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

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Ridiculous comparison is ridiculous. Let me turn this around on you. You don’t mind fudging, so clearly you shouldn’t care if my PC uses their Lucky feat to reroll any die they want, even if they are out of uses.

I should be able to use Shield on saving throws and ability checks!

 

[Irlo]

<snip>

Understood! The conversation has drifted.

A poster suggested that fudging DMs introduce bias into decision-making each time they decide to fudge dice or not. I suggested that DM bias is inherent in the game, in areas that are much more widely significiant than any individual die roll and asked the question, how important is unbiased action resolution in the game? I wouldn't want to randomize most DM decisions. Yes, the implementaton of those decisions is visible to the players. And yet, as a DM, I don't want players objecting to my decisions, making counter-proposals, and seeking redress for perceived wrongs because an orc attacked their wizard instead of the heavily-armored fighter. That seems adversarial to me. (I do expect and need players to remind me of spell effects and environmental conditions, because with a lot going on in the game I do lose track of some details. That's not adversarial. That's playing a game with other people.)

It's perfectly reasonable for you to expect your DM to adhere to die results, and it's reasonable for you to be concerned about being deceived. It's less important to me than to you, but it's usually important to me, too. I'm not arguing that point and I'm not suggesting you should embrace DM behavior that reduced your level of enjoyment of the game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Also I really don't buy 'but the tactics are visible' distinction. Tactics are, but not what lead to them. Players cannot really question such things, as as a GM I can always come up with some justification for them. "This one orc actually was a double-agent, and when it seemed that you were about to be killed she decided to blow her cover and switch sides in order to save you!" Was that always planned and just a natural result of events unfolding or did I just make that up to save your sorry asses? The players won't know!

 

[Maxperson]

At the end of the day, I just have acquired a bunch of players who just don't care about the board game that much like I don't... and who enjoy our sessions quite enough to never worry about who's lying to whom. Apparently enough others don't have that luxury and are stuck playing with DMs for whom being lied to is a genuine issue and problem and a detriment to the game. And I'm sorry to hear that.

I think being lied to is an issue for a lot of people, and I'm one of those. Fudging is not lying though, or even deception. Liking it or disliking it is fine. Painting the other side as bad guys who lie and deceive their players is not.

 

[Maxperson]

I do feel that some posters are overselling what the DMG actually says. The DMG basically presents multiple different options with multiple perspectives on several topics, and doesn’t really take a stand either way, so I don’t see this as an endorsement, just a “some people play this way”.

You can endorse multiple sides of something. I'm pretty sure you are referring to me with that "I do feel that some posters are overselling what the DMG actually says." I haven't been. I've said consistently that it endorses both fudging and deciding not to fudge, and that you can choose either one. Had I been arguing only one side, THEN I'd be overselling what the DMG actually says.

Otherwise, I don’t understand how other people are both playing with tons of die rolls and die rolls used sparingly, etc.

As I said, they are endorsing both as recommended rules. You don't have to pick a recommended option when you play. When I go to a restaurant and ask the waiter what is good, he will endorse around 3-5 options that are all different. Often a meat dish AND a vegan dish. He's endorsing those two opposing viewpoints. Afterwards, I will pick one of them or go with a third choice, just like you can with the table rules endorsed in the DMG.

 

[Maxperson]

The alternative of [rolls behind a screen, it's a successful spot, considers Bob's low hit point total, fudges] 'Uhh he doesn't find you' is such a pale shadow of that tension that I genuinely don't understand the appeal. Even if Bob then gets killed.

You do realize that almost nobody on the pro fudging side is suggesting that fudging be used that way, right?

 

[Maxperson]

This is the reason I personally don't fudge.

I get both. I get to be constantly surprised by the events of play AND I fudge under very specific, extremely rare circumstances.

 

[soviet]

You do realize that almost nobody on the pro fudging side is suggesting that fudging be used that way, right?

Really? I've seen several mentions of fudging to avoid dangerous encounters for reasons of pacing and possible PC death (werewolves) as well as for metagame concerns like Bob's player having a bad day or a string of other failures.

 

[soviet]

I get both. I get to be constantly surprised by the events of play AND I fudge under very specific, extremely rare circumstances.

You can't be surprised by things you decide.

 

[Maxperson]

You can't be surprised by things you decide.

And yet this is objectively true.

"I get both. I get to be constantly surprised by the events of play AND I fudge under very specific, extremely rare circumstances."