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

[Hussar]

/snip the well-established fact that a lot of DMs DO fudge runs headlong into the fact that a significant number of groups have at least one player opposed to fudging. /snip

See, that's where you lose me. I don't think a significant number of groups have at least one player opposed to fudging. I thing the significant number of groups simply couldn't care less. But, there is a number of players (and I agree it's not a small number) who REALLY don't like it. It's one of those things where you either don't care or you really, really do. It's generally not something that people kinda dislike but let it go. For those who don't like it, it's a big deal.

The thing is, IME, most groups couldn't care less. And, like I said earlier, because D&D has, over time, codified things that would have been fudged in earlier editions, the need for fudging has become less and less over time.

Being able to force a reroll (by anyone at the table) would have been a DM fudging once upon a time. Declaring a hit is a miss would have been fudging, once upon a time. Now, it's not fudging because it's baked right into the rules. That was my point earlier bringing up things like rerolls and the like. It's not that fudging per se is an issue. It's the hidden aspect of it. Totally understandable. So, as an issue, this is largely resolved since 5e simply bakes fudging right into the mechanics and gamifies it.

 

[Steampunkette]

The problem is, that excludes the people (like myself) who do have something of a problem with it, but don't find the other solutions to the problems it address practical or acceptable for one reason or another. I've referred to it as "the lesser evil" a number of times.

People vote for the lesser evil all the time! You're in good company.

 

[Thomas Shey]

People vote for the lesser evil all the time! You're in good company.

Point was, I didn't even chose a poll option because none of them fit.

 

[Steampunkette]

The next time this thing gets polled (As it almost always certainly will) the poll should just be two options:

1) Fudging isn't a big deal.
2) Fudging is bad.

Should sort things out cleanly.

 

[Fifth Element]

No... that's what the poll -says-. Because if you don't -oppose- something, you -accept- it.

If you don't oppose violence then you accept violence, for example. Regardless of whether you actively participate in violence.

I think there's a third option - tolerating it. Acceptance does have a positive connotation, while tolerance is more neutral.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

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"?

I got into this earlier in the thread, but I still think the wording of the neutral option gives those who are pro-fudge a whole lot to spin and potentially misrepresent. There are two positive options, two negative, and one neutral. Another poll might call that undecided. Or it might say neutral--not sure. This one says neutral, then that it "sure is a thing," a jaunty bit of phrasing that muddies the whole thing.

It's almost like anyone who wants to claim that neutral option as pro-fudge just can, even though it's listed as, you know, neutral.

 

[Steampunkette]

I think there's a third option - tolerating it. Acceptance does have a positive connotation, while tolerance is more neutral.

Tolerating versus Accepting. Feels like splitting hairs, but okay.

I got into this earlier in the thread, but I still think the wording of the neutral option gives those who are pro-fudge a whole lot to spin and potentially misrepresent. There are two positive options, two negative, and one neutral. Another poll might call that undecided. Or it might say neutral--not sure. This one says neutral, then that it "sure is a thing," a jaunty bit of phrasing that muddies the whole thing.

It's almost like anyone who wants to claim that neutral option as pro-fudge just can, even though it's listed as, you know, neutral.

The question is whether it is anti-fudge. And... no. It isn't. The "Jaunty Phrasing" was explained by the person who wrote it.

Which means they accept TOLERATE fudging.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

See, that's where you lose me. I don't think a significant number of groups have at least one player opposed to fudging. I thing the significant number of groups simply couldn't care less. But, there is a number of players (and I agree it's not a small number) who REALLY don't like it. It's one of those things where you either don't care or you really, really do. It's generally not something that people kinda dislike but let it go. For those who don't like it, it's a big deal.

The thing is, IME, most groups couldn't care less. And, like I said earlier, because D&D has, over time, codified things that would have been fudged in earlier editions, the need for fudging has become less and less over time.

Being able to force a reroll (by anyone at the table) would have been a DM fudging once upon a time. Declaring a hit is a miss would have been fudging, once upon a time. Now, it's not fudging because it's baked right into the rules. That was my point earlier bringing up things like rerolls and the like. It's not that fudging per se is an issue. It's the hidden aspect of it. Totally understandable. So, as an issue, this is largely resolved since 5e simply bakes fudging right into the mechanics and gamifies it.

I gave the probabilities. Say any given player has a 15% chance of being opposed to fudging--slightly over half the percentage from the above poll, and completely ignoring the "somewhat negative" voters. That means any given person has an 85% chance to not be, and the chance that all four people in a four-player group are not vehemently opposed are (0.85^4) = 0.522, or (1-0.522) = 47.8%, meaning nearly half of four-player groups would have someone opposed. A five-player group would be (1-0.85^5) = 55.6% chance of at least one vehemently-opposed player.

That's iterative probability at work. It's like a DM asking you to succeed on four or five stealth rolls in a row. It doesn't matter if you succeed almost all of the time. Having to succeed many times in a row can transform even a small chance of problems into a sizable chance. It might be the case that only 10% or 15% or whatever of players really would have a problem...but "the vast majority of players have no problem with it" can still translate to "a large number of groups have someone who has a problem with it." Having one-in-two odds--heck, even one-in-three!--of someone in the group being upset about a thing that is asserted to be so common sounds like a recipe for Problems.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Tolerating versus Accepting. Feels like splitting hairs, but okay.

I mean, I was intending "accept" to be an actively, but not necessarily strongly, positive stance. If someone finds a situation "acceptable," they're usually assenting, not just "putting up with" that situation.

The question is whether it is anti-fudge. And... no. It isn't. The "Jaunty Phrasing" was explained by the person who wrote it.

Had I known it would cause such a fuss, I never would have used that phrasing at all. Fully intended it to be a completely neutral, "I have no strong feelings one way or the other," "all I know is my gut says maybe," "if I don't survive, tell my wife, 'hello'" kind of sense. (Yes, I know this, too, is meant to be a humorous and satirical thing, but I really did mean for it to be literally so free of judgment that there wasn't actually any judgment present in the statement at all, just an expression of inarguable fact.)

Which means they accept TOLERATE fudging.

To be clear, I don't. But my intent with that phrase was just to be a little lighthearted for folks who do either tolerate it or just...don't have any meaningful feelings about fudging whatsoever, good, bad, or otherwise. Polls are often so drab, I just wanted it to be a little more colorful.

 

[Steampunkette]

I mean, I was intending "accept" to be an actively, but not necessarily strongly, positive stance. If someone finds a situation "acceptable," they're usually assenting, not just "putting up with" that situation.

Sure. It's just that Tolerate has "Accept" as part of it's definition, so it feels like splitting hairs to say Neutral means "Tolerate" rather than "Accept"

Had I known it would cause such a fuss, I never would have used that phrasing at all. Fully intended it to be a completely neutral, "I have no strong feelings one way or the other," "all I know is my gut says maybe," "if I don't survive, tell my wife, 'hello'" kind of sense. (Yes, I know this, too, is meant to be a humorous and satirical thing, but I really did mean for it to be literally so free of judgment that there wasn't actually any judgment present in the statement at all, just an expression of inarguable fact.)

I totally got that at the time. It's a thing I actively say in my real life to my husband when talking about things. "That sure was a thing that happened" or "That sure was a movie we just watched" when I don't have a strong opinion.

Of course, I'm the kind of weirdo who uses "Sure." as a complete sentence of agreement/consent, rather than a normal person who uses it as sarcasm exclusively.

To be clear, I don't. But my intent with that phrase was just to be a little lighthearted for folks who do either tolerate it or just...don't have any meaningful feelings about fudging whatsoever, good, bad, or otherwise. Polls are often so drab, I just wanted it to be a little more colorful.

Oh, no, yeah. I totally got that. I was only saying you explained the jaunty phrase, not that you tolerated it. The people who selected neutral tolerated it. I should've done a better job of closing the clause to avoid miscommunication.