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

[Lanefan]

Totally disagree. Reroll mechanics have a very strong place in the game and are, IMO, an excellent design. It might be something you don't like, but, that doesn't make it poor design. The evolution of fudging mechanics in RPG's is pretty clear. We started with most of it being hidden behind the DM's screen and it has now moved into the open and can be planned for.

Think about it this way. The developers couldn't know that most groups were going to fudge their character creation. Paladins were rare because you needed high rolls to get one. But, if people are just fudging the rolls, then paladins stop being rare. Same with rangers and druids and monks. All that gating of group power behind die rolls during chargen goes straight out the window as soon as the rubber meets the road.

Silly designers - how dare they have the gumption to assume DMs would actually enforce the rules they wrote.

If you enforce the RAW in this case it in fact does kind of work as intended.

So, you can easily wind up with a group of six PC's that include a ranger, a paladin and a druid/thief/MU. Which in turn means that other limitations and whatnot stop working. Those level limited demi-humans? Well, it says right there if I've got an 18 Int, my elven MU can now go up to 15th level (or whatever the numbers are) so, poof, my elven MU is always going to have an 18 or 19 int.

I rolled up a new character last weekend - first one in years. Highest roll was 16, but - and this is quite unusual for me - the low was 12, so solid across the board. Done on a VTT so all above-board and DM-verifiable; and with the rolls I got that character could have been anything except a Paladin. (of course, as fate would have it all I was after this time was a simple Thief as that's the idea I was going in with)

When fudging is purely ad hoc DM fiat, there's no way to design around it. When it's player facing and defined, then you can start to incorporate it into your design decisions.

Unfortunately that incorporation into design decisions in some parts of the game only serves to passively endorse it in others, leading IMO to a poorer play experience overall.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right. And for you, that wager is important. But for a bunch of other people... the "wager" of how the game mechanics of D&D play out is not. D&D mechanics (and thus results) just aren't that important or sacred. They're nice to have... they are fun to use and can give interesting results... but they aren't sacrosanct. We just aren't that concerned. And which is why all manner of people are okay with any number of the different ways that results don't end being the way others think the results should be.

For me... it's always been "If I'm not going sweat A, why get hung up on sweating B or C?" And if you sweat A, B, and C? That's cool! Glad you're enjoying your game!

This goes to what I said to @Warpiglet-7: this would be a case of the system not aligning with the play agenda. You want game A, the system is delivering game B, but instead of looking for a game that does deliver A the system is ignored to produce the agenda. What's weird here is that the system isn't just ignored, but rather invoked to be ignored. I guess I don't grok the need to claim that you're using the system to the point of invoking it only if the plan is to ignore it.

 

[Irlo]

This goes to what I said to @Warpiglet-7: this would be a case of the system not aligning with the play agenda. You want game A, the system is delivering game B, but instead of looking for a game that does deliver A the system is ignored to produce the agenda. What's weird here is that the system isn't just ignored, but rather invoked to be ignored. I guess I don't grok the need to claim that you're using the system to the point of invoking it only if the plan is to ignore it.

There’s often more than one agenda. Your group might want both A and B in various degrees at various times, so that game might still be a great choice.

 

[Xetheral]

I'm not sure this is correct. I very much enjoy Story Now games, which are far more focused on generating dramatic events than D&D-alikes, but there the mechanics are very much important to follow and not fudge. Fudging there completely eliminates the purpose of play -- to find out what happens for everyone involved. Fudging is more about one person deciding what happens.

Heck, even in storygames, which are organized around telling a story and feature mechanics like conch passing and consensus conflict resolution, you still have an adherence to the mechanics that is important and shouldn't be fudged. Fudging really only shows up in games where there's a heavy process sim mechanical suite and when that conflicts with a non-process-sim agenda like telling a story. It's a symptom of a mismatch between system and agenda of play where the system is spitting out results that go against the agenda of play (at least of the GM, perhaps also the entire table).

(Emphasis added.) I think your post is a very concise and useful description of where fudging crops up, and why it crops up. I think your description also implicitly highlights where fudging has the most utility: when the DM is trying to balance multiple agendas of play.

 

[Vaalingrade]

As a note, Legendary Resistance is never okay.

 

[Gammadoodler]

While, in general, I prefer rolls to be out in the open, my personal take on fudging is that it's only bad if you are bad at doing it.

Basically as soon as players doubt that their victory or defeat was earned, then fudging becomes bad.

Before that point. Go nuts.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This goes to what I said to @Warpiglet-7: this would be a case of the system not aligning with the play agenda. You want game A, the system is delivering game B, but instead of looking for a game that does deliver A the system is ignored to produce the agenda. What's weird here is that the system isn't just ignored, but rather invoked to be ignored. I guess I don't grok the need to claim that you're using the system to the point of invoking it only if the plan is to ignore it.

Cause we don't care enough about invoking it either?

I always make jokes about the "board game" of D&D and how kind of silly / dumb / janky the rules of it can be (especially when other people get so hung up on trying to make sure RAW is so concrete). Since I care more about the narrative of my RPGs than I do the board game, I probably should play a different RPG than D&D... one that doesn't have such silly / dumb / janky game mechanics. That would make sense.

* If * I cared enough about the entire process to make sure I got "the best" game for my needs.

But I don't.

Roleplaying games themselves just aren't that important to me. I do not care what system I'm using, or what the rules are, or how the game is meant to "optimally work". I play what's in front of me and what my players also want to play. And I'll jerry-rig the game in whatever way I want to get a semblance of what I like. And if that means house rules or fudging or whatever... I'll do it. None of that bothers me. I just don't care. And I have acquired a bunch of friends who also just don't care and will play whatever it is I throw in front of them-- or if they do care, I've done such a good job of masking anything I've done that they think I'm giving them exactly what they want. Now that hasn't always been the case... sometimes I've had a player for whom my way and their way of gaming didn't jive and they stepped away after a campaign or a few months or whatever, but that's fine, no harm no foul. For the rest of us? We just play to play and not get "hung up" on so much stuff.

Cause that's really it at the end of the day... there seems to always be something that someone gets "hung up" on. And I just can't fathom spending my precious time being bent out of shape about anything related to RPGs. It's just not that important.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Cause we don't care enough about invoking it either?

I always make jokes about the "board game" of D&D and how kind of silly / dumb / janky the rules of it can be (especially when other people get so hung up on trying to make sure RAW is so concrete). Since I care more about the narrative of my RPGs than I do the board game, I probably should play a different RPG than D&D... one that doesn't have such silly / dumb / janky game mechanics. That would make sense.

* If * I cared enough about the entire process to make sure I got "the best" game for my needs.

But I don't.

Roleplaying games themselves just aren't that important to me. I do not care what system I'm using, or what the rules are, or how the game is meant to "optimally work". I play what's in front of me and what my players also want to play. And I'll jerry-rig the game in whatever way I want to get a semblance of what I like. And if that means house rules or fudging or whatever... I'll do it. None of that bothers me. I just don't care. And I have acquired a bunch of friends who also just don't care and will play whatever it is I throw in front of them-- or if they do care, I've done such a good job of masking anything I've done that they think I'm giving them exactly what they want. Now that hasn't always been the case... sometimes I've had a player for whom my way and their way of gaming didn't jive and they stepped away after a campaign or a few months or whatever, but that's fine, no harm no foul. For the rest of us? We just play to play and not get "hung up" on so much stuff.

Cause that's really it at the end of the day... there seems to always be something that someone gets "hung up" on. And I just can't fathom spending my precious time being bent out of shape about anything related to RPGs. It's just not that important.

This seems to have mistaken what I said, because you've gone on a tangent I wasn't touching on at all. When I say "invoke" I mean that you've called for the system to adjudicate a conflict at the table -- you've rolled an attack roll, or rolled a ability check, or rolled for a random encounter. You've actually used the system. And then decided that the result the system provided from your invocation of it isn't what you want to happen, and so you change it. This is fudging -- choosing the outcome because the system didn't deliver the one you wanted. House rules or judgement calls or whatever aren't fudging because they aren't invoking the system and then deciding to change the outcome.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There’s often more than one agenda. Your group might want both A and B in various degrees at various times, so that game might still be a great choice.

Attempting to follow multiple agendas leads to incoherent play. This isn't bad, necessarily, I think that most play is rather incoherent because of this very thing. As an example, let's look at the combat engine of 5e -- it clearly can produce outcomes where PCs are killed, and killed through "bad luck." So, I might have, at one point, an agenda that this is an important fight, that we need to have it's outcome be fairly derived, and play through so that the "bad luck" is a legitimate outcome. But then, in a following game, I might decide that losing an important PC to random happenstance is not good, so I fudge the combat engine so it doesn't happen. These agendas are incoherent -- they cannot exist at the same time; they do not cohere. I posit that it's a rare situation where you have agendas that both work together and require fudging the system for one and not fudging it for the other. Rather, in this case, you're toggling agendas between two that are not compatible. Which, again, I think is pretty common at TTRPG tables. It's usually not at mine, because I try very hard not to toggle agendas of play, but then I also spend a good bit of time thinking about agendas of play and how systems align or fight them, and tend to select games based on what I want from them or, vice versa, alter what I want from a game based on what it provides.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This seems to have mistaken what I said, because you've gone on a tangent I wasn't touching on at all. When I say "invoke" I mean that you've called for the system to adjudicate a conflict at the table -- you've rolled an attack roll, or rolled a ability check, or rolled for a random encounter. You've actually used the system. And then decided that the result the system provided from your invocation of it isn't what you want to happen, and so you change it. This is fudging -- choosing the outcome because the system didn't deliver the one you wanted.

I guess I did misunderstand your post because I know what fudging is, but that had nothing apparently to do with what you were talking about in the post I responded to. You said:

"...this would be a case of the system not aligning with the play agenda. You want game A, the system is delivering game B, but instead of looking for a game that does deliver A the system is ignored to produce the agenda. What's weird here is that the system isn't just ignored, but rather invoked to be ignored. I guess I don't grok the need to claim that you're using the system to the point of invoking it only if the plan is to ignore it."

Which I understood to be you saying you don't know why I would use a game B with a set system, when I'd rather have game A... and then ignore stuff in the game B system to produce the results of game A. To which my post answered that question quite well. I don't care about either system. I'll play whatever I have and whatever folks at my table want to play, and I'll create the game that I end up with.

If there's something else you are trying to get across you'll need to restate it, because the point you thought you were making didn't work.