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

[doctorbadwolf]

He also said that "most females don't play RPGs because of a difference in brain function." In 2005.

Jeeeeeeebus did he really?

oof. I mean I’ve never put him on any pedestal, and I don’t know why it would surprise me from the “Use US anti-Native rhetoric to describe orcs” guy, but still…

 

[FrozenNorth]

You seem to be missing the context that this discussion is in a thread where certain behaviours are derided and called "immature" etc. It's abundantly clear that many posters need to be reminded that preferences are preferences, and that people can have different preferences than yours without it being a moral failing.

Huh, you seem to be missing the context that the behaviour being called immature was stating that the evening was “ruined” because they had a run of bad luck rolling dice.

For calling out other people for being judgemental, you seem to be acting plenty judgemental yourself.

 

[Arilyn]

In B, the DM rolled then ignored the roll (or changed the result), which is fudging.

This may be considered somewhat less important than fudging an attack roll, saving throw, or ability check result, but it's the same thing - the DM rolling dice for stakes they cannot accept. For some games, rolling for random encounters can very much be on par with those mechanics if there is a set system for content generation such as wandering monsters at specific intervals or given certain triggers using specific tables the players have come to understand and make decisions based on.

But this is taking an absolute stand. It can be fun for the GM to roll and be surprised, and most of the time the results will work just fine. If something does come up that is overly dangerous and/or doesn't fit as well as the next entry on the table I would absolutely change it. The GM has more brains than the dice.

Why roll? Because it ioften works well enough, but the GM, as a thinking being, can make appropriate adjustments when needed, which as many have pointed out is rare.

 

[iserith]

I'm curious about that. How does it affect their ability to make reasonably informed choices? They don't have access to the encounter table, so I don't see how they can make an informed choice about it at all, let alone a less informed one because I removed an option.

In this specific case, the impact is small, but it violates a DMing principle of mine, so I don't do it. Essentially, a roll table for random encounters says something about the setting. When you're in Area X, you can expect to run into Y Monsters. Players learn this over time and tend to adjust their tactics accordingly. Changing that midstream is an impact, however small, on their ability to make informed decisions.

 

[Hex08]

So I decide to run a Pathfinder 1e game and I have brought in a new player in and this will be his first time playing a TTRPG. Creating a new character in Pathfinder can take some time, even more so for a first timer. He's really excited, gets his character done, even spends the time creating a fairly detailed backstory, and is looking forward to playing his first character. Do I risk turning him off and deflating his enthusiasm because during the first night of gaming the dice worked against him and his character should have died or do I fudge so that the killing blow does less damage and he survives to be healed later? This poor guy just put in a bunch of time and effort into his first character and it all quickly goes to waste if I let the dice results stand. I see no harm done here if I fudge. Honestly, there seems to me to be more upside than down in this scenario.

The thing is, we can all create scenarios where fudging seems reasonable and where it isn't. GMs make judgement calls all of the time, some you will agree with and some you won't. If the GM isn't someone that you are willing to trust to make the right call then maybe there is a bigger problem.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I mean I more object to the use of random encounters, TBH.

 

[iserith]

But this is taking an absolute stand. It can be fun for the GM to roll and be surprised, and most of the time the results will work just fine. If something does come up that is overly dangerous and/or doesn't fit as well as the next entry on the table I would absolutely change it. The GM has more brains than the dice.

Why roll? Because it ioften works well enough, but the GM, as a thinking being, can make appropriate adjustments when needed, which as many have pointed out is rare.

For me, the appropriate adjustments are to the prep prior to play. Nobody's perfect, but that's the goal.

 

[Maxperson]

In this specific case, the impact is small, but it violates a DMing principle of mine, so I don't do it. Essentially, a roll table for random encounters says something about the setting. When you're in Area X, you can expect to run into Y Monsters. Players learn this over time and tend to adjust their tactics accordingly. Changing that midstream is an impact, however small, on their ability to make informed decisions.

So when a new monster book comes out with monsters appropriate to Area X, do you not use any of those new monsters for encounters? Because that would impact their ability in the same way.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Agreed. Seems like such reasoning is full of hubris to me

Worse than that. The reasoning encourages hubris.

IMO, most of the less-than-stellar RPG behaviour I have seen is due to a well-meaning GM succumbing to hubris, rather than a jerk or disruptive player.

 

[iserith]

Jeeeeeeebus did he really?

oof. I mean I’ve never put him on any pedestal, and I don’t know why it would surprise me from the “Use US anti-Native rhetoric to describe orcs” guy, but still…

Yeah, he said it on this site too. I'm fine with judging the advice without considering the source, but if something is possibly being presented as an authoritative source, it's good to know a little more about that authority.