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

[Maxperson]

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.

The example was of the DM's NPC swinging at a PC. The player is never going to know. I'm not going to affect their rolls.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I am not a fan of armchair GMs, especially while sitting at someone else's table and explaining to them how they should be running their games. If you must question their methods, or have any doubts about their intentions, then find someone else. Its not their fault if they decide to be less than agreeable or accommodating to specific demands of every individual.

But it sounds like some players would rather give authority to arbitrary dice results before giving it to another human being who, in their opinion, might not be doing enough to meet their needs and ensuring their satisfaction. I mean, GMs are just people, right? They're no better than anyone else. They're nothing without the players.

So I suggest an alternative: ditch the GM altogether! They're such a hassle to deal with anyway. Just get with your friends, buy or write your own adventures, and play them out exactly the way that you think it was intended. You don't need anyone else to read the script for you, or run the encounters. You already know how the game works, and what it takes to run a game right! In the end, you'll know for certain how good you really are without some pesky GM trying to steal your glory! Its your game!!

 

[Umbran]

Liar.

Mod Note:
Okay, so we need you to cool down, like, now.

First of all, he said "apparently". As in "this is how you appear", or "How you talk makes you look like this to me". You cannot say he is a liar for having an impression of you. Maybe that impression doesn't match yours, but in a text only format, you should leave space for the idea that maybe you don't come across like you want to.

Second of all, we need you to leave space somewhere between Truth and Lie for "this person is simply incorrect". If you go off calling people liars for simply being wrong, you'll find yourself out of the conversation right quick.

Overall, people, if you can't keep it cool, then please walk away before you hit "post reply", or you, too, will be visited by the red text fairy.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Fair enough. And, I think that's the point that people are trying to make. There's a mistake that's been made at some point before the die roll. Somewhere along the line the DM messed up somehow. The DM didn't quite understand how a given monster works, for example (not an unreasonable mistake- there are a LOT of monsters) and suddenly finds that what was supposed to be a fairly low key, fun encounter, is now going to completely throw the game off rails and it's not going to be fun.

Like you said, if 6 werewolves is the random die roll for that 2nd level party that doesn't have any way to hurt the creatures, at that point, "carry on accordingly" might easily be "oh, I didn't roll that, let me roll (or pick) again" without telling the players. Fudging by the definitions used in this thread, but, entirely understandable.

Let's be honest here, D&D is not a simple game. There's a ton of stuff that we misunderstand, flat out miss, or misread. It happens. I'm fairly confident in saying we've all done it. So, when it happens, there's a perfectly good reason for fudging a result.

Like I said earlier, fudging is a fairly nuclear option. It shouldn't be your go to, first option when things go a bit sideways. It should probably be only used as a last resort, presuming you're playing a game where the math of the game is fairly well thought out. But, it's just another tool in the box.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

A number of which people would have the same objection to as outright fudging. If its obvious you're deliberately underplaying the opposition that's better in what way? Same for parachuting in assistance. They're functionally indistinguishable; fixing the problem with main force. So, yeah, I'm kind of willing to lump most of those in with either B or C.

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.

You do realize I'm only suggesting this for an "In emergency, break glass" kind of way, right? If you're misjudging encounters regularly, its time to step back and reassess what you're doing.

 

[Xetheral]

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?

My response to @Charlaquin was intended to be limited to the idea that not wanting to discuss how the sausage is made during play does not inherently conflict with a desire for open and honest communication.

My personal preference is to have an open and honest discussion up front regarding playstyles (including how/whether fudging will be used) and communication preferences, with check-ins between sessions if/as necessary. I also enjoy after-game analysis if the DM wants to talk shop. What I prefer to avoid (when possible) is the DM stopping play during the session to have an open and honest conversation about mistakes and discussion of retcons--I'd rather they just fudge behind the scenes as seemlessly as possible.

To your broader point, when I DM I make it clear in a conversation up front that my style includes fudging (and an unusually large amount of on-the-fly content generation--indeed, the boundary between fudging and just-in-time authoring is very blurry at my table). So anyone who chooses to play is making an informed choice. In my mind that makes the broader controversy over fudging irrelevant to me: it doesn't matter that a large percentage of enworld posters would find my DMing method objectionable if the players at my table are fine with it. Accordingly, when I'm deciding whether or not to fudge in a given instance I don't think there's any purpose in giving weight to the fact that fudging is controversial in the general community.

(I'm also not confident that anything that can be done with fudging can be done without fudging, especially not post hoc.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

To your broader point, when I DM I make it clear in a conversation up front that my style includes fudging (and an unusually large amount of on-the-fly content generation--indeed, the boundary between fudging and just-in-time authoring is very blurry at my table).

Honestly, unless you draw a brightline about when fudging occurs (and some people very much do), it is everywhere.

 

[Lanefan]

Fair enough. And, I think that's the point that people are trying to make. There's a mistake that's been made at some point before the die roll.

Yes.

Somewhere along the line the DM messed up somehow.

Not necessarily, is my point. The players could just as easily have been the ones who messed up, by (for example) pushing on too far while weakened rather than bailing out for some rest; hence my posted example each way.

The DM didn't quite understand how a given monster works, for example (not an unreasonable mistake- there are a LOT of monsters) and suddenly finds that what was supposed to be a fairly low key, fun encounter, is now going to completely throw the game off rails and it's not going to be fun.

Like you said, if 6 werewolves is the random die roll for that 2nd level party that doesn't have any way to hurt the creatures, at that point, "carry on accordingly" might easily be "oh, I didn't roll that, let me roll (or pick) again" without telling the players. Fudging by the definitions used in this thread, but, entirely understandable.

Perhaps, though ideally it never got to this point in the first place: the DM, on seeing the mismatch on pre-reading the module, could (and probably should) have seen to it then.

Let's be honest here, D&D is not a simple game. There's a ton of stuff that we misunderstand, flat out miss, or misread. It happens. I'm fairly confident in saying we've all done it. So, when it happens, there's a perfectly good reason for fudging a result.

My own experience is that adventuring parties are incredibly resilient things, and that almost no matter what, some of them at least will find a way out of any situation. Thus, unless it's a clear error by the author (as in the Werefolf example) I'll let it run and see what happens.

Like I said earlier, fudging is a fairly nuclear option. It shouldn't be your go to, first option when things go a bit sideways. It should probably be only used as a last resort, presuming you're playing a game where the math of the game is fairly well thought out. But, it's just another tool in the box.

To some extent I agree; though I'm anti-fudging I can admit there'd be rare occasions when it could be the lesser of perhaps-numerous evils.

Doesn't square me with the "I fudge all the time" posters in here, though; and I still think the advice given in the 5e DMG is crap.

 

[Lanefan]

You do realize I'm only suggesting this for an "In emergency, break glass" kind of way, right?

That's just it: you and @Hussar and others see fudging as an "in emergency, break glass" last-ditch option while others, seemingly backed by the 5e DMG, see it as a basic tool in running the game.

As a player, I don't like it. As a DM, I try hard not to do it, and succeed a vast majority of the time.

If you're misjudging encounters regularly, its time to step back and reassess what you're doing.

Assuming such misjudgment is the only reason a DM is fudging, of course.

 

[Charlaquin]

Eh. I'm still not sold that standing up to extreme probability aberrations that you couldn't reasonably have foreseen is a virtue. Its one thing to avoid setting up a situation where a single roll or a couple rolls will lead to catastrophe, and another to look up and realize a whole string of them has done that. Ideally a system has other tools for dealing with those, but if it doesn't...

The possibility that an improbable string of extreme rolls can lead to unpredictable outcomes is part of the point of using dice though. You (and by you, I mean I) want some unpredictable stuff to happen. You just don’t want it to happen often. Dice accomplish that nicely.