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

[loverdrive]

I have to point out that is because the kind of results all those produce are what people expect--and presumably want--going in. I know for a fact that there are people would consider the probabilities in most PbtA games and what they produce as failing frequently.

The big problem with most D20 based systems isn't that they "fail" so much as they're played by a wide variety of people who's expectations sometimes always match to what the system. That can happen to any game, but with D&D and some others, its more likely just because there hasn't been nearly the degree of sorting among people who play them.

Y'know what, I'm gonna start another thread about the rules working and failing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

You can quibble about lack of integrity for a given situation, but you cannot make this claim a blanket claim. Some GMs are acting within the bounds of integrity when they fudge, and these are the ones that tell you they will do it and get buy in so that it's an understood part of the game. Ones that hide it, and deny it, and still do it are not acting with integrity. Colville's recommendation is without integrity.

That doesn't mean there are not good intentions. People lie for what they earnestly believe are good reasons all the time. I'm not making a judgement about someone's character when I point out that the kind of fudging that involves hiding it is lying -- by omission at the best. They can be perfectly fine people that earnestly believe this makes for a more enjoyable time for everyone when they do it. It's not my thing, I'm not going to like it, and if I've made that clear and the GM does it anyway, then I'm going to be upset at the lie no matter how much the GM thought it was the right thing to do. It was not the right thing to do. Again, for me, when I play (and run).

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's not true though.

There is most certainly an expectation that the DM can and will fudge during the game. It's explicitly called out in pretty much every DMG ever written. This isn't hidden. That's the point I keep trying to get across. No one is talking about it because it's not hidden at all. The DMG TELLS YOU to do this. Even way, way back when it was expected.

The difference now is that many of the things that were fudged in the past have simply been folded directly into the game and handed to the players. That's why we have things like reroll mechanics, and various spells and effects, and Inspiration or Action points. It's simply a codified version of fudging.

No, there is most certainly NOT an expectation that the GM will fudge during the game. In 1e, the advice about fudging was a "maybe you could do this" kind of thing and was explicitly placed in the DMG which players were not supposed to read, so players could not, by design, have such knowledge that the GM might choose to fudge. Note the large difference between the GM might choose and the GM is expected to. Not the same thing.

In 5e, the advice is part of setting the table rules -- ie, the shared rules by which the table agrees to play the game and one of which is whether or not fudging could be accomplished -- again NOT expected to occur, but might, in a certain agreed framework. No one is arguing that fudging isn't a thing that can happen, they're talking about whether or not they want it to happen or care about it happening. You keep trying to claim some kind of cover or justification or shield for you choosing to fudge. Just own it, and recognize that I (and others) would not be a happy player in your game if you chose to do so.

Though experiment: every time you fudge, after the session, tell the players what the dice said should happen and then what you made happen instead. See how they feel about it. Keep it secret in the moment, but talk about it after. Do you think your players will be thanking you all the time? If it's okay and expected this shouldn't at all be anything to be concerned about at all! And I expect for some tables, it won't be.

 

[beancounter]

My DM has a terrible poker face. I can always tell when he's fudging.

 

[Irlo]

There is most certainly an expectation that the DM can and will fudge during the game.

No, there is most certainly NOT an expectation that the GM will fudge during the game.

I'm beginning to think that people have different expectations.

 

[beancounter]

IMO, if the DM is fudging in order to provide a fun/challenging/balanced encounter, I'm in favor of fudging. If the DM's intent is player vs. DM, I'm against it. I'm also against fudging the dice too often in favor of the PC's.

 

[Lanefan]

As has already been covered, people who dislike fudging aren't against manipulation of dice rolls within pre-agreed guidelines.

I am. I don't like player-side meta-mechanics like these in the slightest.

 

[heks]

my gaming groups are built around notions of trust so i generally see it as very bad.

 

[Hussar]

Note the large difference between the GM might choose and the GM is expected to. Not the same thing.

If I know that the DM can choose to do something, then it is not a surprise when the DM chooses to do that. Thus, it is expected. Beyond that is a level of hair splitting that I really, really don't care about. The players know that that DM CAN fudge. The advice to DM's is that it's okay to do so. When I say, "expected to" I mean that that the game itself expects that the DM will step in to smooth over the rough edges in the game.

Which is why I point to the fact that it isn't much needed in newer versions of the game because, most of those "rough edges" are now entirely player facing.

The end result is exactly the same - corner case die results are nullified. The only difference is now it's the players who have the authority in the game to do so. I mean, someone upthread even specifically mentioned giving that ability to his Rolemaster players. And most games now have some way to mitigate rolls. Spend a Fate Point or some resource, and you get to shape the narrative in the game, nullifying or at least modifying the results the dice are giving you.

 

[Hussar]

Note, something that again I want to make absolutely clear. There is no "pro-fudge" camp. Not really. I don't think anyone thinks of fudging as a good thing. A necessary evil is about as good as it gets. And, IMO, far less necessary than in the past. We fudged the hell out of character creation die rolls, so, now we use point buy - poof, no more fudging needed. We used to reroll HP rolls at level up all the time. I've never met a DM who forced a player to take that 1 on a d10 for a fighter's HP. I'm sure they exist, but, I don't think they're that common. Now, we have standard HP/level and no die rolling needed.

That's why fudging isn't really necessary anymore. The amount of rolls that the DM actually has any need to step in on is vanishingly small. Dying in 5e isn't easy. At least, not the dice declaring you dead anyway. On and on. If the dice so rarely have big negative effects, then the need for fudging largely goes away.

All these effects mitigating mechanics simply serve to shift fudging from the DM's hands to the players and makes it more acceptable by making it 100% in the open. Fantastic. But, there is the other side of the coin that it is the same result as if the DM was still fudging behind the screen. The end result is the same. But, because they've made it player facing and turned it into a game mechanic - it's now perfectly acceptable.