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

[Hussar]

Fudging is not defined as changing a die roll, and a reroll is not defined as changing a die roll. A reroll is a mechanic that allows you to replace a die roll, but you still have to roll the die and take the result! Fudging is the GM choosing the result of the die roll and replacing it. There's actually a huge difference here -- choosing the outcome vs risking the outcome. Your claim is deeply flawed.

Again, this has nothing to do with liking or disliking fudging -- this is just honesty about what's actually happening in the face of you trying to cast fudging as something different from what it is.

Wait, back up. Stop. This is important.

Throughout this thread, fudging has been defined as changing a die roll (or changing an established number).

Note, Shield requires no actual die rolls. You simply change the number. I declare, after a die is rolled, that that die roll is no longer sufficient to affect that character. IOW, I change the established AC of a target, and only do so AFTER the roll of the dice. And I'm pretty sure, dollars to donuts, that Shield spells get cast FAR more often than a DM changes the result of a die roll.

I'm casting fudging as a nuclear option that probably shouldn't be used except in very, very limited circumstances. You're characterizing a .1% occurrence as completely ruining the game for you, and several people have claimed that they would find such an event so distressing that they would leave the group over it.

If changing one die roll in a thousand is enough for you to completely lose faith in your DM and be so upset that you would rather not play in that game than accept the DM's judgement in that specific situation, then, well, I'm rather glad I have never played at any table that has ever seen that kind of player.

I mean, I take a lot of flak for being critical of DM's but holy cow. Even I'M not that demanding. There are perfectly legitimate times when a bit of fudging is far preferable to letting the dice fall where they may. Instead of grinding the game to a halt and telling Dave that he has to sit and watch everyone else play for the next hour or two until we can get him back into the game, maybe that orc didn't roll that crit and Dave survives the attack. Maybe that attack did one less point of damage, resulting in Dave being knocked down but not instantly killed.

And frankly, this whole thing is just bizarre to me. There are a thousand other metagame, fudging adjacent things I can to to get outcomes that I want. I'm the DM. That is entirely in my power to do so and I'm ENCOURAGED to do so.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ooooooor...you don't make an illusion of fake danger, and instead keep the danger grounded in consequences that could actually happen. Which is what I do. My players know I won't kill off their characters forever (and, in exchange, they have promised not to abuse that situation to behave irrationally) unless that's the story they wish to tell. Instead, I have built a world with things the players care about, stuff that they're excited about, NPCs they enjoy interacting with, opponents they love to hate. Stuff that would harm or threaten those things, people, principles, etc. is so much more meaningful to them, because they know, truly for certain, that I won't hold back if something goes wrong. By giving away the illusion of dangers that would not be interesting or entertaining, I have made the (fictive) reality of dangers that are so.

I can play with my proverbial cards face up.

Yes, you can do that. But your game the players do not have the suspense of not knowing whether their characters will die in a given battle; they know that they don't. And that's fine, but not how everybody likes it.

Charlaquin has it covered:

My words will do no better.

And I answered to Charlaquin in a different post.

Being a player by necessity contains a pretty massive amount of metalevel thinking too. Especially if you're even passingly familiar with the MM. You almost inherently have meta knowledge, but only the player is super duper ultra frowned upon for altering their behavior purely for meta reasons. That's what I'm opposed to.

It's not that whether you have meta knowledge, GMing by necessity runs on meta knowledge. It is not at all comparable.

 

[Mort]

Wait, back up. Stop. This is important.

Throughout this thread, fudging has been defined as changing a die roll (or changing an established number).

That's incomplete in a VERY important way:

Throughout this thread fudging had been defined as changing the die roll without telling the players or even admitting you are doing so.

That is a VERY material distinction!

Note, Shield requires no actual die rolls. You simply change the number. I declare, after a die is rolled, that that die roll is no longer sufficient to affect that character. IOW, I change the established AC of a target, and only do so AFTER the roll of the dice. And I'm pretty sure, dollars to donuts, that Shield spells get cast FAR more often than a DM changes the result of a die roll.

But this is told to the players and 100% within an existing rules framework (not just rule 0 or DMs perogative). Completely different from secretly replacing the number with ANY number you want.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So, the entire issue isn't changing the die rolls. The ONLY issue is that the DM isn't telling the players.

In other words, there is nothing inherently wrong with fudging. Just with not telling the players that you do it. Which, frankly, is simply your personal preference and not really any sort of objective standard.

"I don't like it when DM's hide fudging" is a VERY different statement from "Fudging is lying to the players and must never, ever be done".

I mean, I have been extremely clear, over and over, across every discussion here, that it is the active concealment, the intent that the players should not even in principle be able to discover it, that is the issue.

I have said, repeatedly, even from the very beginning of these threads, that changing or ignoring(/"replacing," as Ovinomancer put it) a die roll (for resolving a contested situation) or creature statistics (when it has entered play) openly is fine. Or that doing so diegetically is fine. Or that secretly doing so when it isn't a roll that resolves something, e.g. when rolling up a random magic item, is fine. All of those situations involve, as I have repeatedly said, the possibility that the player can learn about it and respond. They might fail to capitalize on that potential, or they might choose to do other things instead. But the potential is there. It is not there for fudging.

If you're going to take me and others to task over this, dude, you should have done so thirty pages ago. We've been entirely clear about this.

"I would recommend either" seems common with videos, classes, and menu items at restaurants, even when the viewer can only watch one, the student can only take one, and the diner can only eat one. Maybe they will pick the other later.

"I recommend either choice A, or (totally distinct) choice B," is not at all the same as, "I recommend choice A and avoiding choice A," which is likewise not at all the same as, "I recommend either choice A, or avoiding choice A." The first is the presentation of two choices that are mutually exclusive, but which are not logical antitheses of each other. The second is a contradiction, "A and not-A," while the third is a tautology, "A or not-A." It is perfectly reasonable to recommend two particular choices out of a varied set of possible options, as with your examples. It is not reasonable to recommend that someone both (for example) eat a dish and not eat that dish, because one cannot do both actions, and it is rather pointless to recommend that someone do A or avoid doing A, since that doesn't tell them anything they didn't already know. "You should either watch a movie, or not watch a movie" is not exactly useful recommendation, I think you would agree?

And the recommendation also came with details about how to do it (like don't let on), right?

This, however, you are correct on. But that, again, changes the logical nature of the claim. "You should either do A with these restrictions, or avoid A." That's not "A or not-A," it's "(A and B), or not-A." That is, the statement could be condensed to, "You should not do A unless you also do B," which averts becoming a triviality. It would still be a contradiction, though, to recommend avoiding A, and also doing A so long as you also do B. That is, "(A and B) and not-A" is exactly the same as "(A and not-A) and B," because "and" associates. That is, just like addition, (A+B)+C = A+(B+C).

And, just to add something here.

If you absolutely hate fudging, how do you feel about reroll mechanics? I mean, 5e has lots of reroll mechanics built into the system. And, honestly, I use a lot of other systems as reroll - a defensive fighter's disadvantage trick is a reroll at our table so that it doesn't get wasted for example.

What's the difference between fudging and a reroll mechanic?

Is a Shield spell fudging or not? After all, you absolutely are changing the numbers AFTER the die is rolled. You don't cast Shield before the attack roll is rolled. It's 100% mechanically sanctioned fudging.

So, what's the difference?

They're all in the open, and (presumably) diegetic. Being either in-the-open or diegetic is an absolute defense against any of my criticisms, as I have said repeatedly. I have also, over the course of this thread, allowed for another absolute defense: that the relevant things being changed have not actually entered play yet. E.g., a creature that has not yet acted nor been acted upon by any of the PCs while in combat, or an NPC that has not yet spoken/acted (whichever is relevant), nor been spoken to/acted upon (ditto) while in a non-combat scene, e.g. social or exploration.

Concealment alone is not enough to indicate fudging, since there are plenty of things concealed from players, such as maps, or the BBEG's plans (both of which are diegetic). Not being diegetic is not enough to indicate fudging, because something like "calling" a fight is usually non-diegetic but perfectly acceptable due to being in the open (though being diegetic is usually worth pursuing for other reasons.) The values having already entered play is not enough to indicate fudging, since I have explicitly given examples of stuff I've done which change those things, such as leveraging an established connection between summoned shadows and life-force to allow a creature to diegetically respond to player tactics (in this case, going nova on the big, bad shadow and ignoring the smaller but overall more dangerous secondary shadows) in a way that lowered the overall combat difficulty and changed the stakes.

It is only when it is concealed from the players, AND being non-diegetic (since if it's diegetic, it must at least in principle be discoverable by the characters), AND affecting things already entered into the play-space. If even one of these factors is missing, it isn't fudging. The act in question might still have problem cases or have some kind of plausible issue, but I'm not all that concerned with that, as that's a huge minefield of grey areas and interpretation.

To be really, fully clear, since this has evidently gotten lost, in order to be "fudging" as I (and it would seem others here) have defined it, the DM's action must be ALL of:

1. Concealed from the players,
2. Non-diegetic, and
3. Modifying values already present in the active play space.

If even a single one of these conditions is not met, then whatever one might call that particular DM action, it is not what I define as "fudging."

 

[Maxperson]

Not at all. To use the oh-so-commonly invoked example: does not the magician performing a card trick conceal how the trick works from the audience purely by not telling them how the trick works?

You're comparing apples and oranges again. A sleight of hand magician's job is to fool the audience with his tricks. What he is doing is not even remotely close to what I am doing when I fudge the die. I am not doing anything that is fooling anyone, by design or otherwise.

See above. Those things are concealed but learnable. Fudging, by definition and by explicit request from most people who DO tolerate/like it, is not learnable. And that is where the active part comes into play. You must do it, and yet prevent the player from knowing that you do it: for those who like it, you do so because they (almost always) want you to conceal it; for those who dislike it, because you know it will upset them if they find out. Either way, actively working to ensure players cannot learn about it.

All they would have to do is ask. It's absolutely learnable. I'm just not actively volunteering that I do it, which is not the same as concealing it. I am not going out of my way to conceal it, either. It just happens to be done behind the screen like everything else I do.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Wait, back up. Stop. This is important.

Throughout this thread, fudging has been defined as changing a die roll (or changing an established number).

No, it's be defined as the GM choosing the result. That this also changes the result is a necessary but insufficient part of the difference.

We can trivially deal with this by asking if when you fudge, do you randomly change the result on the die and go with the new one, or are you selecting a result to provide a specific outcome?

Note, Shield requires no actual die rolls. You simply change the number. I declare, after a die is rolled, that that die roll is no longer sufficient to affect that character. IOW, I change the established AC of a target, and only do so AFTER the roll of the dice. And I'm pretty sure, dollars to donuts, that Shield spells get cast FAR more often than a DM changes the result of a die roll.

You change the target number, not the die roll, another point against your claim of similarity.

I'm casting fudging as a nuclear option that probably shouldn't be used except in very, very limited circumstances. You're characterizing a .1% occurrence as completely ruining the game for you, and several people have claimed that they would find such an event so distressing that they would leave the group over it.

Okay, are you calling the people that have said this liars? I mean, odd choice. Let's say that I'm terrified of spiders, and have made my fear of spiders clear, and the GM, on a 1 in a million option, brings out spiders, am I now weird because the incidence of occurrence in other games is very low but since it happens here I'm disturbed? You're making a bad argument -- if fudging happens in the game I'm in it doesn't matter how often it might occur elsewhere, the odds it happened here are 1.

If changing one die roll in a thousand is enough for you to completely lose faith in your DM and be so upset that you would rather not play in that game than accept the DM's judgement in that specific situation, then, well, I'm rather glad I have never played at any table that has ever seen that kind of player.

I'm much more concerned with the lack of trust the GM is placing in me by deciding that they know better than me and that they need to hide this from me. That's a lack of respect towards me, and it becomes something that's absolutely not about choosing the outcome (which is what we're talking about, the changing a die roll is a sophistic trick) but about the lack of respect and trust. Again, rerolling isn't the same thing because it's a clearly defined and open mechanism that still has a chance for failure/success rather than the GM just deciding what happens after pretending it's up for grabs.

I mean, I take a lot of flak for being critical of DM's but holy cow. Even I'M not that demanding. There are perfectly legitimate times when a bit of fudging is far preferable to letting the dice fall where they may. Instead of grinding the game to a halt and telling Dave that he has to sit and watch everyone else play for the next hour or two until we can get him back into the game, maybe that orc didn't roll that crit and Dave survives the attack. Maybe that attack did one less point of damage, resulting in Dave being knocked down but not instantly killed.

I don't think not fudging is a particularly onerous ask. There's a clear statement that players shouldn't be fudging (see adjacent thread) and players make due all the time. It's not exactly a hard ask.

If you're playing with people that don't care, then they don't care, but don't demand that because you have the best intentions that everyone should be good with it as a matter of course and that expecting play to not be about the GM fudging, even occasionally, is a particularly onerous ask that makes GMing harder. I don't fudge, and I used to, and I haven't noticed my level of effort become more at all -- if anything, it's easier.

And frankly, this whole thing is just bizarre to me. There are a thousand other metagame, fudging adjacent things I can to to get outcomes that I want. I'm the DM. That is entirely in my power to do so and I'm ENCOURAGED to do so.

Sure, it's bizarre to me the odd logic you're applying here rather than just accepting that it's a legitimate thing that people have different likes. I don't care if you fudge, unless I'm in your game. If I'm in your game, then we either need to reach an agreement or we shouldn't play. Hiding these kinds of choices from me for what you think is my own good is something I'm absolutely going to consider to be patronizing and infantilizing towards me in a way that, if I find out, I'll absolutely be unhappy about. There are contexts where my unhappiness might not be sufficient for me to leave the game, and contexts where it will be plenty sufficient. A short run with friends in a game I'm not particularly invested in would be an example I wouldn't care very much. A game I am invested in, or a longer run, and I will. Not worth my time.

 

[LordEntrails]

While you're not wrong, that gets back to the whole communication thing; you can only avoid problems you know, and at some point if someone has enough tripwires, avoiding them all can be more trouble than its worth (this does not say the one specifically at hand is "too many", though depending on other people's game culture, it can add up to that).

Isn't this why the idea of bringing this up in session 0 has been presented repeatedly?

 

[LordEntrails]

What's the difference between fudging and a reroll mechanic?

That's simple. Many of the proponents of fudging say it should be done secretly, without the players' knowledge. Reroll is not only prescribed under exact situations, it is also done in the open.

 

[Irlo]

I think the difference is that those tactics, thresholds, etc. are visible to the players. Meaning, if they aren't satisfied they're plausible or fair, they can make that objection known, or ask why something happened and maybe try to present a counter proposal. A dice roll fudged behind a screen offers none of those opportunities for redress.

I have very different gaming experiences than some of you. My players wouldn't grill me over monsters motivations even if I made a stupid move and I wouldn't press my DM for explanations, let alone redress. I completely understand that all tables are different. I'm just a frequently taken aback by how adversarial things appear to be.

There's nothing adversarial about this? I'm confused as to why you would see it as such. Just as DMs ask players to explain how or why something makes sense, don't players do exactly the same thing with DMs? For example, the majority of the time if my players have an idea, I run with it, but sometimes something hitches and I'm not seeing how or why it works, so I ask them to "sell me on it." I likewise welcome, even expect my players to question anything I do that doesn't make sense to them. Addressing the times and places where that happens is how we keep everyone on the same page.

I may have misread the intent of soviet's post. Very likely, even. But it seems to me that if a player is seeking redress, they're trying to correct a wrong. If they don't think a monster's action is fair, they object and counter it with an alternative. How does that work at a table? Hey, DM. I noticed the orc didn't surrender even though half its comrades are dead. It seems more fair to me that it would drop its weapon and surrender now. That seems adversarial. If it's not, no problem, I'll withdraw my statement. But do players in your games really provide counter-proposals for monster's actions that they don't think are fair? As a DM, that behavior would definitely throw me off. It takes up most of my bandwidth to keep track of everything going on without players second-guessing me and challenging the little stuff. It doesn't happen to me.

If it's all amiable discussion, good and great. No problem.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Isn't this why the idea of bringing this up in session 0 has been presented repeatedly?

Yup. And thus "the whole communication thing".