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

[Lanefan]

I think I'd also like a DM who says they don't fudge to be clear what they mean (do they mean they also don't change random encounters, don't alter planned reinforcements, do they never update encounters once written or it is ok until the party gets there, etc...).

I'm really not so worried about any of that stuff provided it happens before - preferably well before - those encounters come into play. To me, that sort of thing is like changing the roster and-or batting order of a ball team a week or a day or an hour before the game starts.

If it happens after the encounter has entered play (analagous to making roster changes after the first pitch is thrown) then I have a problem with it. That said, as a player I just assume a DM wouldn't do this and thus would worry it'd be insulting to the DM to even ask about it in session 0.

 

[Hussar]

No. Because I endeavor to learn about this stuff in advance, or I play online, which (usually) forces rolls to be exclusively in the open. Mostly the latter. But I absolutely would do it, no question, if it happened in person. I'd honestly feel extremely betrayed and angry. That is why I speak so stridently here. I would not tolerate that stuff.

So, no. You've never done it nor have you ever seen it happen.

 

[Hussar]

If it happens after the encounter has entered play (analagous to making roster changes after the first pitch is thrown) then I have a problem with it. That said, as a player I just assume a DM wouldn't do this and thus would worry it'd be insulting to the DM to even ask about it in session 0.

Whereas me, I just assume that it does happen and wouldn't ask.

Dollars to donuts if you ask ten different tabletop DM's (VTT is a bit of a different beast) if they've fudged ever in their current campaign, I'd guess that probably the majority have. That's certainly been my experience.

Here's a pretty small sample size - but it does fit with what I said:

As a GM, How Often Do You Fudge Dice Rolls? about 75% have done it at least once in the past year or more.

and this poll from 2016 has almost the same results as this poll: D&D 5E - Do you want your DM to fudge?

Let's go back to 2010 Are you a fudging fudger? - almost 2/3's of DM's fudge.

2011 - almost 2/3rds of respondents say they fudge. To Fudge or not to Fudge...

Oh and this article from 2018 - Everybody Cheats? detailing a more comprehensive study that shows that almost 90% of DM's admitted to fudging die rolls.

I'd say that there's at least a significant chance that fudging is pretty common and generally a lot more acceptable than one might think given the reactions in this thread.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So, no. You've never done it nor have you ever seen it happen.

And that matters why? If I say I would do it, is that not enough? Is "this DOES bother me enough that I would do that" somehow insufficient to demonstrate that there are people willing to do that?

 

[Hussar]

And that matters why? If I say I would do it, is that not enough? Is "this DOES bother me enough that I would do that" somehow insufficient to demonstrate that there are people willing to do that?

It matters because I think you're making a lot more out of this than it needs to be. Since you've never actually had to do it, and never seen it done, I'm thinking that perhaps this isn't that much of a problem. Added to that, from what evidence we have, fudging is very common and done at probably more than half the tables out there. So, declaring that fudging means that you automatically leave the table, well, you might find that a bit of an issue if more than half the tables out there actually fudge.

Or, to put it another way, it's very, very likely you have already played at a table where the DM fudged and you never knew.

it's kind of like asking people if they've read 1984. Something like a 1/3rd of people who say yes are lying. Fudging is, by all accounts, quite common. If players refused to play at tables where the DM fudged, I think we'd hear about it quite a lot more.

 

[Hussar]

I'm trawling back through old threads on the site. Not a poll but we have this one here: Surviving low-level old school D&D
and this quote about how to survive low level old school D&D:

Everything from house rules to toughen up low-level PCs, to adjusting published adventures to include more resources and fewer hazards, to making sure the bad guys weren't too tough, to straight up fudging rolls at the table. I know there's a "PCs aren't special" school of thought with some DMs; I go the opposite way.

There are numerous other references to fudging.

There there is this thread: My DM just told me he fudges rolls.... where the DM has informed the player that he fudges dice and the player is quite unhappy. But, reading the first page of replies and numerous posters talk about how fudging is normal.

Heck, last month we had this article: In Praise of Dice and Andrew Peregrine has this to say:

In such articles, the conversation is about taking control of the story and making sure the results do the best thing for the adventure rather than accept a random result. It makes sense, and in many games I’ll ignore my dice (as a GM that is, for a player that’s called cheating) to work in the best interest of the story to get a more satisfying outcome for the players and the game.

But while I do agree with the odd fudging, I have to also council against it, and suggest your story may be a lot better because of the randomness so often eschewed by ardent story gamers. Quite simply, a random result will not only test your storytelling but also get you out of a rut.

Perfectly wise words.

So, again, I'm really not seeing this terrible sin that people are talking about. If fudging is as common as it seems to be, then well, it's probably not quite as bad as it's being made out to be.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Whereas me, I just assume that it does happen and wouldn't ask.

Dollars to donuts if you ask ten different tabletop DM's (VTT is a bit of a different beast) if they've fudged ever in their current campaign, I'd guess that probably the majority have. That's certainly been my experience.

Here's a pretty small sample size - but it does fit with what I said:

As a GM, How Often Do You Fudge Dice Rolls? about 75% have done it at least once in the past year or more.

and this poll from 2016 has almost the same results as this poll: D&D 5E - Do you want your DM to fudge?

Let's go back to 2010 Are you a fudging fudger? - almost 2/3's of DM's fudge.

2011 - almost 2/3rds of respondents say they fudge. To Fudge or not to Fudge...

Oh and this article from 2018 - Everybody Cheats? detailing a more comprehensive study that shows that almost 90% of DM's admitted to fudging die rolls.

I'd say that there's at least a significant chance that fudging is pretty common and generally a lot more acceptable than one might think given the reactions in this thread.

This demonstrates that it is done. It does not demonstrate that it is acceptable to players.

Consider, for example, the second poll indicates that more than 37% of players never want their DM to fudge. Which is even more than this thread would indicate! If that number were representative of games in general, then over 90% of groups would have at least one player opposed to fudging. That thread literally acts as evidence of exactly what I'm arguing: lots of DMs DO this, but they know that many groups have at least one person who would be very upset by it. If almost 2/3 of DMs fudge, but more than 1/3 of players dislike fudging, then it's extremely likely that LOTS of DMs fudge for players who are opposed to it.

The 2010 poll is even worse--66.7% (56 votes) of voters said "As a Player - I never Fudge and frown upon it at my table!" (and 25 voters, 29.8% of the total, said the same thing but "As a DM.")

The 2018 thread outright says, "Everybody cheats?" and even explicitly says, "Game masters have a phrase for cheating known as 'fudging' a roll." Oh, and several people who have participated in that thread are also participants in this thread, and openly called that article "absurd," so it would seem that people rejected that as a source back then--why would it become legitimate now? In fact, let's look at one particular user's comment:

One advantage of playing on a VTT is dice cheating becomes extremely rare. You can't really fudge dice when everything is 100% rolled in the open, there are logs saved of all die rolls and all dice are electronically generated. So, no, I'm not sure we can categorically say that everyone cheats. Over the years, it's become extremely rare that I'll change anything that was randomly generated at the table.

I find that the game works much, much better when this sort of thing gets left by the wayside.

You may find it interesting to know who wrote that--especially since they didn't draw a hard distinction between "cheating" and "fudging."

It matters because I think you're making a lot more out of this than it needs to be. Since you've never actually had to do it, and never seen it done, I'm thinking that perhaps this isn't that much of a problem. Added to that, from what evidence we have, fudging is very common and done at probably more than half the tables out there. So, declaring that fudging means that you automatically leave the table, well, you might find that a bit of an issue if more than half the tables out there actually fudge.

Or, to put it another way, it's very, very likely you have already played at a table where the DM fudged and you never knew.

it's kind of like asking people if they've read 1984. Something like a 1/3rd of people who say yes are lying. Fudging is, by all accounts, quite common. If players refused to play at tables where the DM fudged, I think we'd hear about it quite a lot more.

How is it better if DMs are good enough at their deceptions that they go undetected? Particularly if I tell them I don't like fudging and that it would upset me greatly if I found out about it?

Like...are you being for real, here? "You've almost certainly had a DM fudge rolls against you, you just didn't notice." THAT'S NOT BETTER.

(It's actually pretty unlikely that I have, though--for exactly the reasons from that 2018 quote above. I have very, very little in-person experience with TTRPGs. Almost all of my gaming has been online, mediated through Roll20, forums, Discord, Orokos. Digital records that can't be altered and that are made openly. No need to rely on whether the DM was being honest with me, I could look at the chat log and see it.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, no. You've never done it nor have you ever seen it happen.

Ok, this is a weird track, but I'll play. I 100% left a game where the GM fudged. Twice. One was a pretty clear example of doing so for a preferred outcome, the other more subtle but perhaps more widespread that was revealed in discussion between sessions. Wasn't interested, and taking time off from the girlfriend for gaming certainly wasn't worth it.

 

[TheSword]

EDIT: oh, and effectively telling me you think I'm a liar is really not acceptable.

Wow. I just...wow. Thank you, Sigmund Freud. So glad to know that my open repudiation (to the point of intentionally stepping back my rhetoric after generic mod admonition to the thread) is simply proof that I'm in denial—or worse, outright lying to everyone.

I certainly haven’t used loaded phrases like lying. Despite the suggestion that keeping things from players is lying. It’s a very perjorative thing to say.

My point was simply that we can’t know through a forum what is actually happening, irrespective of what anyone says. Because fudging by definition requires discretion to be effective. It’s like a reverse placebo.

I gave the example early it’s like that the polite fiction that smooths social interaction. “I hope you didn’t go to any trouble?”… “No, no trouble at all” when in fact you’ve been running round like a crazy person getting things ready.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i wonder how many people would feel differently if fudging was an actual established mechanic/rule rather than a sidenote? like 'the DM is officially allowed to substitute a dice roll for another number of their choice X times per session without telling you that this has happened'