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

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Nope, not my point. That you want to make all games you play the same game is your thing and has nothing to do with the thread topic. It's when you play a game, don't change it, and then just ignoring the results it produces to choose your own outcomes that we get to fudging. My suggestion would be to play a different game -- even if it's one you create with pieces of other games.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My suggestion would be to play a different game -- even if it's one you create with pieces of other games.

But I don't want to. So there! I want to fudge because fudging is good. If you don't agree, that's fine. You're wrong... but that's fine.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But I don't want to. So there! I want to fudge because fudging is good. If you don't agree, that's fine. You're wrong... but that's fine.

As long as we're not at the same table, perfectly fine. Fudging is absolutely a way to handle a conflict between agenda and wanting to invoke the system. I'd rather find a system that actually supports what I want rather than have to keep overriding the system, especially if such overrides need to be hidden from players.

 

[robus]

So are you suggesting that it's okay to adjust a monster's HP during the fight (up or down) to set up a result, but changing a die roll is not? That doesn't make much sense to me. Because all that means is that you could theoretically decide to adjust a monster's HP up high enough to just counteract the hit and damage roll you weren't willing to change so the monster ends up in the exact same place-- just as if you had fudged the attack roll to a miss. Personally... I don't see one being any better or worse than another.

i think it’s quite different because the HP number I came up with was a guess and at very high levels we’re talking a very wild guess! So I feel perfectly OK refining my guess when the plan encounters the players.

I also think it’s important that junior DMs know that it’s OK to make adjustments if your encounter is not performing to expectations. It‘s OK to nerf a monster if it’s threatening to TPK the party unexpectedly.

We make decisions for the monsters all the time, which attacks, which spells etc. we can also decide to make live longer or shorter on the fly.

And, again, this is if things are wildly out of whack with the expected challenge.

 

[Vaalingrade]

We need to de-normalize 'play a different game' and 'you're playing a different game' as responses to playing in a way one doesn't approve of.

Even if you think you're being helpful.

Especially when you think you're being helpful.

 

[Ovinomancer]

We need to de-normalize 'play a different game' and 'you're playing a different game' as responses to playing in a way one doesn't approve of.

Even if you think you're being helpful.

Especially when you think you're being helpful.

I disagree. The usual form of the argument made is that everything is D&D with enough work (changes), or that system doesn't matter. Pointing out it does matter, and that changes to the system also matter, is not something I think is harmful at all -- it spurs better understanding and clarity about what games we're all playing.

If I say I'm playing 5e and you say you're playing 5e, but what's going on is that you're playing pretty straight by the book but I have 200 pages of houserules with a completely revamped spell system and major combat engine changes, then we're never really going to be talking about the same game. It's kinda like thinking that since you ran 3e that you don't need to pay attention to anything in the DMG for 5e because you already know how to play D&D. Newsflash, it isn't the same game!

 

[Vaalingrade]

IT's bascially just passive-agrssive bullying people out fo the game for playing different/having different preferences.

If someone is making a change to D&D, they're using D&D and it isn't their responsibility to get everyone else's blessing for it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

"Maybe you should try another game?" can be a valid suggestion if a person has issues with their current game and is not satisfied with it. But if they're happy with it but you just think that they're playing it 'wrong' then it is way less valid.

 

[Hussar]

they represent something diegetic in the system

That's your personal bugaboo that I really don't care about. It's justified fudging, maybe, but, it's still changing the die roll because you didn't like the original roll. Fudging by definition.

There is nothing "diegetic" about inspiration dice. And, it's still one person at the table deciding to change the results, so, whether that one person is the DM or a player doesn't really change the fact that it's still fudging.

This doesn't describe my experiences with the game at that time at all. We had 1 paladin in a long (5 year) campaign, and one other set of stats that could have been a paladin. We never saw any STR over 18/77 without a magic item. I played a thief with a DEX of 15 because it was my highest stat -- everything else was 10 or lower (thankfully the lowest was a 7). I don't know what to tell you other than please stop making your experiences the assumed default for play.

And it's a good thing I wasn't describing your experiences. I was describing mine. We had paladins anytime someone wanted to play one. I never saw a fighter type that didn't have percentile strength in the 20 years I played AD&D. So one and so forth. Why? Because everyone I knew, whether I DM'd or played, including with groups with absolutely no connection to each other, fudged chargen. Which is my point. Fudging wasn't some rare thing that never happened. It happened all the time. It happened so often that we actually invented a word for it.

 

[Hussar]

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.

I'm thinking you're going to have a bit of an uphill battle on that account considering the endorsement of reroll mechanics we see in this thread. And the fact that reroll mechanics are pretty much standard in most RPG's now. About the only ones that don't are OSR clones.