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

[Mort]

That's just it: I can't trust a fudging DM to be either impartial or consistent in his fudging.

It occurs to me that the bit that keeps getting referenced here is in the DMG, meaning that technically it's not player-side info. Unless there's a corollary reference in the PH or some other player-side book, a player in theory has no way to know that fudging is allowed by RAW and thus has every reason to feel misled or distrustful when (not if) she notices it occurring.

It's also a bit weird to have the DMG literally say you can do it - but don't get caught doing it!

Frankly, considering the nature of the advice and the potential blowback - there needs to be A LOT more devoted to it than that. But that's one of my big complaints with the 5e DMG, it's REALLY tough for new DMs to get what they need out of it.

 

[iserith]

It's also a bit weird to have the DMG literally say you can do it - but don't get caught doing it!

Frankly, considering the nature of the advice and the potential blowback - there needs to be A LOT more devoted to it than that. But that's one of my big complaints with the 5e DMG, it's REALLY tough for new DMs to get what they need out of it.

To be fair, the DMG says it's a thing you can do if you're using a DM screen. That's far short of an endorsement of the practice and it is in the Table Rules section which isn't the rules of the game, but rather table rules for how the game is played (as it puts it). So it sits outside the actual rules of the game and advises DMs to set these expectations with players prior to the game so that everyone can have fun together.

 

[Monayuris]

Eh, that's getting pretty muddy, especially if the 'houserule' is part of the monster rules. The GM certainly is not obligated to tell the players the stats and rules of the monsters. I alter and homebrew the monster statblocks all the time, and I'm not usually telling the players. (Though recently I told them when they were struggling with certain monsters, that they were actually nerfed* from what the MM said.)

(* And good thing I had read the statblock carefully and done so.)

The supposition was in the context of having strict and formal cases where a DM will fudge a result.

The example given was monster crits and multi-attack, but there may be better examples.

In my opinion, If one has a strict policy to always fudge the results of a rule when a certain outcome occurs, that’s a de facto house rule.

If the DM is consistent with it, I wouldn’t call it fudging.

I suppose it’s fine that the house rule does not need to be explained… just like players don’t and shouldn’t know what a monster can do. But for situations where there is deviation from the expected outcomes of the rules, I think it’s good etiquette to make changes to the rules known.

Players make choices in the game (at the table and at character gen) based on their understanding of the rules.

 

[Mort]

To be fair, the DMG says it's a thing you can do if you're using a DM screen. That's far short of an endorsement of the practice and it is in the Table Rules section which isn't the rules of the game, but rather table rules for how the game is played (as it puts it). So it sits outside the actual rules of the game and advises DMs to set these expectations with players prior to the game so that everyone can have fun together.

Sure but:

1) For new players, it's not easy to see that distinction. It's in the DMG, It's listed as an option etc.; but more importantly

2) It's in the table rules section but it's essentially a "hidden" table rule, which is frankly confusing and also kind of absurd.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm actually quite curious about this.

Firstly from a definitional point: If there are strict rules then (known to the players or not) it's not really fudging - it's just application of a rule ie Adjudication. For ex. If the rule is (completely arbitrarily just for ex.) every time a d20 rolls a 11-12, I treat it as a 13 - well ok. I don't think that's fudging if it's a strict rule and it's simple adjudication of that rule!

But second, what warrants strict rules on changing the result? Is it something like: If a creature with multiple attacks rolls a crit, I only count 1 of the attacks as a crit?

Genuinely curious.

I only fudge under two very specific circumstances and then only to achieve very specific results.

1. In events of extreme luck. With the following requirements. If any requirement is not present, I will not fudge.

A) Extreme bad luck on the part of the players. Not just bad luck, but extreme bad luck. Events where the players are not rolling above single digits and are failing all or almost every saving throw.

B) Extreme good luck on my part. I'm not only hitting out the wazoo, but critting a bunch of times. Making all or almost all of my saves.

C) No mistakes or bad decisions on the part of the players. Regardless of luck, if they shouldn't be in the position they are in and made poor choices to get there, nothing gets fudged.

D) The party is very likely to or definitely going to TPK over the extreme luck through no fault of their own.

If all of those are present, I will specifically fudge only enough to give the PCs a fighting chance. I'm not going to fudge so that they win or have an advantage, and I never ever fudge to help my side of things. Once they have a fighting chance, even if the extreme luck continues no more fudging will happen. The party could still TPK or end up with deaths.

2. If I screw up the encounter difficulty. In the event that a badly misjudge an encounter and it goes into deadly territory, I will fudge it down to merely a hard encounter. I'm not going to kill or TPK a group over something I misjudged.

That's it.

 

[Maxperson]

To be fair, the DMG says it's a thing you can do if you're using a DM screen. That's far short of an endorsement of the practice and it is in the Table Rules section which isn't the rules of the game, but rather table rules for how the game is played (as it puts it). So it sits outside the actual rules of the game and advises DMs to set these expectations with players prior to the game so that everyone can have fun together.

They flat out recommend it as a table rule. That's a blatant endorsement. That the rule doesn't apply to tables where DMs don't use screens in no way diminishes it as endorsed for those who do.

 

[iserith]

They flat out recommend it as a table rule. That's a blatant endorsement. That the rule doesn't apply to tables where DMs don't use screens in no way diminishes it as endorsed for those who do.

There's no amount of words you can write that will convince me a plain reading of that section is a recommendation of anything other than figuring things out for your table and setting expectations. Everything else is just things to consider when deciding what those things to communicate will be. That includes using a DM screen which it says, if you do use a screen, you can fudge (but don't do it often). Not a recommendation in my book. Neither does it recommend you don't fudge.

 

[Mort]

Thanks for the detailed breakdown:

I only fudge under two very specific circumstances and then only to achieve very specific results.

1. In events of extreme luck. With the following requirements. If any requirement is not present, I will not fudge.

A) Extreme bad luck on the part of the players. Not just bad luck, but extreme bad luck. Events where the players are not rolling above single digits and are failing all or almost every saving throw.

B) Extreme good luck on my part. I'm not only hitting out the wazoo, but critting a bunch of times. Making all or almost all of my saves.

C) No mistakes or bad decisions on the part of the players. Regardless of luck, if they shouldn't be in the position they are in and made poor choices to get there, nothing gets fudged.

D) The party is very likely to or definitely going to TPK over the extreme luck through no fault of their own.

If all of those are present, I will specifically fudge only enough to give the PCs a fighting chance. I'm not going to fudge so that they win or have an advantage, and I never ever fudge to help my side of things. Once they have a fighting chance, even if the extreme luck continues no more fudging will happen. The party could still TPK or end up with deaths.

While this is technically fudging, I, personally, would look at it more like capping the dice. I also wouldn't have a problem with it. But would actually prefer it be states as a table rule - up front. That way, if we want a particularly deadly, swingy experience - we can choose to suspend it for the duration of that adventure/campaign etc.

2. If I screw up the encounter difficulty. In the event that a badly misjudge an encounter and it goes into deadly territory, I will fudge it down to merely a hard encounter. I'm not going to kill or TPK a group over something I misjudged.

That's it.

This I see more as recalibrating (even if it's on the fly), though again I guess it's technically fudging. Would have no issue with it - and this one doesn't even have to be up front (it kind of can't since it's usually a reaction at the table).

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I’m not really sure how those views are in contrast, but it is an interesting observation. I suspect both are connected to a preference towards skilled play vs narrative play, or vice-versa. The skilled play folks want the players free to use any and all information they have at their disposal, and place high importance on the authentic results of the dice rolls. The narrative play folks probably care a lot less about the “authenticity” of the dice and a lot more about faithfully portraying a character, down to trying to emulate the behavior of someone who lacks knowledge that the player does actually have.

There definitely are people in the ok/ok and bad/bad camps though. Dollars to doughnuts, @Lanefan is in the latter.

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.

Yes, I agree!

 

[Lanefan]

I’m not really sure how those views are in contrast, but it is an interesting observation. I suspect both are connected to a preference towards skilled play vs narrative play, or vice-versa. The skilled play folks want the players free to use any and all information they have at their disposal, and place high importance on the authentic results of the dice rolls. The narrative play folks probably care a lot less about the “authenticity” of the dice and a lot more about faithfully portraying a character, down to trying to emulate the behavior of someone who lacks knowledge that the player does actually have.

There definitely are people in the ok/ok and bad/bad camps though. Dollars to doughnuts, @Lanefan is in the latter.

I'm not sure I am, as I'm not sure if I'm reading your categories correctly.

I place high importance on the authentic results of the dice rolls. If you're not going to honour the result, why roll?
I also place high importance on faithfully portraying a character. "Do what the character would do" trumps pretty much everything else.

I'm anti-fudging, though perhaps not to the extreme degree of a few here: I can see rare - as in, maybe once every few years - cases where it fits.
I'm anti-metagaming, perhaps as strongly as anyone here.

Does any of that square with your categories?