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

[Maxperson]

I bet a lot of folks haven't formalized their fudge-decision making as much as you have, and so have a lot more circumstances that might require thought. (Sheepish look).

Even so you probably have some sort of parameters, even if you haven't formalized them. They're just probably fuzzy around the edges. I'm sure you aren't walking around fudging everything you have an urge to change.

 

[Monayuris]

The dice are just a tool. Something the DM can use to drive game play. Many times dice are needed... it would be impossible to game out a combat with fantastic creatures without them ( at a certain point the capabilities of magical creatures would exceed our ability to contextualize and we would need the abstraction of the dice). Other times they aren't or they result in an outcome that is undesirable.

The DM can and should be able to make that kind of call. Its part of being a DM to use discretion when to use / not use dice and when to follow or not follow the results of the dice.

But the DM needs to be neutral and consistent and cognizant of player agency at all times. My issue with fudging comes when a DM uses their discretion to force their preferred outcome that goes against the expectations and understanding of the players and without their knowledge. When they change things behind the scenes in ways that invalidate the decisions I make as a player.

 

[soviet]

This is an incorrect statement. It falsely assumes that there are going to be circumstances outside of rigidly set up parameters where fudging might happen.

No I'm saying the opposite. If you only fudge when a PC would die otherwise, then you decide when PCs live or die. But if you would never fudge eg on skill checks (barring skill checks that could kill PCs, I guess) then I accept that you are not deciding those rolls.

 

[Maxperson]

No I'm saying the opposite. If you only fudge when a PC would die otherwise, then you decide when PCs live or die. But if you would never fudge eg on skill checks (barring skill checks that could kill PCs, I guess) then I accept that you are not deciding those rolls.

Here's the thing. If we have set up when we will fudge and when we won't, it doesn't extend beyond that. I posted a few pages back the specific circumstance where I would fudge. Anything beyond those doesn't involve me making decisions when a PC will live or die. Every other life or death situation doesn't suddenly become a possible fudge moment like you are making it out to be.

Most of the people who are pro fudging have posted circumstances where they will fudge. While they may not be as defined as mine, they still involve parameters that don't involve all possible death situations, so the death situations outside of those parameters don't involve the decision making you are mentioning.

 

[soviet]

Here's the thing. If we have set up when we will fudge and when we won't, it doesn't extend beyond that. I posted a few pages back the specific circumstance where I would fudge. Anything beyond those doesn't involve me making decisions when a PC will live or die. Every other life or death situation doesn't suddenly become a possible fudge moment like you are making it out to be.

Most of the people who are pro fudging have posted circumstances where they will fudge. While they may not be as defined as mine, they still involve parameters that don't involve all possible death situations, so the death situations outside of those parameters don't involve the decision making you are mentioning.

Fair enough.

 

[jgsugden]

My major observation surrounding fudging is that when it happens, the DM is playing with themself more than with their players.

What I mean by this is that DMs that fudge tend to do so in order to make things follow a plan. That plan may be specific, such as a tight railroad story, or it may be general such as 'it would be bad for the story for a PC to die right now, so I'll pretend that max damage crit did not take place'.

When fudging takes place, it ends up shifting control of the game. Under the RAW with no fudging, the game is directed by the designs of the DM, the choices of the players, and the luck of the dice. Fudging shifts control of the game out of the decisions of the players (by reducing the impact of their decisions) and out of the impact of luck. This puts more control in the unilateral control of the DM - and that ends up as the DM playing with themself.

I have firm rules for fudging as it relates to the two types of fudging I recognize: Changing mechanics and changing die rolls.

1.) Once the players encounter something, it is locked. I do not change the abilities of a monster, the mechanics of a magic item, or the mechanics of a spell. I only violate this rule in cases of grevious balance issues, and I have encountered none of those in 3E, 4E or 5E official official RAW. I have tweaked a couple homebrew things I initially allowed, but not RAW.

2.) As a DM, I do not fudge die rolls. Ever. The dice giveth, and the dice taketh away. I am willing to let PCs die due to die luck. I tend to not end a character story when the PC dies, but instead continue to have the backstory elements of the game impact the setting, keeping the PC 'alive' in the story even as the player runs a new character and we add other elements to support the new PC. To that end, death is just a step in the story - and I know that a PC's death gives that story closure, which is often preferable to the campaigns that stop mid-way through a PC's story and leave their stories unresolved.

As a player, I will occasionally decide to fail a roll. I do this because it makes the story of the game better. This is more common with inexperienced DMs that are not as prepared to handle a novel solutionto a problem. Usually, this is above the board ("I rolled a 17 for a total of 26, but I think it'd be more fun if I had rolled a 3 and had a total of 12. Can we say that happened?"), but I have on occasion done it without revealing that I was being deceitful about the dice when I felt like it was really necessary, and when the discussion of it might not go over so well.

 

[Maxperson]

1.) Once the players encounter something, it is locked. I do not change the abilities of a monster, the mechanics of a magic item, or the mechanics of a spell. I only violate this rule in cases of grevious balance issues, and I have encountered none of those in 3E, 4E or 5E official official RAW. I have tweaked a couple homebrew things I initially allowed, but not RAW.

Same. I only change something after it has been encountered if it's broken somehow, and then I let the player know why I'm changing it.

2.) As a DM, I do not fudge die rolls. Ever. The dice giveth, and the dice taketh away. I am willing to let PCs die due to die luck. I tend to not end a character story when the PC dies, but instead continue to have the backstory elements of the game impact the setting, keeping the PC 'alive' in the story even as the player runs a new character and we add other elements to support the new PC. To that end, death is just a step in the story - and I know that a PC's death gives that story closure, which is often preferable to the campaigns that stop mid-way through a PC's story and leave their stories unresolved.

As I said, I only do it for extreme bad luck and not just bad luck.

As an example, my last campaign was set in Ravenloft. Early on, I want to say around 3rd level, the party encountered a Banshee. She screamed and bad luck hit. Three of the four PCs failed the low save and were reduced to 0. Only the Barbarian made the save. Fortunately he was a beat stick and drove her off, but not before one of the PCs failed three saves. More bad luck, but not extreme. That's just normal game play. 1 PC dead.

Later on the party encountered some Sons of Kyuss. The PCs dutifully scraped off worms that hit them every round, until one round where the player of the PC that died to the banshee decided he wasn't going to scrape off the worm and just attack one of the monsters. Worm burrows and a second dead PC later, he said that he probably shouldn't have done that. Bad decision and a PC death.

Later on in the same campaign, and I can't remember the last campaign where three PCs died, the player of the Barbarian stayed behind to look for an invisible creature that had just given the entire party a hard time and then left to find easier pickings. The creature that hadn't gone far noticed this and then killed the Barbarian, despite the Barbarian getting very lucky with his dice and almost killing it. Another bad decision and another PC death.

In the current campaign I have had one PC death so far, also due to poor choices on the part of the group. Death is very real in my games and since I make raises hard to get, usually permanent.

As a player, I will occasionally decide to fail a roll. I do this because it makes the story of the game better. This is more common with inexperienced DMs that are not as prepared to handle a novel solutionto a problem. Usually, this is above the board ("I rolled a 17 for a total of 26, but I think it'd be more fun if I had rolled a 3 and had a total of 12. Can we say that happened?"), but I have on occasion done it without revealing that I was being deceitful about the dice when I felt like it was really necessary, and when the discussion of it might not go over so well.

I've failed rolls intentionally and had players do it in my game. Usually not after the roll, though. Normally the player just opts not to roll and fail.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Does explain why I never see this as a major issue. Every table I've ever played at since I began gaming just assumed the DM was fudging. The DM never needs to announce it because, well, everyone at the table knows that it's just part of DMing. It's been an assumed part of DMing since Day 1.

Just want to note that this isn't my experience at all, and I think it's an example of how varied the hobby is. I've always known that dice-fudging is a thing that some GMs do, and even something I did as a kid, until I realized it's more interesting for everyone to let the dice fall where they fall. I can write my novel after the game is over. But if I assumed every GM I was about to play was fudging, I wouldn't play. I'd find something else to do, or just try to GM as often as possible.

Obviously everyone can and should play however is most rewarding for them. But it seems like these now-multiple fudging threads are so active and contentious because the more strident of us anti-fudgers are ultimately saying that pro-fudgers are lying to their players.

Those are fightin' words, no doubt.

There's no way around it--they demand a response, since whatever spin we put on it, it really is a kind of personal insult. But also, no amount of ethical gymnastics can get around the fact that it's (in nearly all cases) a deception. Maybe it's a white lie, maybe it's intended to help the greater good, but whatever the motive or result, it's deception.

So, and I mean this sincerely, is there anything left to discuss? No amount of 140-respondent polls are going to convince anyone that the opposing position is inherently better or more normal. This seems like about as deep and intractable a divide as it gets.

 

[LordEntrails]

There's no way around it--they demand a response, since whatever spin we put on it, it really is a kind of personal insult. But also, no amount of ethical gymnastics can get around the fact that it's (in nearly all cases) a deception. Maybe it's a white lie, maybe it's intended to help the greater good, but whatever the motive or result, it's deception.

This is my take away as well.

For me, It will be a question I will always ask at session 0, or present myself if its my campaign. Just like Lines & Veil and Safety Cards have never been in my campaigns before, they now are. It would be the height of hubris and self-delusion were I not to do so knowing that these are very real issues, and that even though I may feel one way about any of them, I know many others don't.

 

[Xetheral]

But the DM needs to be neutral and consistent and cognizant of player agency at all times. My issue with fudging comes when a DM uses their discretion to force their preferred outcome that goes against the expectations and understanding of the players and without their knowledge. When they change things behind the scenes in ways that invalidate the decisions I make as a player.

How would you feel if the DM uses fudging (or techniques akin to fudging) to instead prevent an outcome that goes against the expectations and understanding of the players? Would you feel that validates or invalidate the decisions you make as a player?

Also, does your answer change depending on the reason an outcome that goes against the expectations and understanding of the players was possible in the first place?

From my perspective, preventing outcomes that go against the players' understanding and expectations invalidates player decisions only when that outcome would occur as a result of the characters having incomplete or inaccurate information. If instead the characters ostensibly have accurate information but the players are making decisions based on an OOC misunderstanding of what their characters know, then I see preventing outcomes that go against the players' expectations and understanding as one potential method of validating the players' decisions. (I'd see correcting the misunderstanding as preferable, but potentially impractical depending on how long ago the decisions based on that misunderstanding were made.)