways and GTFO.

One of my biggest gripes in RPGs is anything that makes PCs feel like they should never run away. I think lots of official mechanics already disincentivize retreating in a huge way (XP for kills, for example) but so does fudging to ensure success. Some of the best, most beloved genre stories feature action scenes that are essentially all exciting retreats!

But I also think no fudging, and other things that help PCs see GTFO as a valid and frequent option, would get rid of a lot of this recurring talk of TPKs, which always seem like the most boring thing that can happen in a game. Just GTFO!

 

[FrozenNorth]

Vive la différence.​

This is, ultimately, part of the point of the Colville video that sparked all of these fudging threads. People play differently - some laugh off bad luck as you say, some don't want to play that way. Surely, the latter aren't playing incorrectly, are they?

You can play D&D in many ways, none of which are incorrect.

That being said, it IS a game in which you will roll a lot of dice, so you WILL have a run of bad luck at some point, and dealing with that maturely is very important.

 

[billd91]

You can play D&D in many ways, none of which are incorrect.

That being said, it IS a game in which you will roll a lot of dice, so you WILL have a run of bad luck at some point, and dealing with that maturely is very important.

Are you saying that a run of bad luck ruining someone's day is immature?

 

[Maxperson]

Good ol' Oberoni principle still applies to fudging.

No it doesn't, because nothing is broken that is being fixed.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But I also think no fudging, and other things that help PCs see GTFO as a valid and frequent option, would get rid of a lot of this recurring talk of TPKs, which always seem like the most boring thing that can happen in a game. Just GTFO!

Well, it helps if a game actually has decent support for successful retreat. Many make it difficult to next to impossible.

 

[BookTenTiger]

As a player, I like the feeling that it is up to us and our toolbox of abilities, equipment, and creative thinking to overcome challenges.

When the DM fudges, it feels less like a victory.

 

[Xetheral]

In my campaigns I don't tailor encounter difficulty to the party. Instead I rely on a combination of telegraphing and PC-driven scouting/observation/research/etc to communicate threat levels so that the players can make an informed choice regarding whether and how to have their characters engage.

Once it's been established in the fiction that the party has (what I intended to be) an accurate read on the threat level of a given encounter, I'm going to make sure that either: (1) the encounter matches the telegraphed threat level, or (2) if not, there is an IC reason it didn't that the party can discover and follow up on. If that requires tinkering with the enemies' stats (changing values or changing the source of existing values) or strategies then I'll absolutely do so to ensure that I honor the accuracy of the information I've already given to the party.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Well, it helps if a game actually has decent support for successful retreat. Many make it difficult to next to impossible.

Couldn't agree more. I've started to wonder if retreating--especially a fighting retreat--really works mechanically in just about any trad system. Something as narratively common and straightforward as "holding off the enemy" or suppression fire often has no rules, or else terribly complex and usually low-powered subsystems. The mechanical incentives are almost always to win by dropping targets. Even doing something like throwing a bomb to delay pursuers or bashing a hole in a wall to flee through just gets lost in the details, or means you're essentially giving up multiple turns while others get the satisfying multi-mechanic experience of fighting.

If nothing else, though, games where running means enemies get free attacks on you? Yeesh. All the more incentive to stand your ground, daring the GM to murder you.