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

[Thomas Shey]

No. Fudging can relate to things that only indirectly affect the PCs, such as how much HP the enemy has. These are distinct from how much damage the PC has taken, because one changes what’s on the PC character sheet, and the other doesn’t.

But you won’t even recognize that it isn’t that when the player involved is fine with it. Who says they wouldn’t want you to if they knew?

Again, it’s entirely about the social contract at a given table.

I agree its better to have a table agreement on this. It strikes me as a real problem spot when multiple players have radically different views on it (look at my post before this one; I'm not sure what the hell is most appropriate when you players who strongly would prefer you avoid different ones of my three options. I know, not play with a group that diverse, but some times you've got what you've got).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Okay, let me lay it out as a choice set. Some event comes up in the game (the one I particularly focus on is that, for whatever reason, I've put out an encounter that is significantly more dangerous for characters at their current capability than intended; maybe I'm new to a given incarnation of a game, maybe I made a bad assumption about what tools were available to the PCs, whatever). Its obvious they're going to lose people, lose a fight they can't afford to, or worse. The situation is pretty clearly my fault to me. This seems to have three possible outcomes:

A. I let the chips fall where they may.
B. I tell people I messed up, and back up to a point where I can correct the error already in play.
C. I fudge.

Either B or C seems better than A to me; to you, B is undesirable, to others in this thread C is. Both you and they feel strongly. Is there something other than personal preference that makes your take on this more appropriate than theirs?

No, I don't think so. It's just a preference, and I don't think anyone is wrong to not like fudging, albeit the vehemence some people express seems a tad perplexing and it is sometimes accompanied by accusatory language that aims to represent fudging in a game as some sort of moral failure, and this I find rude and misguided.

 

[Hussar]

If we're defining fudging as purely altering numerical results after the fact then fair enough. I can see why people wouldn't like it. I don't do it, again, mostly because I play on VTT and all my die rolls have always been in the open. Yes, there are ways to hide that, but, most of the time, I don't think it's worth it. I like letting the dice determine outcomes.

I do think that this is a somewhat narrow definition though. Because, as I said earlier, I can certainly leverage all sorts of other meta-game level strategies to alter outcomes and even guarantee outcomes - the example of granting an autosuccess on a skill check, for example, is fudging to me. Or at least fudging adjacent. Choosing to softball or hardball an encounter based on my desire for action or because I don't want to kill a PC or because I've got something else in mind is fudging, to me. I'm changing the outcome of the game based on my personal views of what I want to see as an outcome rather than letting the game determine outcomes.

Is fudging this major sin? Meh, there are far worse things. I have no real desire to die on this hill and have no interest in defending fudging. I think that the very visceral reactions I'm seeing here seem a tad overwrought all things considered. I'd go with,

"It's not the greatest tool in the DM's box and should be used very sparingly. Fudging lacks subtlety and, when noticed, probably isn't making the players feel better about the game and often makes them feel worse. Use it if you have to, but, make a concerted effort to try other stuff first."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Part of open and honest conversation is discussing (ahead of time) when is the right time for open and honest conversation. Adhering to such an agreement and refraining from discussing certain topics at certain times isn't a failure to be open and honest, it's just respecting anothers' wishes.

As a player, I want open and honest communication with my DM about how the game is designed and run before and after a session, but preferably not during the session. (Such conversations during the session make the game less enjoyable for me.) A DM who refrains during the session from openly and honestly discussing how the game is designed and being run is honoring my communication preferences, not going behind my back.

Okay. Here's an important thing though: The DM did not need to do anything requiring "an open and honest conversation."

I am not saying this because anything is "needed" in game design (because I know nothing is; I've made that point many times on this board). Instead, I am highlighting this because the exact same ends--cinematic story beats and avoiding un-fun consequences--can always be avoided without the use of anything that would require a before- or after-the-fact open and honest conversation.

Fudging is, to put it very mildly, controversial for a fair portion of people. I think we can agree that, if one can achieve the exact same end via either controversial means, or entirely uncontroversial means, with relatively minimal difference other than the likelihood of controversy, it is preferable to choose the uncontroversial means in every case. In this case, the entirely uncontroversial means sometimes require some extra effort, but again it is generally understood that a higher-effort but lower-controversy approach is preferable to a lower-effort but higher-controversy approach in essentially all cases.

If it is always possible to avoid fudging and still achieve the desired aim, which AIUI several people have agreed that that is true (via agreeing that fudging is never necessary), then what is the value of fudging instead of avoiding it?

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, I don't think so. It's just a preference, and I don't think anyone is wrong to not like fudging, albeit the vehemence some people express seems a tad perplexing and it is sometimes accompanied by accusatory language that aims to represent fudging in a game as some sort of moral failure, and this I find rude and misguided.

Well, I'm not going to say I don't see some of that response as over-the-top myself, but I'm the wrong one to ask, because I'd probably accept any of the three depending on the desires of the rest of the group were I a player. Its an area where I really have a greatest-good-for-greatest-number perspective so a lot of perspectives in this thread seem a bit extreme to me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If it is always possible to avoid fudging and still achieve the desired aim, which AIUI several people have agreed that that is true (via agreeing that fudging is never necessary), then what is the value of fudging instead of avoiding it?

Well, because I'm not sold the other methods are actually less contraversial; they're just less traditional so there's less focus on them.

(I'm assuming you're not including various baked in mechanical tools here; if you are, we're having slightly different conversations at the moment, but even some of those are distinctly things some people react badly to).

 

[Hussar]

/snip

If it is always possible to avoid fudging and still achieve the desired aim, which AIUI several people have agreed that that is true (via agreeing that fudging is never necessary), then what is the value of fudging instead of avoiding it?

Well there are a number of things:

1. Speed. Fudge the die roll now and avoid that result right now. Make a note of it, make sure it doesn't happen again if you need to, but, instead of insisting that this die roll stands and derails the session for the next hour (for whatever reason), change the result and move on.

2. Mistake. The DM called for a die roll without thinking of the consequences beforehand. We've all done that. Yeah, make this check... oh, you rolled really badly.... err.... ummm.... Basically just a mulligan for something that probably shouldn't have been rolled for in the first place.

3. The results don't make sense in context. Granted, this is probably a really corner case one, but, it does happen. Particularly if you're using things like Critical Hit tables - how exactly did you cut that guy's arm off with a hammer? Let's reroll that one.

So, there are reasons for using fudging. They might not be great reasons and they might not be reasons you or I might approve of, but, there are justifiable reasons for altering die outcomes.

 

[Maxperson]

It's probably not entirely a coincidence that about 1 in 5 voters think the Dungeon Master fudging their rolls is a good thing, and also about 1 in 5 people at the table are Dungeon Masters.

I think that most or even nearly all of us here are DMs at least part of the time.

 

[Vaalingrade]

All sorts of things that would not be appropriate to do to your players happen constantly throughout human history.

Lying is a human birthright.

Take that away and we're less than the common chimp or bonobo.

 

[Maxperson]

If my AC is 16 and the roll says 20 and the DM says it misses. That’s a lie.

It's not a lie. The attack missed. The rules serve the DM, not the other way around. If the DM ignores the rule about die rolls and AC in combat and announces a miss, that's what happened. No lie was spoken.