There is no plan in dice-based RPGs that can't be ruined by randomness. So, either that assessment of plans is flawed, or all plans in RPGs aren't that smart.
D&D General How do players feel about DM fudging?
- Thread starter EzekielRaiden
- Start date
There is no plan in dice-based RPGs that can't be ruined by randomness. So, either that assessment of plans is flawed, or all plans in RPGs aren't that smart.
loverdrive
Prophet of the profane (She/Her)
That really depends on what we call "ruined". I see "ruined" as, well, ruined, unsalvageable.
Randomness introducing setbacks that need to be addressed doesn't sound like ruining to me
By recognizing that having the GM fudge is not necessarily having them fudge EVERYTHING.
As a practical matter, all GMs are also part-time designers. And, since we generally don't get to playtest, so as Mr. Coville has noted - our design efforts don't end before the session begins. And sometimes we are imperfect, and need to adjust matters on the fly to be the challenge we intended it to be.
The amount we push on that primacy of randomness is the amount we dismiss the adventure design and execution as relevant.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
This was not what I said. I would not change it secretly not would I expect it. I don't like mulligans, but in the rare occurence I just want a chance to reset. Fleeing. Surrendering. Withdrawing. In most cases it is possible to change the outcome without cheating or reloading.
Grendel_Khan
Hero
I don't think this sort of it's-all-relative-so-nothing-matters approach is helpful for this discussion, since now you're getting into meta territory. One of the core functions of GMing is deciding when to roll dice and when not to. Just like you don't roll for each step a character takes or to see if they die in their sleep from some undiagnosed congenital disease, no one would reasonably advocate for every single moment in every game to be determined by chance. Likewise, no adventure, no matter how painstakingly prepped, is some hyper-detailed Matrix-like simulation that PCs are interacting with, where all variables are known and accounted for. (Not that that would be any fun anyway)
What we're really talking about is what happens when the dice come out, for all the reasons they come out, nearly all of which are determined by the GM. The exact reasons for rolling can vary by system. A lot of modern indie-leaning games are very explicit about the idea that you really shouldn't roll if there's no risk involved. When I'm running something really trad, like Shadowrun, I call for tons of rolls, since I think that system models the world and narrative though rolls, including ones where there's no risk for failing, but a high degree of success could move things in unexpected directions. If I'm running PbtA I'm not asking for rapid-fire rolls--the game would fall apart.
So different games and GMs ask for rolls at different times. But the fudging we're really getting into--or maybe what I'm most interested in--is numerical tweaking once a situation has come to a roll. And while no one's really going to change anyone's minds here, I think it's interesting to see the main, specific points both sides have landed on (when folks aren't doing the forum-poster thing of flipping out about a specific word choice or dictionary definition). My interpretation and words, obviously:
Pro-fudge:
-Don't let luck get in the way of a group's good time, which is why we play games in the first place.
-Fudging can help GMs fix their own prepping mistakes, or an adventure's sloppy encounter design.
Anti-fudge:
-Fudging turns RPGs into less of a game, and more like a GM-presented play, and turns players into unwitting actors.
-That fudging is nearly always secret is proof that GMs know it's paternalistic, unsavory behavior that most players would object to.
I'm fully in the latter camp, and I find the whole fudging secrecy bit particularly damning. There are countless tools and techniques that GMs can use to shift gears midway through a session or encounter that players not only process out in the open, but are thrilled and impressed by. Maybe reinforcements show up, but now the PCs owe them. Maybe a beloved NPC sacrifices themselves to save a PC or defeat the enemy. Or the enemy just decides to leave, and maybe comes back with their own reinforcements. And only in a system as trad as D&D would any of that seem like gross fudging to a super-strict player. Games like Blades in the Dark or Dungeon World build those kinds of improvised dramatic developments into dice rolls. A DM doesn't have that mechanical support for when and how to improvise, but they're the DM--they can just make it happen (as long as you aren't playing AL, I guess).
But if a GM rolled in the open, and reached over and poked the d20 until it came up with a different face? Objectively weird and potentially table-detonating. And what's the difference between doing that in front of or behind a piece of cardstock (or the virtual equivalent)? You know that nearly every player would find it jarring and repulsive. You know this, or you wouldn't hide it. And if you fessed up to it later, it'd still be appalling behavior. Think about all the times a GM has talked, after an adventure is over, about how they expected this and prepped that and had to improvise such and such and what might have happened if the PCs had done something else, etc. Now imagine the GM also saying "Oh and I made sure that one guy missed you because I thought you'd be sad about it, but another time I made sure the big bad hit because I would have been sad that he didn't seem impressive enough."
I don't think the players would be into that, to say the least.
EDIT: I should have said "are sometimes thrilled and impressed by," re: GMs dropping some obviously improvised narrative beat into a scene. Obviously depends on the group and the game's tone and the GM's execution in the moment.
Last edited:
Vaalingrade
Legend
Again, one range of probability is fine, but not the range the game offers in certain situations.
Like when a hit is fine but a crit is not.
On the one hand, it does feel different (worse) to me moving the die result than having a bunch of allies show up that weren't planned on. On the other hand, the bunch of reinforcements showing up on one side or the other based on what's happening seems like a lot bigger hand on the scale than changing a single die roll.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I think it depends on what specific task was tied to the ability check in the DM's notes and what the player actually had the character do. If my notes say a given approach to a goal, X, has by default an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure and therefore a DC 15 Persuasion check is necessary, but the player does Y which, in context does not have an uncertain outcome and/or a meaningful consequence for failure and thus no check, then all I did was write a contingency that is wasted. I did not fudge. I was only reminded of how prep time may be squandered preparing contingencies and must now adjudicate for Y.
If instead the player actually did do X and because I liked their speech or whatever I just granted auto-success, then that's something akin to fudging, but as I said in this thread or the other, not technically so since in my view fudging is about asking for or making a roll then ignoring the result. Because the effect is the same as fudging, I avoid this. That said, this approach is not entirely due to the desire to avoid fudging. It is merely a happy side effect of what I see as the proper process wherein the DM ignores the player's acting ability in delivering the speech and boils it down to a task to be adjudicated. (In this example, their speech amounts to X, which requires a check.) If the character has a personal characteristic the player portrayed in the doing, I can award Inspiration that the player is then welcome to spend on the check for advantage on the check if they want. Or they can retain the resource for later.
I'm not talking about the players underestimating the opponents based on accurately understood information, I'm referring specifically to miscommunication between the DM and the players. For example, let's say the DM and players have different understandings of how far sound travels in a particular dungeon, and the players choose to engage in combat thinking that it will definitely not be heard by the second group of monsters they'd scouted. The DM doesn't realize the players' misunderstanding until the fourth round of combat, when the DM's notes say that the second group of monsters arrives as reinforcements. Sure, you could honor the players' agency by retconning the whole combat and let the players decide not to attack after all, but it would also honor the players' agency to fudge away the planned reinforcements and revise the dungeon's sound-carrying properties on the fly to match the players' understanding.
Grendel_Khan
Hero
I hear you, but I'm exposing my biases--I don't care how a written adventure was written (beyond it having interesting ideas) and I strip them for maps and NPCs. And anything I've prepped, I consider a loose outline, that can and will be reframed in the moment by what the PCs do.
But I should have clarified. I do think that, in some games, it would be clearly cheesy and eye-roll-inducing to have reinforcements rappel in through the nearest skylight every time things look grim for the PCs. But when folks argue that fudging can help address bad prep or bad encounter design, I personally think some deus ex machina action is preferable--but also it can be interesting, if it has narrative consequences. Maybe the rescuers wind up taking the PCs prisoner. Maybe they demand a share of the eventual spoils. Maybe they just lord it over the players for the rest of the campaign, setting up an emergent conflict to come, one that players will be really invested in (we're a prideful sort).
Some games, though, fully rely on those kinds of improvised beats to function. In 2d20, one of the coolest things a GM can do with the Doom points generated during play is to spend them on some narrative shift, like enemy reinforcements showing up. Works really well for the generally pulpy settings that 2d20 uses, where players often deal with mobs of enemies, and where maps are more abstract and retreating is easier. Or the GM could spend Doom to make the floor collapse. And players can use one of their few Fortune points to establish some detail or truth about the situation, like that there's a rope to grab. But at some point the collaborative, improvisational reality-warping still comes up against dice rolls.
I'm not saying everyone should be into those kinds of games, just that in the larger context of RPGs, the GM putting their hand on the scale in that way is sometimes a part of a system, or even a requirement. But flicking the dice till they show the numbers you want? That's a different move entirely.
