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

[Monayuris]

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.)

I think there are better ways of handling this kind of situation.

If players are making decisions based on an OCC misunderstanding, then its a communication issue from the DM to the players. Its possible the DM didn't accurately explain the situation or they did but the players didn't understand or came to a completely different conclusion. It happens. One person can explain the same concept/idea to 5 people and each person can have a different conceptualization of it.

Its actually one of the beauties of D&D. A DM can describe a scene and each player has their own personal image of it. Usually these individualized images share enough to make the game playable, but sometimes people go in completely different directions, imagination wise, and end up in an 'incorrect' imagined reality.

I'd prefer the DM just stop for a moment and make sure players understand the situation. It should be pretty obvious when players make unusual actions or do something their character would know not to do. Just stop and make sure they understand the situation correctly.

That's preferable to me than fixing the results behind the scenes.

 

[Xetheral]

I think there are better ways of handling this kind of situation.

If players are making decisions based on an OCC misunderstanding, then its a communication issue from the DM to the players. Its possible the DM didn't accurately explain the situation or they did but the players didn't understand or came to a completely different conclusion. It happens. One person can explain the same concept/idea to 5 people and each person can have a different conceptualization of it.

Its actually one of the beauties of D&D. A DM can describe a scene and each player has their own personal image of it. Usually these individualized images share enough to make the game playable, but sometimes people go in completely different directions, imagination wise, and end up in an 'incorrect' imagined reality.

I'd prefer the DM just stop for a moment and make sure players understand the situation. It should be pretty obvious when players make unusual actions or do something their character would know not to do. Just stop and make sure they understand the situation correctly.

That's preferable to me than fixing the results behind the scenes.

Thanks for the detailed reply! I agree that correcting the miscommunication is the preferable response when it's quick and easy. If fixing the miscommunication involves winding back past decisions (as can be the case when the decision was a strategic one, rather than a tactical one), however, I think fixing the miscommunication behind the scenes (whether via fudging, something akin to fudging, or some other method) becomes a useful alternative for validating the players' decisions.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, hey, I just wanted it to be absolutely clear.

The basic issue is that the DM is hiding changing the numbers. Changing the numbers is, in and of itself, not really an issue. Except, I think, that I see that @Lanefan might have some issue with it as well.

To me the bigger issue is that the DM is changing the numbers at all, whether it's announced to the table or not.

And, I'm not sure about others. But, the basic issue is one of the DM not announcing to the table what he or she is doing.

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.

You've played with different people than I, then. Not that I've asked other players about it, but the sense I've always had is that we simply trust the DM not to fudge.

 

[Lanefan]

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”.

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

The use of the word "recommendations" in the DMG is what makes it problematic. Replace that word with "ideas" and it reads far better; as in "Here are some ideas for table rules..."

 

[Cadence]

So, not fudging in the dice sense (although it has probably greatly lessened the cases I've been tempted) - but how does it feel if the bad guys need to confirm their criticals, and have a chance of fumbling if confirmed, but the players just use the normal rules? (I was thinking of doing it for the players too, but forgot to tell them until we were well into playing, and it's just stuck...)

 

[Cadence]

Looking up other things, and stumbled across this in the article "D&D is Only as Good as the DM" in Best of Dragon Vol. I. Given here for historical purposes.

 

[soviet]

'Let the dice tell the story' is a pretty good summation of what I want, honestly.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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!

I don't mind that. That is still something the players are told about. It opens up the possibility that they could look for others willing to switch sides, for instance, or finding out if the orc lady is willing to divulge other info or in some other way help the cause (assuming she survives her sudden change if allegiance, since "redemption equals death" is a common trope). Fudging, on the other hand, creates no new story and cannot be learned about or leveraged. Whether the DM thinks the players like it or hate it, every pro-fudging DM says it should be kept secret from the players, not just in the "there is a map but you have to figure out what's on it" sense but in a much stronger "you will never be allowed to know" sense.

Like...I don't see how this is a complex or confusing distinction to draw. Fudging is specifically meant to set the story totally invisibly, and while I have my strong doubts about DMs' ability to maintain that invisibility eternally, I'm willing to grant it for the sake of argument. These diegetic changes, on the other hand, cannot even in principle be invisible. Sure, the DM internal motivations that caused them will be invisible, but that is true of every motivation ever. Humans cannot read minds, so motivation is invisible to us. But the actual actions themselves, the fact that action occurred, may be visible, or not. Sudden changes of heart or betrayals of trust ("curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!!"), foolish or brilliant enemy tactics, the composition and disposition of enemy forces...the list goes on. I cannot see directly why the DM chooses any of these things, but I can see THAT she has chosen them, and as a necessary result of being able to see them, I can choose to do something about them.

I cannot make that choice about fudging, the DM does not want me to be capable of making it. I am intended to never even be allowed to know that fudging occurred. It is not possible for me to learn about it, to develop an understanding of what happens or attempt to figure out the motivation, if the DM is successful in preventing me from discovering her fudging. It is not just that the action is secret; it is secret and intended to never be known no matter what actions the players may take.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

If you're telling the player(s), it's not fudging.

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

Max, this is exactly what makes it fuzzy. Who defines "extreme" bad luck? Why is three failed death saves after a failed opening banshee save not "extreme bad luck" but (say) three crits in a row is "extreme bad luck"? That is the very fuzziness you claim to have removed.

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?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. But, at least for me, unexpected results are not inherently a problem, and miscommunication is better solved by good communication, not by secret under-the-hood corrections. Especially because if there's a misunderstanding, the DM may not understand why it happened, thus creating the possibility of a cascade of changes until the DM's side of the misunderstanding is resolved.

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?

I don't think so?

(I'd see correcting the misunderstanding as preferable, but potentially impractical depending on how long ago the decisions based on that misunderstanding were made.)

I would prefer the impracticalities of correcting a long-held player misunderstanding, personally, regardless of where I sit at the table. As DM, I occasionally fail to clearly communicate to my players, so I find the process of correcting these issues openly to be better for both me as someone refining my DM skills and for my players as people learning how to play the game.

Thanks for the detailed reply! I agree that correcting the miscommunication is the preferable response when it's quick and easy. If fixing the miscommunication involves winding back past decisions (as can be the case when the decision was a strategic one, rather than a tactical one), however, I think fixing the miscommunication behind the scenes (whether via fudging, something akin to fudging, or some other method) becomes a useful alternative for validating the players' decisions.

I still think that invalidates the decision-making. It just does not do so by taking away the benefits they have earned from doing so.

It is the equivalent of secretly turning on a handicap in a game so that your SO feels good about choosing a difficult character in a video game when they misunderstood you and thought you were saying that character would be easy to learn. (Consider something like Pokken, if your SO wants to play solo because they like Pokémon and want to learn more about the fighting games you enjoy without all the competition, so they're playing it solo and you help set it up.) Their choice has no actual relation to the consequences that occurred, you as facilitator made those results possible.

So, not fudging in the dice sense (although it has probably greatly lessened the cases I've been tempted) - but how does it feel if the bad guys need to confirm their criticals, and have a chance of fumbling if confirmed, but the players just use the normal rules? (I was thinking of doing it for the players too, but forgot to tell them until we were well into playing, and it's just stuck...)

This is harder because the three systems I favor most (DW, 4e, 13A) don't use crit confirm rules. But if this is a consistent rules difference...I guess that is fine? It would be a bit dubious if the players aren't allowed to know about this difference, but it wouldn't upset me greatly. More like "oh, I kinda wish you'd told us that a while ago!"

For comparison, there's a vaguely similar thing in 13A, the Escalation Die. You have probably heard about it but just in case: after every completed round where the action advanced (hence "escalation"), the DM either puts the Escalation Die (d6) on the table with the 1-pip face up, or advances the die to its next face, hitting a maximum of 6 at the start of the seventh round. Player characters add this value to all attack rolls and various other things. Monsters do not....except dragons, because dragons are SCARY and should not be taken lightly. This is an official, player-facing rule, made clear from the outset. Further, while it might sound like it's blatantly pro-player, what it actually does is enhance the valid strategy space by discouraging the usually hyper-dominanr "nova" tactic: hit percents are tweaked down very slightly (1-2 points below the usual "expected" 60%-65% hit rate), so that there's an incentive to hold onto your big guns until you are confident they will hit, balanced against the potential reward for using them early and getting lucky. So, while it IS beneficial to players in the long run, it is actually a (mild) detriment initially, which helps address a long-standing unfortunate (and boring) pattern in D&D strategic choices.

 

[Cadence]

This is harder because the three systems I favor most (DW, 4e, 13A) don't use crit confirm rules. But if this is a consistent rules difference...I guess that is fine? It would be a bit dubious if the players aren't allowed to know about this difference, but it wouldn't upset me greatly. More like "oh, I kinda wish you'd told us that a while ago!"

I didn't try to keep it a secret from them... I just completely forgot to mention it until I realized I had been rolling confirms and things for the monsters and not having them do it.

It's another thing going on the session 0 list for next time.

---

The escalation die seemed to work fine in the 13th Age games I was in. Thanks for reminding me of it!