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

[iserith]

There is no difference though! In each example, the DM choose the result.

As I've said impact may be small compared to changing an attack roll, saving throw, or ability check, but it's still fudging, so I don't do it. I'm good with 6 werewolves or else I wouldn't roll.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

Paradox of tolerance. To have a tolerant society the only thing you can't tolerate is intolerance. Same thing here. To have a non-judgmental message board, the only thing you can be judgmental about is being judgmental.

I was in another thread today where someone was literally saying that if people don't play D&D the "way it was intended", they should go play some other game. So it's pretty clear that people (not necessarily you, of course) do need to be reminded that preferences are a thing.

 

[Flamestrike]

Well, first off, I wouldn’t force an encounter just because I felt like the players were doing too well and the boss was going to be too easy, so this hypothetical is already pretty dubious for me.

Because it's your job as the DM to create (and run) fun and challenging encounters and adventures.

If your players are bored, and it's going too easy, and the phones start coming out, it's on you (as the DM) to remedy that situation.

If werewolves don’t make sense in the context of the adventure, why would I have included them on the random encounter table?

You're running a module. It what is on the random encounter chart.

Again, why would I have even put 1d6(!!) werewolves on the random encounter table if I knew this?

Stop obfuscating and answer the question.

You've determined a random encounter is appropriate, you've rolled on a chart, and come up with a result that will definitely result in a TPK, and that makes no sense to the story.

No fault of the players.

Do you stick with the roll, and have the game and campaign come down to a crushing and pointless end, or exercise your discretion as DM and select a more appropriate encounter?

 

[Flamestrike]

As I've said impact may be small compared to changing an attack roll, saving throw, or ability check, but it's still fudging, so I don't do it. I'm good with 6 werewolves or else I wouldn't roll.

Nek minute, a pointless TPK happens, through no fault of the players, and the campaign comes to an end.

Personally, I'd want no part in a campaign run by that DM again, but each to their own.

 

[Cadence]

Since fudging would be/is done regardless of what the DMG says, why is the fact the DMG offers it as a possibility for DMs but is silent as to players relevant?

Would as many people fudge if the DMG didn't explicitly say it was ok?

If the DM calls for a die roll ... And you're lying to them if you just make up a number and act like you rolled it?

(A DM who says they never fudge, but does, or who says they rolled a certain number but didn't would also be lying. A DM who ignores the die roll and says hit or miss without giving the number is fudging. And players who don't like that should ask the DM if they ever do it in advance?)

 

[Flamestrike]

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

And he advocated slaughter of infants by Paladins. I get it, the man wasnt exactly a moral arbiter to look up to.

But when it comes to running a game, that's a different story.

 

[FrozenNorth]

No, I really don't need or want GM to be 'open and honest' about their reasoning for how the things run behind the curtains. I don't want the GM to strop the game and ask "It seems this fight is not going well for you, would you mind if I had some allies to come to your aid?" or "This session is starting to get a tad boring, would you mind if I sprung some bandits or a goblin ambush on you?" Seriously, just run the game the way you think is the best, I trust you, and I don't want you to ruin the game by explaining your decisions and asking permission.

Suppose you (as a player) are playing with @Charlaquin , who has indicated that while they personally don’t like fudging, they will go along with it as long as the DM is upfront about it.

Would you have a problem with the DM acceding to that request? What if there are players with whom you don’t know where they stand? Would you agree that the DM should discuss fudging in Session Zero in that case?

 

[iserith]

Nek minute, a pointless TPK happens, through no fault of the players, and the campaign comes to an end.

Personally, I'd want no part in a campaign run by that DM again, but each to their own.

Don't aim the gun at something you're not willing to shoot. That's the GM principle I follow on this score. A TPK is just another turn in the emergent story.

 

[Flamestrike]

Don't aim the gun at something you're not willing to shoot.

You (the DM) put the encounter there in the first place, knowing it would TPK them, and you're blaming your players for getting TPK'd by it?

Jesus.

 

[Cadence]

As I've said impact may be small compared to changing an attack roll, saving throw, or ability check, but it's still fudging, so I don't do it. I'm good with 6 werewolves or else I wouldn't roll.

Do you have preset triggers for what would make you use a random monster table?

If so, does the table have things on it that are great for a healthy party, but bad for a beat up one?