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

[Cadence]

But what if I don't find fudging positive, but I still think it is acceptable?

Then you're in trouble... because the poll equates positive and acceptable for some reason?

 

[Steampunkette]

Do you have to vote to see the poll results? I wondered if it's that.

I -sincerely- doubt people who dislike fudging decided to click Neutral -just- to check the results when they could've just clicked Negative and checked the results.

It's nonsensical.

 

[soviet]

I -sincerely- doubt people who dislike fudging decided to click Neutral -just- to check the results when they could've just clicked Negative and checked the results.

It's nonsensical.

Who says they dislike fudging?

 

[Hussar]

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!

Heh, I know that it's a necessity to assume things about other people, but, I have repeatedly stated that I don't fudge in my games.

But, again, players aren't the DM. Players are constrained by all sorts of things that don't apply to the DM. So, claiming that players can ignore constraints while the DM can't, when the rules of the game expressly give permission to the DM to ignore constraints seems a bit off.

What does giving the DM authority over the game and "rulings not rules" actually mean if the DM must be constrained by the rules?

 

[Hussar]

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.

View attachment 155022

And, a nice example of how fudging has been assumed in the game since pretty much day 1. I mean, they literally say EXACTLY what I've been saying all the way along - a little fudging, once on a blue moon, as an option isn't going to break the game and works to resolve issues. I would argue that it was needed a LOT more in earlier editions where combat could be extremely swingy (never minding saving throws) and there were far fewer ways to mitigate die rolls. On the player side, there weren't any "reroll" mechanics, for example. No such animal as a "lucky feat", and things like Shield had to be cast on your turn. Conversely, monsters had no reactions where they could spontaneously add 3 to their AC (Parry reaction isn't a particularly rare mechanic), never minding things like Legendary saving throws.

I'd argue that the reason we see a lot less fudging now than back in the day is that we've simply codified fudging into the rules to make it more acceptable and in the open.

((Note, for the sake of clarity, I do not fudge die rolls - my die rolls are always made in the open and have been since I started VTT play twenty years ago. Just leaving that out there because I'm getting a bit tired of being accused of things))

 

[Scott Christian]

Neutral people -don't- mind. That's what makes them neutral.

And that's kind of a problem in how the poll was structured. By giving respondents 5 points with a neutral response available, the only conclusions we can draw either utterly ignore almost 1/3rd of respondents to say 'most people hate it', or acknowledge that people who are against it are marginally outnumbered by the people who either don't hate it or actively like it.

It's part of why people have suggested remaking the poll in a more polarized fashion off and on through the last 50 pages.

I'm curious as to what position you feel "Neutral" individuals meant to take rather than "Don't mind"?

It states:
"Neutral - Fudging sure is a thing."
The back half of this implies sarcasm. Wait, doesn't imply it, it states it. That makes neutral lean towards the negative. As in: "I guess I'm neutral, but people are gonna do it whether I like it or not. (complete with eyeroll)"

 

[Hussar]

It states:
"Neutral - Fudging sure is a thing."
The back half of this implies sarcasm. Wait, doesn't imply it, it states it. That makes neutral lean towards the negative. As in: "I guess I'm neutral, but people are gonna do it whether I like it or not. (complete with eyeroll)"

Funny how tone is so hard to understand in writing. To me, there's no sarcasm there at all. It's the perfectly reasonable reaction of "Yeah, I know the DM fudges. So do most DM's out there. In other news, rain is wet."

 

[Thomas Shey]

Neutral people -don't- mind. That's what makes them neutral.

Or they don't mind it enough to consider it significant. When you only have fine options, not a lot of nuance is going to be shown (and if you have too many options, people tune out). Its never a great idea to read the neutral vote as "doesn't care" though; all it needs to mean is they don't feel strongly enough to say something harder.

 

[Hussar]

Or they don't mind it enough to consider it significant. When you only have fine options, not a lot of nuance is going to be shown (and if you have too many options, people tune out). Its never a great idea to read the neutral vote as "doesn't care" though; all it needs to mean is they don't feel strongly enough to say something harder.

Yes, but, either way, the meaning is still the same - fudging just isn't that big of a deal.

I'd say this tends to be one of those things where if you do have a problem with fudging, you have a BIG problem with it. Otherwise, most people just don't care that much one way or another.

 

[Steampunkette]

Who says they dislike fudging?

If they don't dislike fudging they'd click that they're neutral (which they did) or that they like fudging (which they didn't).

It still doesn't make the initial position of picking neutral just to see the results any less nonsensical.

It states:
"Neutral - Fudging sure is a thing."
The back half of this implies sarcasm. Wait, doesn't imply it, it states it. That makes neutral lean towards the negative. As in: "I guess I'm neutral, but people are gonna do it whether I like it or not. (complete with eyeroll)"

Agree with @Hussar on this one, with a heaping helping of:

Regardless of tone inferred by you, it remains neutral, not against.

Or they don't mind it enough to consider it significant. When you only have fine options, not a lot of nuance is going to be shown (and if you have too many options, people tune out). Its never a great idea to read the neutral vote as "doesn't care" though; all it needs to mean is they don't feel strongly enough to say something harder.

Lemme know when you track down all 47 neutrals and break down their position into a more fine understanding so we can be certain, one way or the other. Until then they don't mind, or as you state "Don't mind enough to consider it significant" which remains "Don't mind"=

Yes, but, either way, the meaning is still the same - fudging just isn't that big of a deal.

I'd say this tends to be one of those things where if you do have a problem with fudging, you have a BIG problem with it. Otherwise, most people just don't care that much one way or another.

YES. This^

People keep trying to fudge the results to make it "See? Everyone hates it!" when it is, as far as the data provides "Slightly more people either don't care or think it's okay, and a significant minority absolutely hate it".

Which is more than a little annoying for what tiny amusement it has in it.