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

[Charlaquin]

Absolutely. Don't think I've said to the contrary. But the question was "How can people want open and honest communication and still want fudging to be hidden?" The answer is "The want the former in the framing and set up, but don't want it in the heat of the moment because they find it disruptive."

If the DM actually brings it up in session 0 (again, something I have never actually seen happen) and everyone agrees to it, it’s not exactly hidden. Individual instances may be, but everyone knows it can and will happen, so I don’t think that’s deceptive. Why any player would want to play with that knowledge is beyond me, but if they want to, that’s their choice.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I consider fudging to be one of the most anti-player things a DM can do. Once I know a DM is fudging, I can never trust that the results are fair. Did that monster crit because the DM rolled a natural 20, or because they thought it would make the fight more dramatic? Did that monster miss because my AC is higher than its attack roll, or because I’m at low HP and the DM is worried I might feel bad if I die? When/if my character does die, I’ll be wondering why they didn’t decide to fudge things to save them. It completely erodes any sense that the game has objective rules. It’s all just whatever they think will make “the best story” or whatever criteria they use. No, thanks.

People often make a big deal of how players need to "trust" their DM.

Fudging is a direct signal that I cannot trust the DM. That the DM is willing to outright lie to me if and when it suits them. It does not matter that they pinky-swear to never do so inappropriately. It does not matter if they succeed at never doing so inappropriately. The trust has been lost.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's great.

I don't.

And that's where the story ends. No need for slinging insults and accusations.

I have slung no insults or accusations.

 

[Cadence]

People often make a big deal of how players need to "trust" their DM.

Fudging is a direct signal that I cannot trust the DM. That the DM is willing to outright lie to me if and when it suits them. It does not matter that they pinky-swear to never do so inappropriately. It does not matter if they succeed at never doing so inappropriately. The trust has been lost.

The rules give the DM the power to fudge, so calling it a lie (unless the DM said they wouldn't and does it anyway) doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to insult the folks who disagree with you on the issue.

 

[Maxperson]

That’s not how attack rolls work…

That's how the rules work. The rules serve the DM, not the other way around. This is such an important idea to 5e, they they repeated it a half dozen times in various sections across the DMG.

When I roll a 20 for an attack, I am under no obligation from anything in either the PHB or DMG to accept that number. None. It isn't a crit, hit or miss until I announce it. If I announce it as a crit, that's what it always was. If I announce it as a hit, that's what it always was. If I announce it as a miss, that's what it always was. There's no lie or deception involved, since I'm truthfully announcing the result of that roll.

 

[Cadence]

There's no lie or deception involved, since I'm truthfully announcing the result of that roll.

It doesn't feel like you're announcing the results of the roll... since you literally changed it to what wasn't rolled. Now, saying it was the result of the check or attack or whatnot would seem different to me.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I have slung no insults or accusations.

'disrespectful' and 'dishonest' are insults and accusations.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The rules give the DM the power to fudge, so calling it a lie (unless the DM said they wouldn't and does it anyway) doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to insult the folks who disagree with you on the issue.

I am very specifically referring to people like Matt Colville, via a video that launched a thousand threads at this point, who expressly do this.

In that video about fudging, he explicitly says that he will not only deny that he fudges if challenged, he will actively take steps to back up his denial with fake, pre-rolled dice specifically so that if his players challenge him, he can lift the DM's screen and point to the die as evidence.

Is that not him admitting to lying?

 

[Charlaquin]

The rules give the DM the power to fudge, so calling it a lie (unless the DM said they wouldn't and does it anyway) doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to insult the folks who disagree with you on the issue.

I think it’s probably better to understand people calling it a lie as an expression of how they feel about how a DM who does it is treating them, rather than as an accusation targeted at anyone in particular. Maybe DMs who fudge don’t think they’re lying to their players, but if you do fudge, I think it’s best to understand that a sizable portion of players will feel like they have been lied to, should they find out. And if you try to prevent them from finding out, in order to avoid making them feel that way… Aren’t you kind of proving them right?

For this reason, I strongly believe any DM who intends to engage in dice fudging should clear it with their players in session zero. If everyone is onboard, great, fudge away. If anyone isn’t on board… Wouldn’t you rather know that ahead of time?

 

[Cadence]

I am very specifically referring to people like Matt Colville, via a video that launched a thousand threads at this point, who expressly do this.

In that video about fudging, he explicitly says that he will not only deny that he fudges if challenged, he will actively take steps to back up his denial with fake, pre-rolled dice specifically so that if his players challenge him, he can lift the DM's screen and point to the die as evidence.

Is that not him admitting to lying?

I didn't get that from your post. That does certainly seem to fit the word!