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

[Thomas Shey]

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].

There's even some extra nuance here; I've got a player who has been pretty heavily immersive in her approach over the years, and can usually just sort of internalize a little metacurrency usage as part of the rest of the mechanical process without much disruption; the card play in TORG and its kin was a bridge waaay too far because of the minigame involved with it, and pulled her right out.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Note my example with the Damage Reduction, however. That actually happened. I just happened to notice before it became a problem (say after the fight had started), but it easily could have gone the other way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I've seen people object to fudging to one degree or another for forty years. Its usually about degree and application, but the fact someone would not want to see it at all has also come up before.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

I think this ignores that at least in the D&D-sphere it has a very, very long pedigree that will have been conveyed to most new GMs as an okay thing to one degree or another whether the books talked about it or not. And honestly not much less in other games of serious vintage.

(That said, as I noted, it also has a long pedigree of people having issues with it, so...)

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

See my post about M&M. While usually used to bolster bad rolls for NPCs, there's nothing that stops a GM from using Fiat to benefit a a PC (they just usually don't need to because the player can do it themself with their own hero points).

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Oh, I’m sorry. It doesn’t erode their trust in you because they didn’t find out. When you put it that way it doesn’t sound dishonest at all

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.

Unless you’re announcing the result of the roll as well as the outcome (i.e. “I rolled a total of 25. The orc misses” when the target’s AC is less than 25), it is at the very least misleading.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

I’m not tarring anyone. If you have discussed fudging with your players and they have agreed they are ok with you doing it, then there’s No dishonesty going on. I’ve said as much many times.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

~stares in awe at the irony~

I haven’t dismissed anyone’s preferences. I fully recognize that some folks prefer fudging, even if I don’t understand why. And as long as everyone is on the same page and consents to it, they can have at it as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, I’m sorry. It doesn’t erode their trust in you because they didn’t find out. When you put it that way it doesn’t sound dishonest at all

It was an answer to your question. It's not my fault if people misperceive what fudging is. Trust eroded over a misperception isn't my doing.

Unless you’re announcing the result of the roll as well as the outcome (i.e. “I rolled a total of 25. The orc misses” when the target’s AC is less than 25), it is at the very least misleading.

It's not even that. The roll is what I want it to be. The rules serve me, not the other way around.

 

[Maxperson]

I’m not tarring anyone. If you have discussed fudging with your players and they have agreed they are ok with you doing it, then there’s No dishonesty going on. I’ve said as much many times.

There's no dishonesty going on period. Discuss. Don't discuss. No dishonesty.