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

[Ovinomancer]

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'

I don't think that the problem with fudging is related to it being in the ruleset.

 

[Cadence]

I kind of want a big data collecting poll on metagaming things (using player knowledge, mechanics like fate points, mechanics like needing player permission for a death, knowing what's in the module) and fudging things (changing dice rarely in combat, changing them regularly, having reinforcements show up, adjusting hp before combat starts, adjusting before game session starts, etc ...), and then to build a big factor analytic model to test some theories.

I wonder if we could tease out some underlying things.

Is there one group where the issue is "not being able to stop thinking about it" (a little combat die fudging is bad in part because I'll worry every roll is fudged - and it's easy for a DM to just not do it; DM reinforcement fudging and player knowledge use metagaming is ok because it's hard to tell and if I worried about it I'd never do anything; other player side metagame stuff is an unrelated issue).

Is there another where the issue is getting in character. A little DM fudging isn't bad as long as I don't notice (so just covertly do it, don't ask me mid combat), metagame knowledge use isn't great if it's obvious that's what you're doing because it breaks immersion, and metagame player side mechanics are generally bad because they make me think about the game too much and not my character. [Leans more collaborative story side - but still definitely wants it to be a game].

And a third group that doesn't like the fudging because it is anti-game and reminds them of just hearing a story, but is ok with the player side metagame stuff because it doesn't break any immersion for them and gives them more say in where things go [leans more game side - but still definitely likes the collaborative story that shows up].

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't think that the problem with fudging is related to it being in the ruleset.

I'm aware some people take issue with the very concept of fudging but others i wonder if it's just a matter of it being a thing that a DM could theoretically be doing at any and every opportunity behind the screen, if it was more structuctured about when and where, how many times it could happen a game/session/against each player, would players be more comfortable knowing yes it happens, but it only happens to an established limited degree.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

You should be not at all surprised to know that I prefer people being honest with me about this sort of thing too--and I prefer to be honest with others about it as well. The challenge, of course, is that honesty of this kind requires a great deal of tact if you intend to give it, otherwise it can be genuinely, deeply hurtful to others in a way pretend elfgames generally can't. I have found that pursuing this kind of honesty with others, avoiding the "white lies" of socialization, has actually improved several of my relationships.

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'

Then I would openly repudiate that "rule" as an extremely bad move and would genuinely consider never playing D&D again, unless and until such rules were removed. I already dislike the fact that the 5e DMG says "...and don't let on that you're [fudging.] Otherwise, your players might think they don't face any real risks--or worse, that you're playing favorites." Meaning, even the books themselves advocate concealing this from your players. That's bad enough.

 

[FrozenNorth]

You seemed to be directing this rather more broadly, however, in your comments about "hard to believe examples".

One example was a random encounter of 6 werewolves against a 2nd-level party with no magic or silver weapons AND the DM had to run the encounter as a fight.

Another drops the DM in after the entire party is unconscious except for the paladin, who is down to single digit hit points and the last remaining enemy, who is also down to their last remaining hit points.

I could see why one could feel those examples were contrived.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I would. People keep talking like this is some unheard of thing.

It's certainly a new thing.

You are literally the first person I've every seen raise an objection and that was like only a year or two ago.

Before that, not fudging was just a piece of plausible deniability for killer DMs; the 'I'm just playing my character' of TPKs.

But that was before it became 'badwrongfuning' to malign railroads, so we may well have plunged beyond the event horizon into a realm of madness.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

"would"

Have you? Have you ever seen it?

So, yes, it is, as far as I know, an unheard of thing. The idea that the player would hold the game hostage because the DM put his thumb on the scales of a single die roll, when the DMG gives advice that tells the DM to DO EXACTLY THIS, isn't something I've ever seen before.

Like I said, I've seen players get shirty about all sorts of things. But fudging? Seriously? I've never met anyone who cared enough to worry about it. We all knew we all did it. Heck, my group had a standard joke of, "Umm, how many HP do you have left?" and then the monster dealing one less than whatever that number was. We all knew what it meant. We also knew that sidelining one player for the next hour while we resolved the current encounter, figured out the new character, rolled up said character, figured out how to bring that character into the game and then keep playing wasn't anywhere near as much fun as just ... not doing that.

So, yeah, this is an unheard of thing.

I've absolutely seen dice fudging, and it absolutely tanked the game. Not in that very moment, but later on us players talked about it, it was clear, it weirded us all out, and we steered away from playing that GM's game again, or, honestly, anything else he wanted to run. It was a real thing that essentially booted him out of the GM chair for good.

But also, we weren't playing D&D, so we didn't have what seems to me like a bit of a pedantic crutch, which is this business about the DMG telling you you can do this thing, but you really shouldn't, but if you must, but also maybe not so much. A pretty tough bit of RAW to hang any arguments on. Plenty of games are bursting at the seams with wishy-washy GM guidance. But also, if that section is so important, do you really think a DM who interprets that slippery language as "fudge any old time you want" would then start running a Traveler game, and, not finding similar fudging discussion, nod solemnly to themselves and say "Well this system clearly doesn't advocate fudging, so I will refrain!"

I don't think dice-fudging is about a sentence or two in the DMG. It's something you do or that you don't.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

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'

Some games have explicit mechanics for that. Like in Shadowrun some major NPCs might have Edge points (like PCs do) that they can use for rerolls or to stay alive despite a lethal injury. In 2d20 NPCs can routinely use Threat/Doom points to win an opposed test that would have been a tie.

Admittedly, I haven't seen a mechanic anywhere that gives the GM an explicit x-times-per-session-or-encounter tool to nudge a roll to keep a character alive, or to make someone feel better about rolling poorly three times in a row.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I don't like the 'then why are you hiding it?' argument.

To me it's like getting mad at wrestlers for kayfabe or a show using CGI. There's a piece of stagecraft everyone knows is happening (or at least should after 50 years) and people are getting mad that the thing that's always been there is there.

Except not everyone knows it’s happening, because as this thread makes clear, quite a few DMs do not fudge.

 

[Vaalingrade]

One of the starwars games has a pool of dice that the players can use to fix their rolls, but for every one they use, it turns into one the GM can use and vis-versa