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

[Crimson Longinus]

My fault -- I wasn't clear because I didn't want to write an essay. I'm not talking about maps and secret doors. I'm talking about concealing the methods of resolving actions. I'm talking about the players being in the dark about how the DM is arriving at the results of the players' proposed actions.

When I first played D&D in the early '80s, my DM ran the game from behind the screen and I had NO CLUE how he was resolving in-game activity. And I didn't care. It was all concealed from me. I didn't know about to-hit matrices. I didn't know how he was deciding if I was sneaky enough to get passed the guards undetected. If he was making stuff up, fudging numbers, or rigorously adhering to dice rolls -- it didn't matter to me and I didn't care to know. In those days, my expectation was that almost all DM stuff was intended to be concealed. (I seem to remember admonishments in the game books that players should not even peruse the DMG.)

Now, more than 35 years later, I'm in a group with a first-time player who barely knows how their own character sheet works and has no interest or particuar expectation that the DM shares the methods of resolving actions. Is it dice? Is it making up stuff? Is it occassional fudging? This new player doesn't know and doesn't care. The DM is doing what DMs do by running the game.

And no trust is broken.

Exactly this. And as a player, I don't care what's happening behind the curtains. It's not my business.

That's your expectation, and it's common, but it's not universal. Here's my version: the DM behind the screen is trusted to be the arbiter of in-game actions. That often involves dice. How much of the specific methods of arbitration are revealed to players differs from table to table. By all means, have the conversation about how you plan to run the game (or how you want the DM to run the game). If a DM tells you they're running a strict let-the-dice-fall-where-they-may campaign, the DM should abide by that. If they don't agree to that, it doesn't make them liars or show a lack of integrity.

Yep. In a game like D&D the GM is ultimately the final arbiter of everything. By the rules they have the power to override any rule, at any time, for any reason. And you either trust them to use that power wisely or you don't. And sure one can discuss what the expectations are, just like you can discuss all other sorts of expectations regarding the campaign. Though my personal experience is that this is not the sort of of thing most players care about. They don't care about the GM side stuff. They care about the world, character options and the themes of the campaign.

I'm not explaining away the feelings. I have said more than once that people should talk about it, especially knowing how negatively fudging is perceived by some players.

By the way, I haven't provided a description of my preferred play. I actually don't love fudging. But if my DM is fudging, it's not because he lacks integrity. (I voted neutral on the poll.)

I think I'm done here. I'm not successfullly contributing to the conversation. Apologies all around if I've muddled my own points.

I have to say that your contributions are appreciated and you have explained the situation pretty much as clearly as humanly possible and have been far more polite than I would have patience for. I'm very much in the same boat as you. I don't fudge, but I'm not going to be a judgemental fundamentalist about it. I generally want the GM to run the game in a manner they feel comfortable with, and if that involves some fudging, then good for them!

 

[Hussar]

Thinking about this, I have finally come around to the idea of how much power the DM has lost over the years.

Think about your current group of characters. How many ways, in a given session, could that group over rule a die roll? Things like shield spells, Lucky feat, Portent ability, Inspiration, and I'm sure there are many more. A group of characters can "fudge" (as in change the result of a die roll after the fact) far, far more than a DM ever would. In fact, the players are actively encouraged to do so.

But, remember, these kinds of mechanics are somewhat new. Prior to 4e, and really even 3e, you just didn't have these kinds of mechanics. It was entirely on the DM to do this in a fair an impartial manner. And, realistically, the DM was expected to do this rarely.

Fast forward to today and now we have players who absolutely hate the idea of the DM doing this, but, since it's build into the mechanics, have zero problems with the players doing exactly the same thing and doing it far more often than a DM likely ever would.

Funny how perspective shifts.

 

[soviet]

Thinking about this, I have finally come around to the idea of how much power the DM has lost over the years.

Think about your current group of characters. How many ways, in a given session, could that group over rule a die roll? Things like shield spells, Lucky feat, Portent ability, Inspiration, and I'm sure there are many more. A group of characters can "fudge" (as in change the result of a die roll after the fact) far, far more than a DM ever would. In fact, the players are actively encouraged to do so.

But, remember, these kinds of mechanics are somewhat new. Prior to 4e, and really even 3e, you just didn't have these kinds of mechanics. It was entirely on the DM to do this in a fair an impartial manner. And, realistically, the DM was expected to do this rarely.

Fast forward to today and now we have players who absolutely hate the idea of the DM doing this, but, since it's build into the mechanics, have zero problems with the players doing exactly the same thing and doing it far more often than a DM likely ever would.

Funny how perspective shifts.

As has already been covered, people who dislike fudging aren't against manipulation of dice rolls within pre-agreed guidelines. No-one is getting upset when Bob uses Lucky to reroll a 3 into a 15, or when the GM uses similar powers and legendary actions. What people dislike is when a GM secretly and unilaterally overrides the dice to get a particular result. It's not really the same thing. One is changing a single dice roll within the rules, the other is having a veto over all dice rolls outside the rules.

What these mechanics do show is how unnecessary fudging is - the instances of wild luck it proposes to correct can be ameliorated by pre-agreed mechanisms visible to all.

 

[Hussar]

As has already been covered, people who dislike fudging aren't against manipulation of dice rolls within pre-agreed guidelines. No-one is getting upset when Bob uses Lucky to reroll a 3 into a 15, or when the GM uses similar powers and legendary actions. What people dislike is when a GM secretly and unilaterally overrides the dice to get a particular result. It's not really the same thing. One is changing a single dice roll within the rules, the other is having a veto over all dice rolls outside the rules.

What these mechanics do show is how unnecessary fudging is - the instances of wild luck it proposes to correct can be ameliorated by pre-agreed mechanisms visible to all.

Honestly? I tend to agree. I think that the evolution of the mechanics has resulted in the DM being far less necessary to "smooth the rough edges". Like I said, I haven't done this kind of fudging in years. But, again, "outside the rules" is a bit tricky when the DMG specifically gives DM's the authority to do it. Fudging=cheating is not a particularly defensible position when it's been considered part and parcel of DMing, and been included in DMing advice, since day 1. Essentially, you have always been playing with manipulation of die rolls within pre-agreed guildlines. The DMG specifically says that the DM can do this.

And, also note, it's not "changing a single die roll". It's changing multiple die rolls every single session and sometimes every single round.

Now, "I don't like it" and "I don't do it" and "I prefer if my DM didn't do it" are all perfectly fine positions to take. Totally understandable. But, trying to paint it as cheating or anything like that isn't terribly productive. Like I said, they've basically taken all the fudging that used to go on behind the screen and simply codified it.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Thinking about this, I have finally come around to the idea of how much power the DM has lost over the years.

Think about your current group of characters. How many ways, in a given session, could that group over rule a die roll? Things like shield spells, Lucky feat, Portent ability, Inspiration, and I'm sure there are many more. A group of characters can "fudge" (as in change the result of a die roll after the fact) far, far more than a DM ever would. In fact, the players are actively encouraged to do so.

We've gone over this so many times in this thread. That's just playing the game, not fudging. In fact, those examples are explicitly things a character chooses to take during character creation or do during play. What is up with this constant refrain of saying "It's all fudging" in order to blur the boundaries of the discussion all over again?

But, remember, these kinds of mechanics are somewhat new. Prior to 4e, and really even 3e, you just didn't have these kinds of mechanics. It was entirely on the DM to do this in a fair an impartial manner. And, realistically, the DM was expected to do this rarely.

Fast forward to today and now we have players who absolutely hate the idea of the DM doing this, but, since it's build into the mechanics, have zero problems with the players doing exactly the same thing and doing it far more often than a DM likely ever would.

Funny how perspective shifts.

One of the reasons I think this divide is so impossible to bridge--and why I myself am getting essentially radicalized by these threads--is the way pro-fudgers keep moving the goal posts. We're talking about resistance to GMs secretly fudging the dice. Changing the dice after rolling, ignoring the dice after rolling. That's the thing. That's the fudging that's ultimately at issue. I realize you're going for a zoomed-out perspective here but it doesn't work, imo, because

1) More player-facing mechanics are not an erosion of GM authority. That's just more rules.

2) Claiming that everything is fudging of some kind is not helpful! No one in this thread, that I've seen, is complaining about players getting too many darn abilities or dice mechanics to save themselves. What else is fudging, rolling a saving throw?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I can't help but wonder why some people keep claiming the 5e DMG tells the DM to fudge and/or try to imply that it is the primary dice handling methodology for DMing that everyone should expect. The DMG doesn't suggest that at all.

Using this bullet point quoting approach, one could easily say the DMG urges you NOT to fudge because to do so would be considered shirking responsibility to be impartial:

"If you roll dice where the players can see, they know you're playing impartially and not fudging rolls."

But that's not what the 5e Table Rules section is saying either. It's telling the DM to "establish expectations about rolling dice." And, FWIW, it suggests: "Rolling in full view of everyone is a good starting point."

Ultimately, that section is telling DMs to examine how they plan to handle their die rolls in the game before the campaign begins:

"What about you, the DM? Do you make your rolls in the open or hide them behind a DM screen?"


Full section for those who would like to refer back to it:

Dice Rolling (DMG p235) Establish expectations about rolling dice. Rolling in full view of everyone is a good starting point. If you see a player rolling and scooping the dice up before anyone else can see, encourage that player to be less secretive. When a die falls on the floor, do you count it or reroll it? When it lands cocked against a book, do you pull the book away and see where it lands, or reroll it? What about you, the DM? Do you make your rolls in the open or hide them behind a DM screen? Consider the following: If you roll dice where the players can see, they know you're playing impartially and not fudging rolls. Rolling behind a screen keeps the players guessing about the strength of their opposition. When a monster hits all the time, is it of a much higher level than the characters, or are you rolling high numbers? Rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit, or even a miss. Don't distort die rolls too often, though, and don't let on that you're doing it. Otherwise, your players might think they don't face any real risks-or worse, that you're playing favorites. A roll behind a screen can help preserve mystery. For example, if a player thinks there might be someone invisible nearby and makes a Wisdom (Perception) check, consider rolling a die behind the screen even if no one is there, making the player think someone is, indeed, hiding. Try not to overuse this trick. You might choose to make a roll for a player because you don't want the player to know how good the check total is. For example, if a player suspects a baroness might be charmed and wants to make a Wisdom (Insight) check, you could make the roll in secret for the player. If the player rolled and got a high number but didn't sense anything amiss, the player would be confident that the baroness wasn't charmed. With a low roll, a negative answer wouldn't mean much. A hidden roll allows uncertainty.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't particularly care whether GM or a player or whoever the hell fudges at the table. If I spot it, I'd be displeased and if it's directed at me, I'll call it out, but I ain't gonna watch every diceroll as a hawk.

But that's absolutely besides the point.

What I'm opposed to is treating fudging as a normal state of affairs instead of a bug. When you have a desire to fudge, it means that the rules failed and you have to clean up their mess.

A situation where rules produce undesirable output with a valid input shouldn't happen, just like your Photoshop shouldn't crash and your rifle shouldn't jam.

There's no such thing as a perfect rules system. They all fail.

 

[Maxperson]

For all the same reasons people are interpreting neutral as tacitly positive. The wording and design of polls is tricky business.

We are interpreting neutral as not negative, which is different from positive. Acceptable =/= positive.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, yeah, sometimes it's a fluke. An extraordinary situation, an ad-hoc ruling, whatever.

But we wouldn't be even having this conversation on a 53rd page of a second thread, if it was only flukes. Nobody talks about house cats slaughtering commoners or elephants jumping 9' into the air and other extraordinary situations that barely ever happen, after all.

Um. :raises hand: flukes are the only thing I have been talking about.

 

[Maxperson]

"Wrong" is an unnecessary judgment.

Fudging is on its face a temporary fix for a problem that sometimes arises. So it's helpful in my view to examine where the problem comes from and whether there's a solution to it that removes the possibility of the problem arising in the first place. Why am I not okay with the dice producing a given result? Can I just take that result off the table in favor of something I am willing to accept? The answer is obviously that I can. And in the doing, I don't have to fudge at all.

There us nothing that I can take off the table to fix the two very rare instances where I will fudge.