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

[Swarmkeeper]

But in situations where a die is normally supposed to be rolled, choosing not to is the same as fudging, because you're deciding on the outcome as DM rather than letting the dice decide.

Is one “normally suppose to” roll for a random encounter?

Do you also believe it to be fudging when a DM grants auto-success or auto-failure because the DM is “deciding on the outcome”?

 

[JAMUMU]

I only ever fudged once, in a game where wearing plate armour made you more likely to die in melee combat. The players asked to play again, but when I told them of the rules fudging I'd had to employ, they lost interest.

Apparently the new version of the game, Green Ronin's Sword Chronicle, has fixed the maths that caused exploding knights, so I might give it another try at some point.

 

[Helldritch]

Is one “normally suppose to” roll for a random encounter?

Do you also believe it to be fudging when a DM grants auto-success or auto-failure because the DM is “deciding on the outcome”?

DC of 5.... is anyone really asking a player with a +4 to roll the check? A DC 10, does anyone really ask à player with +9 on the check to roll for it? Heck even a DC 15 would not warrant a roll with such a skill. And no one will consider fudging.

 

[Ovinomancer]

DC of 5.... is anyone really asking a player with a +4 to roll the check? A DC 10, does anyone really ask à player with +9 on the check to roll for it? Heck even a DC 15 would not warrant a roll with such a skill. And no one will consider fudging.

I don't pay attention to what the PC's bonuses are. I set a DC and ask for a roll. The player tells me if they autopass because of bonus. I have my own stuff to keep track of, and PC math ain't it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My first DM (in 1986ish I guess?) tried to enforce it. It didn't work.

I've mentioned before I have chronically played with groups that had a very high density of GMs over the years. I'm not sure I've played with a one that most of the players wouldn't have (whether publically or not) went "Pfeh. Yeah, right." and done what they damned well wanted. (With me, it'd probably have been public.)

 

[Hussar]

I was going to respond to the numerous red herrings above, but this last part, the bit I've bolded, makes my argument. If you say that there's no difference between fudging and mechanics like rerolls or legendary resistance then why are you saying that moving away from fudging to these makes for a better game?

Because I, personally, don't think fudging is a good idea?

I know it's sometimes hard to get nuance, but, what gave you the idea that I was promoting fudging? It makes for a better game because the game has less rough edges that require the DM to step in, it adds a fun element to the game, and it makes players happier.

That doesn't make fudging bad, evil, something to flip the table over. It just means that codifying fudging is probably a better idea.

 

[Hussar]

Is one “normally suppose to” roll for a random encounter?

Do you also believe it to be fudging when a DM grants auto-success or auto-failure because the DM is “deciding on the outcome”?

In Basic/Expert D&D? Absolutely. The random encounter roll is fundamental to play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because I, personally, don't think fudging is a good idea?

I know it's sometimes hard to get nuance, but, what gave you the idea that I was promoting fudging? It makes for a better game because the game has less rough edges that require the DM to step in, it adds a fun element to the game, and it makes players happier.

That doesn't make fudging bad, evil, something to flip the table over. It just means that codifying fudging is probably a better idea.

I don't think my point has anything to do with you promoting or not promoting fudging. You've repeatedly made the case that fudging is no different from a reroll mechanic. I've challenged that, repeatedly, you've stuck to those guns. Yet you're not presenting an argument that relies on there being a difference, because you like one and dislike (apparently) the other. What is that difference, for you?

 

[Hussar]

I don't think my point has anything to do with you promoting or not promoting fudging. You've repeatedly made the case that fudging is no different from a reroll mechanic. I've challenged that, repeatedly, you've stuck to those guns. Yet you're not presenting an argument that relies on there being a difference, because you like one and dislike (apparently) the other. What is that difference, for you?

Not quite. I've repeatedly made the case that reroll mechanics are the natural outgrowth of fudging. One leads to the other. And, at the end of the day, they both arrive at the same outcome. We have all these player facing fudging mechanics - after all CHANGING A DIE ROLL IS FUDGING BY THE DEFINITIONS IN THIS THREAD. Look, I'm just using the definitions that were established. If you change the outcome of a die roll, that's fudging. That a reroll mechanic might result in a second failure doesn't change the fact that you are still changing the outcome of a roll. Never minding all the various player fudging mechanics that allow you to flat out substitute a result, with no chance of failure.

I mean, what do you really think something like a Rogue's Reliable Talent is, for example? How is that not fudging? No matter what you actually roll, no roll can ever be lower than a 10. That's straight up fudging a die roll.

Again, I understand why we have these things and I believe that the game is better for it. Relying on a DM to do this is a bad idea because DM's often judge from their gut and get it wrong. Most people have really bad sense when it comes to calculating odds. So, it's much better to have lots of little fudges that the players can deploy rather than one big one that the DM uses. It's more incremental, it's less intrusive, and it gives the players more control over the game. All things I'm totally in favor of.

But, it doesn't change the fact that all we've done is shift fudging to the player's side of the table.

If die rolls are sacrosanct and should never, ever be changed by the DM, and any time the DM changes the result of a die roll, it's fudging, then why is it suddenly not fudging when a player does it? And, if we trust the players to do it, then why the huge reaction when the DM, using his or her best judgement, does it as well?

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

In a well-balanced and well-designed encounter
I don't mind it if the DM rolls openly. We (players) just have to deal with the roll of the dice. And hopefully the lay of the land allows us to employ some interesting tactics that swings the balance in our favor.

If the DM made a mistake, or there is no strategy
If the DM accidentally made the NPCs (much) too strong - either because of a mistake, or because the DM overlooked the fact that the PCs were already hurt and/or already used some valuable resources such as spell slots and items, I really get a grudge if the DM rolls openly and consistently rolls well (including some critical hits). Now we're dead because of a poorly designed encounter. All that character development is gone, because of a little mistake by the DM.

Also, if combat is just a matter of slugging it out with dice - without any opportunity to be strategic - I get a grudge if the DM's dice are really lucky.

In a nutshell
If my character dies and I feel that I did nothing wrong - we were just unlucky, or we never even had a chance to begin with - I strongly feel that the DM should have fudged the dice. I feel that a lot of people in this thread that oppose fudging base that opinion on the premise that the DM is experienced and makes no mistakes.

Just my 2 cents.