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

[Flamestrike]

I've never said a word about "cheating". But that doesn't mean its a good idea.

Actually, you're the one asserting it's a 'good idea' for a DM to adhere to a roll that will TPK a party, and ensure a campaign that is going really well and everyone is having fun comes to an end, simply because the dice tell him to.

I'm saying it's a good idea for the DM to ignore that roll, and I'm pointing out to you the DMG clearly states the exact same, and duly authorizes me as DM to do just that, and for a very good reason.

 

[Flamestrike]

He thought this about OD&D, where most of that did not apply.

I dont care about OD&D in this context.

The Mechanics of 5E are highly dependent on in game world time passing (resource refresh rate), so it's a highly relevant thing for a DM to factor into his encounter and adventure design, and with relation to game balance.

That's just a statement of objective fact. You don't have to take it into account of course, but you'll get results indicative of that decision.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Sure, and a good DM doesn’t need to force a “random” encounter that isn’t actually random to do so.

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

Then it’s a poorly written module and I should have made adjustments to it.

Stop obfuscating and answer the question.

I did. But also, these objections are relevant. I believe the problem you’re trying to pose is better fixed by better adventure design than by fudging.

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?

As I said, in some cases I do indeed ignore the dice on random encounter tables. Generally I’m more likely to choose an encounter from the table without rolling in the first place than to roll and then pick a result other than the one that was rolled. But yes, I do think it is acceptable to roll and then fudge it in this sort of scenario, though I think in your example it could easily have been avoided.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Mistakes happen. GMs are human. Apologize and try to do better next time.

Or you fix it on the fly. There's no clearcut reason to assume one way is automatically superior to the other, and that letting the cards lay is going to be the way the players prefer.

 

[iserith]

You're obfuscating again.

You're running an adventure and you decide it's time for a random encounter. You roll on a chart for a random encounter, just as the adventure tells you to do.

It's immediately apparent to you that the encounter you randomly generated will TPK your party. Your party have done nothing wrong, and the campaign is going along well, and everyone is having fun.

Do you:

1) Adhere to the dice roll, and duly TPK the party, bringing the campaign to a crashing halt, or
2) Ignore the dice roll, and substitute an encounter better suited to the story and the players?

I'm not obfuscating - I don't agree with the premise. In reality, I don't in fact know that the encounter will TPK the party because I don't know what the players will do.

 

[iserith]

Is it like a regular "every three hours" or "three to six hours", or could they end up being surprised by some even if they're trying to get out ASAP?

They are regular intervals that the players know about. There are no real surprises in my game except those that are generated in the emergent story as the players interact with the content. And those will be a surprise to me, too, often.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Actually, you're the one asserting it's a 'good idea' for a DM to adhere to a roll that will TPK a party, and ensure a campaign that is going really well and everyone is having fun comes to an end, simply because the dice tell him to.

Flamestrike, you're not paying attention. I've never said any such thing. Now I get its easy to conflate people in a discussion but kindly look at my comment to Charlaquin and try and tell me how you could come to this conclusion? I'm the guy who's refered to fudging as "a sometimes necessary evil" multiple times.

But the key words in that sentence are not just "necessary" but "sometimes" and "evil". The fact I accept its sometimes a practical necessity doesn't mean I have to consider it a virtue.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Is using the full range of random hit points a monster stat block count as fudging?

Or must every monster encountered stick to the average?

Because a roll all attacks in the open. But I decide on-the-fly what hit points any given encountered foe has within the stat block range. Why is this cheating?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

Yes, I definitely would.

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?

Perhaps. Though in 5e DMG offers it as an option, so implicitly if you agree to play 5e, and nothing further is said of the matter, you have agreed to fudging being a possibility.

On these forums there is subset of people who as players are terribly invested in how the GM runs the game behind the curtains and want to police the GMing practices. This to me is a red-flag, and I would be wary of playing with such people, let alone to GM for them. As I said in the other thread, I don't fudge. But frankly, as player it's not your business to worry about whether I do or don't. By all means if you're not having fun, or the actual gaming experience has some issues speak out! I don't at all mean that that the GMs should be above critique. But please focus on what's actually happening in the game and not on how the GM achieves it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The DM does run the game. Part of running the game is knowing when to use dice (as well as when not to use them).

And when to overrule the dice when they screw up.