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

[Vaalingrade]

The thing about fudging is the philosophy and how only one person at the table gets to be philosophical.

DM gets to fudge things in order to make a better/more dramatic/interesting/etc. story.

Players also have a sense of what makes a better/more dramatic/interesting/etc. story...but never get to fudge at all.

Why???

I built players probability control into my system. Thinks like more rerolls, setting die to a number, negating actions, etc.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What that every solo creature they fight can ignore 3 failed saves… by some miraculous coincidence.

Given that saves are as abstract a concept they are, what's going on at the player level is not what's going on at the character level in this scenario anyway; at the character level its probably more like "These sort of strong creatures usually seem to be able to shrug off a few things that would effect others, but it would catch up with them." The fact its three is a player level thing, and no worse than engaging with a number of other things that are fundamentally metagame.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It might be better if we didn't choose to judge people based on how they like to play recreational games with their friends.

When they bounce off against players with other views, that's gonna happen anyway.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To be fair, not 'I have played D&D for Ten Thousand Years' line has ever been useful.

Though, bluntly, its as appropriate a response as any to someone who comes into a conversation assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with them started playing last week (which is not relevant for the matter at hand, but is why I occasionally drop it when the conversation is starting to go that way so that particular bit of stupidity can be gotten out of the way right upfront).

 

[Thomas Shey]

And if it's done right, you never know about it. Smooth.

[citation needed]

Less snarky, people think they're a lot better at hiding this sort of thing than they often are.

 

[overgeeked]

Given that saves are as abstract a concept they are, what's going on at the player level is not what's going on at the character level in this scenario anyway; at the character level its probably more like "These sort of strong creatures usually seem to be able to shrug off a few things that would effect others, but it would catch up with them." The fact its three is a player level thing, and no worse than engaging with a number of other things that are fundamentally metagame.

I like to ground it in the fiction. Instead of the monster just succeeding, they have to do something to block, deflect, or otherwise ignore the effect. Use it as a moment to show off how awesome and dangerous your monsters are. Don’t just tick off a box.

I spotted this recently that sums it up nicely.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The thing about fudging is the philosophy and how only one person at the table gets to be philosophical.

DM gets to fudge things in order to make a better/more dramatic/interesting/etc. story.

Players also have a sense of what makes a better/more dramatic/interesting/etc. story...but never get to fudge at all.

Why???

Well, to answer the question honestly because many people assume a GM is liable to be taking in the big picture better than individual players are. This isn't always or necessarily true, but its the reason.

 

[Eric V]

I built players probability control into my system. Thinks like more rerolls, setting die to a number, negating actions, etc.

I confess, I don't quite understand what you're saying here... :/

 

[Thomas Shey]

I like to ground it in the fiction. Instead of the monster just succeeding, they have to do something to block, deflect, or otherwise ignore the effect. Use it as a moment to show off how awesome and dangerous your monsters are. Don’t just tick off a box.

That doesn't change the fact that in the end, you are just ticking off a box on a play level. The fact it represents so many things means it doesn't represent any thing; its a metamechanic to deal with an intrinsic problem with many-on-one fights that are appropriate for the genre but tend to end in anticlimax because the mechanics outside of it don't really leave an opponent resilient enough against some things.

So, in practice, the players may be clearer on what's going on than their characters are, but then, you're clearer on what's going on than the monster is, too.

 

[gnarlygninja]

I'm pretty neutral on it, if the DM is doing it well I won't notice so why would I care?