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

[Charlaquin]

That's probably true. But as I've noted before, a lot of things don't get discussed that should at the start of campaigns because people take it as a given. This is especially true of GMs used to various kinds of game culture who hit people who have different ones.

Communication can be hard, who knew?

Well, see above. Contrary to some of the more hostile reactions in this thread, its often less actively trying to get one over on the players than just assuming "That's how things are done."

I have no doubt that this is true. Most DMs aren’t so hostile towards the players that they would be actively trying to trick them in this way; I think most fudgers simply assume “that’s just how it’s done” and accordingly don’t even consider it something that might warrant a session-zero discussion. I’m suggesting that we ought to work towards changing that.

Look, I’ll never convince people who fudge that what they’re doing is deceptive. What I hope I can impress upon people is that, regardless of whether you think it’s deceptive or not, there are a lot of players out there who will feel deceived if they learn you have been fudging. The solution to this is not to hide your fudging so the players who would feel this way never find out, but to talk about it to your players. Find out if they care about fudging and to what degree. Come to a mutual agreement about what is appropriate and what isn’t. You know, like we do with any contentious play preferences.

 

[LordEntrails]

Neither does fudging, as I proved. If I roll a 20 and your AC is 16, by RAW I can announce a miss and it is in fact a miss. No lie or deception there. The monster objectively missed and that miss was reported to you.

Whether you define it as a deception or lie is not particularly relevant. Even if they are wrong, if players define it as a deception or lie, or simple negative, then that is what matters. That is what will erode the health of the game.

Juuuuuuuast a bit of a False Equivalence there.

It's more like when my wife takes a candy bar from my son's Halloween bag and doesn't tell him. He's not going to know. It's nothing like a significant other cheating on you.

Some folks are pretty serious about there role playing, maybe more so than their relationships. Who am I to judge?

Two things, does it really matter if the person being deceived knows? Is it still wrong to deceive? Second, how do you not know they know? I now kids who count their Halloween candy and know exactly how many pieces of each they have

It's been nice rolling in the open online recently (just the rolls not the bonuses showing on rolldicewithfriends) because one player has made some (I think mostly in jest) snide remarks when I've managed to have a lucky string of rolls against their high ac.

"I can send you the link if you want to see all the rolls, they're sitting there for the whole night."

I haven't gotten any comments on how I tracked hit point totals or brought in reinforcements or not.

This goes to a point, even if a DM does not admit to fudging, players might think the DM is fudging. That thought goes to eroding the health of the game. Then doing things like Colville suggesting and compounding the lie is... well, since we are humans and not perfect, players are not always going to believe the evidence. And now the group has a bigger issue that is going to be harder to resolve. Trust.

Thanks for giving me a lot to think about for my next session 0!

Me too. I've been considering writing up this topic for presentation at my next session 0. Would be interesting to see what others come up with. A new thread perhaps?

After all, pro wresting is one of the most popular sports on TV and has been so for my entire lifetime

But is that saying much? A quick Google tells me the weekly viewership is single digit millions in the US. Compared to the 300 billion US population, that's less than 1%.

I mean, of all the things I've heard players complain about, fudging doesn't even crack the top 10. IME, no one really cares. We all know that the DM has his or her thumb on the scales from time to time. That's just part of DMing.

You're hearing about it in this thread. And as I've stated before, its the cause that has killed two campaigns I've played in. Just because you haven't knowingly experienced it, does not mean that it is not a problem at the community level.

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.

Lucky you. It's not unheard of to myself and others.

Because fudging by definition requires discretion to be effective.

Yes, but since humans are not perfect, discretion will not always be effective and therefore fudging will be detected, and by this definition, will fail.

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.

As said, other rule systems ave mechanics for similar things. A table playing 5E could just give the DM inspiration to use as desired. But, for trust to not be questioned, rolls need to be in the open so the use of the mechanic can be validated by everyone.

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.

See, I'm not the only one who has had this experience. For me, fudging is the second most common reason campaigns ave ended prematurely. First being people moving away (before VTTs) and second being fudging die rolls.

Regardless of your position on fudging, there's nothing dishonest about it.

Regardless of your definition of dishonesty, my morals and ethics indicate that changing the die roll is dishonest. I'm not lone in this. You should accept that others, including potentially one or more of your players, feel the same way.

Right. It's warning that the players might overreact and not understand what the fudging is for and react poorly to their misperception.

Or they might not agree with your justification for it and believe it is wrong bad and not fun. They are entitled to that view,just like you are to yours.

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

Yes, players do. You, just like the rest of us, are not perfect. Therefore fudging will be detected at some tables in some instances.

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

But it does! I've seen it happen twice. Two campaigns I've played in (as an adult) have died because of this very reason

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.

Trust eroded at your table is your problem. Do you want your campaign to end because of a misperception that can be avoided by being honest in Session 0?

This is false. If you trust the DM, you can trust him to be impartial, fudging or no.

DMs are human, therefore they are fallible, therefore they will make mistakes and not all fudging will be impartial.

Not if done fairly and impartially. I never fudge partially. It's done neutrally in all cases.

Well then you are not human
Or perhaps I am confusing definitions again :O

 

[Cadence]

I have no doubt that this is true. Most DMs aren’t so hostile towards the players that they would be actively trying to trick them in this way; I think most fudgers simply assume “that’s just how it’s done” and accordingly don’t even consider it something that might warrant a session-zero discussion. I’m suggesting that we ought to work towards changing that.

Look, I’ll never convince people who fudge that what they’re doing is deceptive. What I hope I can impress upon people is that, regardless of whether you think it’s deceptive or not, there are a lot of players out there who will feel deceived if they learn you have been fudging. The solution to this is not to hide your fudging so the players who would feel this way never find out, but to talk about it to your players. Find out if they care about fudging and to what degree. Come to a mutual agreement about what is appropriate and what isn’t. You know, like we do with any contentious play preferences.

I think it's interesting how several folks on here's views about character's using players knowledge in a metagame way (reading monster books, knowing the module, doing IRL things the character wouldn't know) contrasts with their views on DMs fudging die rolls (for combat, saves, and skill checks anyway) - there seem to be a lot of OK/Bad and Bad/Ok. I wonder how many OK/OK and Bad/Bad there.

Anyway, thinking about session 0 talks, I guess how either metagame knowledge use is not cared about or is thought of as something to minimize should also be in session 0.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is that also a problem with a lot of DM decisions? (How many back to back encounters to put in, how hard they are made to escape, what immunities the chosen creatures have vs. what items the players have, how the NPCs are set to react, how the monsters play to or against individual character's strengths and weaknesses, whether to ignore the roll on a random monster table or not, how difficult the random monster table was made, considering how much IRL experience some players have with situations vs. others, etc... )

Indeed, it is! But, in theory, the dice are supposed to be called upon in situations where it is desirable to avoid that bias. When an action could reasonably fail, could reasonably succeed, and has meaningful stakes. Granted, it comes down to DM judgment what qualifies as a reasonable chance of success and failure and meaningful stakes, and that’s one of the reasons it’s good policy to tell the players the DC and any stakes their character could reasonably anticipate, to insure that there is mutual understanding of what’s being risked. Regardless, there is an underlying principle that the outcomes of some actions shouldn’t be decided by the DM and those actions are the ones that dice rolls are typically called for to resolve. Fudging violates that principle by letting the DM decide the results of those actions too.

 

[Cadence]

Indeed, it is! But, in theory, the dice are supposed to be called upon in situations where it is desirable to avoid that bias. When an action could reasonably fail, could reasonably succeed, and has meaningful stakes. Granted, it comes down to DM judgment what qualifies as a reasonable chance of success and failure and meaningful stakes, and that’s one of the reasons it’s good policy to tell the players the DC and any stakes their character could reasonably anticipate, to insure that there is mutual understanding of what’s being risked. Regardless, there is an underlying principle that the outcomes of some actions shouldn’t be decided by the DM and those actions are the ones that dice rolls are typically called for to resolve. Fudging violates that principle by letting the DM decide the results of those actions too.

When I get time, I'm going to try to think about when I've fudged in the past and see if I can make a list of what they were. I wonder if they're tight enough that they could be a general rule that could be thought about ("having monsters auto-fail a second confirmed crit role in back to back rounds or against a downed character" or whatnot).

If there was a list of things like that, does that feel more like a rules modification than fudging if everyone knows in advance? (It feels less loose to me than deciding DCs and reinforcements on the fly, for example).

 

[Charlaquin]

True, but how important is unbiased adjudication, and is that necessarily a good thing? There’s a reason we play with other people.

It seems to me that DM bias much more significantly affects decisions about monster tactics, choice of targets, threshold for retreat or surrender, etc. Yet I wouldn’t want to randomize all that.

Edit: Cadence won initiative.

Yeah, I agree. To be clear, I don’t think it’s possible nor truly desireable to completely remove DM bias from the equation. 3e and 4e both tried to, and I think the greatest failings of both systems are a direct result of that. But, there are some actions which we don’t want the DM just deciding the outcome of. That’s why we use dice in the first place. If the DM can change the result of the dice rolls whenever they want without notice or permission, why are we even using dice? Just let the DM decide the outcome in all cases.

 

[Charlaquin]

When I get time, I'm going to try to think about when I've fudged in the past and see if I can make a list of what they were. I wonder if they're tight enough that they could be a general rule that could be thought about ("having monsters auto-fail a second confirmed crit role in back to back rounds or against a downed character" or whatnot).

If there was a list of things like that, does that feel more like a rules modification than fudging if everyone knows in advance? (It feels less loose to me than deciding DCs and reinforcements on the fly, for example).

I mean, theoretically if you could come up with such a list, you wouldn’t even need fudging. You could just have rules built into the game like “DM-controlled monsters and NPCs can’t critical hit twice in a row,” and “unconscious player characters can’t be critically hit.”

Personally, I don’t think these would be good rules. But at least if they were rules that were public player-facing knowledge, that would be an improvement over just letting the DM change the results of rolls whenever they feel like it without notice or permission.

 

[Maxperson]

Regardless of your definition of dishonesty, my morals and ethics indicate that changing the die roll is dishonest. I'm not lone in this. You should accept that others, including potentially one or more of your players, feel the same way.

Dishonesty is on the part of the doer, not the interpreter. A misinterpretation of my actions doesn't make them dishonest. The feelings are valid, but the interpretation is not. Since I am not engaging in a deception, there is not dishonesty going on.

The result of the roll is what I say it is, not what the game says it is. If I roll a 20 and simply announce a hit and not a crit, it was only ever a hit. At no point was it a crit that was changed to a hit. My announcement is completely honest.

DMs are human, therefore they are fallible, therefore they will make mistakes and not all fudging will be impartial.

Well then you are not human
Or perhaps I am confusing definitions again :O

I have strict rules on when I fudge and to what degree. They favor no player over another and never favor me. That's impartial.

 

[Charlaquin]

Two things, does it really matter if the person being deceived knows? Is it still wrong to deceive? Second, how do you not know they know? I now kids who count their Halloween candy and know exactly how many pieces of each they have

It’s wrong whether they find out or not. If it wasn’t, you wouldn’t have felt the need to hide it.

 

[Irlo]

Yeah, I agree. To be clear, I don’t think it’s possible nor truly desireable to completely remove DM bias from the equation. 3e and 4e both tried to, and I think the greatest failings of both systems are a direct result of that. But, there are some actions which we don’t want the DM just deciding the outcome of. That’s why we use dice in the first place. If the DM can change the result of the dice rolls whenever they want without notice or permission, why are we even using dice? Just let the DM decide the outcome in all cases.

I get what you’re saying. But for me the answer is easy. In 99.9% of cases, adhering to the results of dice rolls is a fun and rewarding experience.