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

[Lanefan]

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.

I'd just run with it as played, and if asked later I'd say that the players' misunderstanding mirrored that of their PCs - clearly sound travelled farther in that situation than in-character they thought it would.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

"Say yes or roll the dice" is one of the most traditional pieces of advice there is. Saying yes (or, sometimes, saying no) means you don't invoke the mechanics in the first place, so there's no need to fudge. That's what would cover "calling a fight" type situations, where the DM basically just straight-up says "alright, you guys have won." (I am assuming that DMs wouldn't "call" fights against the party, as that's kind of a jerk move.)

Apart from that, what could be controversial about "be diegetic"?

(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).

I suppose that depends on whether you define "say yes(/no) or roll the dice" and "be diegetic" as baked-in or not.

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.

I find this hard to process. If the DM can improvise new diegetic situations when a die roll is not in question and do so quickly enough to not derail the session, what prevents them from doing so when a die roll is in question? That is, if the DM can seamlessly and speedily extemporize about the Queen's response to Garka the dwarf barbarian being unexpectedly articulate when she expected a huge boor, I don't understand how they shouldn't be able to seamlessly and speedily extemporize about (to use my previous example, possibly from a different thread) the Greater Shadow exploiting its powers over life-energy to save itself from an unexpectedly potent assault by the PCs (or whatever).

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.

For my part, I see this as even more important than being honest with the players: it's being honest with yourself. DMs cannot live up to a standard of never being able to make mistakes or do something wrong. That's not healthy for them, and it leads to unhealthy expectations from the players. Much better to say, "Aw, beans, y'know I really shouldn't have asked for that roll. Ignore that--instead <stuff.>" I have said this a few times in my own game, where I reflexively asked for a roll only to realize that there were no interesting consequences for failure. Admitting those mistakes has not ruined my game, and has in fact helped my players understand where I'm coming from.

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.

I see this as either just a variant of the previous, or an exercise in interesting challenge: how DO we make sense of it? If no sense can be made of it whatsoever, then we should admit it, e.g. "oh...you rolled to decapitate it but uh...this thing doesn't have a head. Reroll that until you get something other than 9, since that doesn't make sense." But if some sense can be made of it, even if it requires some leaps of logic, roll with it! Or, perhaps, ask the players what they think, e.g.:

DM: "Hmmm...a stone golem doesn't really have a 'head' in the usual sense. Charity, what does happen when you strike this thing with your vorpal sword?"
Charity: "The sword may not know what 'golem' means, but it does know what's the most important part of an opponent. As I thrust the blade into the golem, its heart is not pierced, but driven out through the golem's back."
DM: "Ooh, I like that. It falls to the floor with an unusually dull thump, glowing softly. You've slain the golem, and now have an intact golem heart!"

I've had an enormous amount of super cool stuff come from me asking a player to explain how something happened or why it made sense in context. Even with a player who is both shy and brand-new to TTRPGs.

 

[Lanefan]

You're aware that all the events of the campaign are only there because the DM put them there right?

If by 'events' you mean the things that transpired in play and thus became part of the fiction, I disagree: those are put there by a collective combination of the DM, the players, and the dice; with each playing a variably greater or lesser role in the creation of each event.

 

[Hussar]

"Say yes or roll the dice" is one of the most traditional pieces of advice there is. Saying yes (or, sometimes, saying no) means you don't invoke the mechanics in the first place, so there's no need to fudge. That's what would cover "calling a fight" type situations, where the DM basically just straight-up says "alright, you guys have won." (I am assuming that DMs wouldn't "call" fights against the party, as that's kind of a jerk move.)
/snip

Note, no it isn't actually.

Say yes or roll the dice is a fairly new concept that arose in the rise of indy games in the 90's and 2000's. If you were to go back to the 80's or earlier and try that, most DM's would look at you like you had two heads. Now, I 100% agree with the advice and it's fantastic advice. And, again, I DO agree with you about not adjusting die rolls. So, please don't think I'm arguing with you.

As far as my three reasons go, you don't have to agree with them. Heck, I don't particularly agree with them. But, I do understand where someone is coming from. For example you compare improvising the Queen's response. Thing is, there are all sorts of ways I can delay that. "Oh, hey guys, I need a smoke break/pee break/whatever. Gimme five minutes." And then come back with an answer. There's no real immediacy there and it's pretty easy to get some thinking time. But, in the middle of combat, you really don't want to do that. So, massaging a roll to keep the flow going is an option.

Is it a great option? No. Not really. It's not something I particularly want to do. But, I don't begrudge someone for doing it. Not admitting to a mistake is hardly a cardinal sin. "Oh man, I called for that Search roll to find that easy to find secret door thinking it would be no problem, but, they all botched the roll and now we're going to faff about for the next hour while they try to find another way in" or, "errr, yeah, you find that secret door. Let's go!" isn't really a huge mistake.

The point is, while you or I probably wouldn't do it that way, doesn't really matter. It's not like they're harming the game or enjoyment at the table and it's entirely possible that sticking true to the rolls would result in a less fun time. So, they fudge. Like I said earlier, all one has to do is look at die rolled characters to see fudging in action.

 

[Lanefan]

There is an apex predator in my current hex crawl, which is a reskinned and modified adult dragon. Compared to their level (5th), it is very nasty. They've encountered it a few times before, but it never attacks first. What it does is swim past the PCs and its aura has a curse. Fail the save and you will tend to attract more wandering monsters until the curse is removed. Alternatively, you can give it an offering of gold and it won't curse you, but since gold equals XP in this game, that's a tough choice for the players to make.

Apropos of nothing else in the thread, this is brilliant!

Yoink!

 

[Thomas Shey]

"Say yes or roll the dice" is one of the most traditional pieces of advice there is. Saying yes (or, sometimes, saying no) means you don't invoke the mechanics in the first place, so there's no need to fudge. That's what would cover "calling a fight" type situations, where the DM basically just straight-up says "alright, you guys have won." (I am assuming that DMs wouldn't "call" fights against the party, as that's kind of a jerk move.)

I've seen that done as a time-saver when a fight was obviously over, but I can say I've never seen it done to shortcut a problem area, and I do indeed suspect a lot of people would find that super-jarring no matter its pedigree.

Apart from that, what could be controversial about "be diegetic"?

Depends how you apply it in this context.

I suppose that depends on whether you define "say yes(/no) or roll the dice" and "be diegetic" as baked-in or not.

More that I don't consider them mechanical tools in the sense I meant.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

If the area has already appeared in play (either through in-person visits by oen or more PCs or by having been investigated remotely) it would make sense not to, for reasons of setting consistency if nothing else.

Use those new monsters in parts of the setting that haven't seen play yet, and all is good.

 

[LordEntrails]

I think often people fudge because they’re afraid the results they’ve rolled won’t lead to a fun experience, but I find that D&D tends to be a fun experience regardless of the results of the rolls. And personally, I find the experience overall is better when the results of the dice sometimes lead to outcomes we would not have intentionally chosen.

So true. As I said earlier, just about every memorable moment my group talks about months and years after are the ones from bad rolls, or unplanned. Such as the time the mimic critical hit the wizard for max damage and instant death. Or when the dumb fighter got possessed due to a failed save. Or when the party chose to run away from the lich. Or...

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.

I agree with your assessment here, except I think you are wrong in only seeing 3 options here. As per the examples I gave a few pages ago, there are so many other options a DM can do to drive the combat in a different direction.

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.

Whatever you call it, don't be surprised if the next time it's that players turn they don't bother to roll their attack and instead just ask the DM if they hit or miss, since obviously the die rolls don't matter. I probably wouldnt do that the first time or two, but I've done it before when the DM regularly does that type of stuff.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Thing is, something's already gone wrong if it ever gets to this point; usually one of:

--- the wandering monster chart (or something on it) isn't appropriate to the level/number of PCs the adventure expects and-or is written for, and the DM didn't catch this ahead of time
--- the PCs have let themselves get overextended and-or weakened to the point where any level-appropriate encounter could wipe them out, yet they pressed on anyway

An example of the first would be if 1d6 Werewolves was an entry on the wandering monster table in an adventure otherwise designed for 1st-3rd level characters. In this case, if 6 Werewolves comes up on the table the DM probably has to stop and ask "What was in the author's mind when this was put here; or, is it an outright error?" and carry on accordingly.

It's possible, for example, that the werewolves aren't intended to be antagonistic and instead are to be met wandering the castle in their Human forms, in which case if the PCs hide and don't do something rash they should be fine.

 

[Maxperson]

If the area has already appeared in play (either through in-person visits by oen or more PCs or by having been investigated remotely) it would make sense not to, for reasons of setting consistency if nothing else.

Use those new monsters in parts of the setting that haven't seen play yet, and all is good.

I'm mixed on that. If the new monster is one who would be seen and well known to those in the area, then I agree with you completely. However, suppose it's some sort of tomb monster that wouldn't be seen outside of the tomb it is in. I have no problem putting it into a tomb that no one has entered in an area that has seen play, because it's going to be like a part of the setting no one has seen yet.