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

[Charlaquin]

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:



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:



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.

That’s just argument as populum. Just because it’s common doesn’t mean it isn’t bad.

 

[Charlaquin]

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’d it had a limited number of uses, I would be more comfortable with it, because then it’s a resource the DM spends to achieve a specific effect, little different than Legendary Resistance. Of course, I think it would be kind of a poorly designed mechanic, because it has a limited number of uses but the number of uses expended is hidden from all but the person who’s using it. If they had to announce they were using it, you’d have a perfectly serviceable mechanic (again, pretty much just an all-purpose Legendary Resistance).

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Was it actually just plausible deniability for killer DMs, or is that just how you dismissed the play preferences people who genuinely didn’t like fudging?

 

[Charlaquin]

But do they call the wrestlers and CG artists dishonest to justify that preference?

No, and I’ve already gone over why this is a weak analogy.

 

[Charlaquin]

They have no way of knowing that you're fudging from time to time.

So it’s ok because they don’t find out.

How is this not textbook dishonesty?

 

[Maxperson]

So it’s ok because they don’t find out.

I didn't say that. I answered your question on how it wouldn't erode trust.

How is this not textbook dishonesty?

Because there is no lie or deception going on. When the DM fudges a roll from a crit to a hit, there was never a crit, so when he announces a hit, that's all it ever was. No lie. No deception.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

To be fair, its a bit much to complain that someone is overstating a situation they actively take precautions to make not happen.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No, and I’ve already gone over why this is a weak analogy.

And I've gone over why it is unnecessary to tar people who fudge as 'dishonest' and yet here we are.

 

[Vaalingrade]

or is that just how you dismissed the play preferences people who genuinely didn’t like fudging?

~Looks at the entirety of this thread and its purpose~

~stares in awe at the irony~

 

[Thomas Shey]

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'

If folks don't mind a bit of a digression on this, something I've experienced that may have some bearing.

The superhero game Mutants and Masterminds has a heavily integrated metacurrency in it (hero points). This is a virtual necessity because while its derived from 3e era D&D (while having drifted considerably, since it has no character classes, and levels serve an entirely different function) it uses "damage saves" rather than hit points as a default model, so its even more vulnerable to high impact swings from the D20.

Prior to its second edition, it also had "villain points" which were essentially the same thing as hero points but that the GM used. As of second edition this was discarded, but replaced with "GM Fiat", which uses mostly the same mechanic, but the GM has an unlimited supply of (there's some passive counterbenefit, since any use of GM Fiat gives someone another hero point).
[I may be slightly confusing time frame or terminology, since its been some time since this occurred and I used the game now.]

The fact that these had so much (necessary) impact on opponent's ability to stay up produced a phenomenon I referred to in a post on the Green Ronin forums back when they were still a thing as "Has the GM Decided We Win Yet?" It could seriously impact how meaningful what you were doing felt, because the GM could (and there was no solid guidance not to, other than his sense of appropriate pacing) keep shovelling Fiats out all day, and hero points/Fiats were stronger on the whole on defense than offense because of how they worked. That lead us locally to develop and announce more finite schemes, because then the players knew that at some point your supply of Fiats would be exhausted, so they were at least making progress.