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

[Ovinomancer]

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.

The GM can choose to kill characters at any time, for any reason. Is this expected? The GM can choose to tell players that every single thing they try to have their characters do fails, and describe humiliating results. Is this expected? Frankly, stepping a bit outside the rules, the GM can be a complete monster and verbally abuse the players with no provocation. Is this expected? If the test of expected is that it might happen, then congratulations, you've just made discussion of anything about the game pointless, because so much is now expected.

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.

It's not needed at all, and, frankly, most of the rough edges aren't player facing because they exist in adventure and encounter design. Just check the boards for the perennial topics and you'll see this.

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.

End result of what? The only things I had in the post is the GM fudges or the GM doesn't and the latter doesn't do the same as the former. I'm assuming you're reaching back to reroll mechanics, here? That's been thoroughly contested and you haven't yet addressed those counter points, you just keep saying the thing contested. To sum up:

You're committing the inform logical fallacy of a false equivalence. You note that since reroll changes the rolled value and that a fudge also changes the rolled value that these are therefore the same thing. This ignores quite a lot. Firstly, when you reroll, you replace the 1st rolled value with the 2nd rolled value. Both are fairly rolled, both have the same chances to succeed or fail. With fudging, there is no fairly rolled replacement -- the GM determines the outcome that they want, then, if necessary, arbitrarily selects a value and pretends that it was rolled. The method is different.

Secondly, a reroll exists within the ruleset. The rules tell you when to apply the reroll and how to apply the reroll. Fudging is discarding the rules in favor of the GM's whim (you can call it judgement, if you'd prefer, but it's still arbitrary). This is the difference between following the rules of the game and breaking the rules of the game. Even if you lean on the discussions across editions on fudging (which is entirely missing in 5e except for the one blurb that talks about how hiding dice rolls allows the breaking of the rules, nothing on when, how, or why to fudge) it is explicitly presented as the GM using their position and secret rolling techniques to break the rules of the game in pursuit of some other goal. This is also often recommended within these same discussions to keep the fudging secret, so the breaking of the rules should be done secretly -- the exact opposite of a reroll.

No, the same thing is not done. You're moving to the conclusion and assuming that the end solely justifies the means. That a reroll cannot force the same end while fudging always does is a third point to consider -- one is a chance to change the first rolled outcome, the latter is a guarantee to do so.

 

[Arilyn]

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.

This is spot on. Most of the changes in D&D over the decades, deliberately or not, have reduced fudging to the point where it really isn't needed in 5e. They are work arounds to reduce the sting of the swingy linear d20.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is spot on. Most of the changes in D&D over the decades, deliberately or not, have reduced fudging to the point where it really isn't needed in 5e. They are work arounds to reduce the sting of the swingy linear d20.

It was never needed. It was desired by those that wanted to tell the story they wanted to tell but that the game wasn't providing.

 

[Cadence]

It was never needed. It was desired by those that wanted to tell the story they wanted to tell but that the game wasn't providing.

It feels bizarre to me to lump together "not wanting the character/party to die due to a string of 20s or 1s in spite of their having a seemingly good plan" and "DM railroading to get a particular story regardless of what the players want" as a single thing. As always YMMV.

 

[Arilyn]

It was never needed. It was desired by those that wanted to tell the story they wanted to tell but that the game wasn't providing.

I disagree. Players in the old days could enter a dungeon with 1 hp. Tripping on stairs could kill you with that. Groups that didn't fudge at all would have players come to the table with binders full of back up characters, or Bob the 2nd, 3rd or 4th. Players sometimes never even named their characters until 2nd or 3rd level. Following the early rules the magic user rolled for their spells. You could start off with 1 hp and a detect magic. Tables where there was no fudging went through a lot of characters causing many players to quit the hobby or look for a less harsh DM.

There was a lot of fudging going on in the early years of D&D. It was way too easy to die, even if you were careful and avoided fights.

 

[LordEntrails]

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.

And the players are not supposed to read the DMG, therefore players generally do not now what the DMG says. Therefore claiming players should all know about fudging and expect it, then you logic is flawed.

Everyone has flat out said, if you really have an issue with fudging, bring it to your DM's attention. The reason it's not talked about, generally, up front, is because the basic assumption is that the DM will, from time to time, fudge dice. It's right there in the DMG. It's not some weird, corner case, bizarre thing that no one ever does. It's common, and it's expected.

IMO, it's the DMs responsibility to make sure this issue is addressed or known to players before the campaign starts. Just like if a DM is going to allow sexual violence, descriptive torture, murdering of children, graphic abuse, etc, it is up to the DM to breach the subject, not wait until someone is offended to bring it up for discussion or awareness. Besides, as many thing that fudging should be hidden from players, the topic will not come up until well after the situation has occurred, possible dozens of times.

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.

My experiences are pretty much the same, that players don't care about GM side stuff. Until they do and feel betrayed.

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

Because D&D is all about power exchange?

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.

Yes it was.

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.

My experience is that perspective shifts as society experiences, learns and shares. How many things were acceptable in 1980 that are not now? Racial discrimination, sexual bias in work and pay, etc. Seems to an old white grognard like me, that this change is a good thing.

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.

So has discriminatory behavior. Racism, sexism, etc has been part and parcel of society since history began. But it is no longer considered acceptable. Human society is changing, and growing, and hopefully become better for it I hope the RPG community can do the same.

If I know that the DM can choose to do something, then it is not a surprise when the DM chooses to do that.

Yea, that logic is just wrong, as has been pointed out and refuted already.

 

[Cadence]

I disagree. Players in the old days could enter a dungeon with 1 hp. Tripping on stairs could kill you with that. Groups that didn't fudge at all would have players come to the table with binders full of back up characters, or Bob the 2nd, 3rd or 4th. Players sometimes never even named their characters until 2nd or 3rd level. Following the early rules the magic user rolled for their spells. You could start off with 1 hp and a detect magic. Tables where there was no fudging went through a lot of characters causing many players to quit the hobby or look for a less harsh DM.

There was a lot of fudging going on in the early years of D&D. It was way too easy to die, even if you were careful and avoided fights.

In one of my favorite games in the early to mid 80s, we just died, a lot. (Maybe half of the first level characters made it to second, my elf cleric almost made it to 7th and retirement iirc ... almost). I'm not sure what would surprise me more, learning that the DM had never fudged ever, or that she had now and then

In games with friends my own age we'd didn't die a lot, so I kind of assume we must have fudged, but I have no recollection of it happening in the 80s when I DMed.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

It feels bizarre to me to lump together "not wanting the character/party to die due to a string of 20s or 1s in spite of their having a seemingly good plan" and "DM railroading to get a particular story regardless of what the players want" as a single thing. As always YMMV.

I know this is a tangent, but I feel like it's at least a little related. The idea of players having a "seemingly good plan" or their PCs otherwise not deserving to die only makes sense in a certain, old-fashioned play style. It implies that there's always a "right" or "smart" thing to do, meaning something that impresses the GM or solves the written module. But a lot of games don't really care about that approach now. They prioritize doing what seems interesting, doing what lines up with specific RP-based XP triggers (like in Forged in the Dark or PbtA games), doing what advances an individual agenda (like in Alien's cinematic mode of play), etc. And when you think about any other narrative, if they're only about people making the "right" decisions at all times, meaning the most coldly rational and calculating, does that generally make for a good story?

I'm bringing this up because I think this notion that players are constantly working to impress the GM with their player-based smarts, and "win" the situation put in front of them, is another factor encouraging GM dice-fudging. The GM looks down from on high, approves of the intellectual prowess of their players, and then determines what outcome is fair or unfair.

Wouldn't it be more interesting if there wasn't a "correct" thing for the story's protagonists to do, or any prescribed expectation for how the story should go, and therefore no reason to even consider fudging any dice? And, more to the point, do people not realize that a lot of modern games have really left that whole framing behind?

 

[Cadence]

I know this is a tangent, but I feel like it's at least a little related. The idea of players having a "seemingly good plan" or their PCs otherwise not deserving to die only makes sense in a certain, old-fashioned play style. It implies that there's always a "right" or "smart" thing to do, meaning something that impresses the GM or solves the written module. But a lot of games don't really care about that approach now. They prioritize doing what seems interesting, doing what lines up with specific RP-based XP triggers (like in Forged in the Dark or PbtA games), doing what advances an individual agenda (like in Alien's cinematic mode of play), etc. And when you think about any other narrative, if they're only about people making the "right" decisions at all times, meaning the most coldly rational and calculating, does that generally make for a good story?

I often don't have a particular idea of how the players will necessarily accomplish something, and will be surprised by their creativity.

I'm bringing this up because I think this notion that players are constantly working to impress the GM with their player-based smarts, and "win" the situation put in front of them, is another factor encouraging GM dice-fudging. The GM looks down from on high, approves of the intellectual prowess of their players, and then determines what outcome is fair or unfair.

I don't think I've ever tried to impress the DM, and hope my players have never approached the game in that way. It's an idea that never occurred to me and seems odd to me.

Wouldn't it be more interesting if there wasn't a "correct" thing for the story's protagonists to do, or any prescribed expectation for how the story should go, and therefore no reason to even consider fudging any dice? And, more to the point, do people not realize that a lot of modern games have really left that whole framing behind?

It feels like the whole party dying because someone rolled four 1s in a row (or whatnot) doesn't necessarily help get what some people want either. Of course some games have lots of ways to avoid this (nothing but fail forward, not dying at all unless they've agreed to it, whatnot), those aren't standard things in D&D though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Sure there is. Or rather are; there's two options.

1. Diegetically introduce new worldbuilding when you would otherwise fudge, or (preferably) well before any fudging might be considered. Since you only do player supportive fudging, this is actually easier than the generic case, as you only need to explain why a very rare but occasionally possible correction could occur. A deity or cosmic being of luck or fate would be a classic example. Dungeon World's Last Breath move provides another option: Death makes a bargain with the character to keep them alive, but having to complete some kind of service in exchange. Other options include Harry Potter-style "innate" protective magic, a bloodline destiny (or curse) that drags the character back to life just once or reveals a hidden talent that saves their life, a secret ally that intervenes but at great personal cost, sudden crippling damage/debility applied to the attacker(s), etc. There's very few limits to what could be done to make these things diegetic.

2. Just level with your players. You have taken great pains to indicate just how rare and unusual an event it is when you feel fudging is warranted. Why not just say that to your players? "This went stupidly pear-shaped. You don't deserve such crappy results, so we're not going to abide by that. I rolled another bloody 20, but I'm counting it as just a regular hit. You're incredibly hurt, but not dead yet. Choose carefully, you could still die if you're reckless." Like...for real if this is a once-a-campaign kind of event, why not just level with them? It happens so rarely anyway, and then your players will know for sure that any of the other times, you really are playing the dice exactly as they are, no fudging.