D&D General Dice Fudging and Twist Endings

[Swarmkeeper]

I'm in the camp of not fudging (i.e rolling in the open) and having the DM only call for rolls that have meaningful consequences as a failure condition. If, as DM, I'm not prepared to accept the meaningful consequences of a failed roll, I need to question myself on why I'm calling for a roll in the first place. And this is all predicated on the players being able to make informed decisions for their PCs - at our table, the players have some sense of what's at stake before the dice hit the table.

 

[iserith]

I'm in the camp of not fudging (i.e rolling in the open) and having the DM only call for rolls that have meaningful consequences as a failure condition. If, as DM, I'm not prepared to accept the meaningful consequences of a failed roll, I need to question myself on why I'm calling for a roll in the first place. And this is all predicated on the players being able to make informed decisions for their PCs - at our table, the players have some sense of what's at stake before the dice hit the table.

Yep - it's a good DM practice in my view that if you're going to let the dice decide, make sure the success and failure states are both exciting and memorable for the players, even if failure sucks for the characters. If the DM can't imagine what that looks like in the moment, don't let the dice decide. Then you never have to fudge.

 

[CreamCloud0]

the debate has been going around since the 70's. It will never end. For the record I'd rather fudge an occasional roll than let one bad roll derail the game.

basically this yeah, rolling dice is fine for 98% of the time but letting entirely random rolls decide absolutely everything is at some point going to stab itself in the foot at some point, no matter how many times your dice might get that crit right at the perfect moment to make the most awesome moment where everyone cheers with joy your dice don't actually have and sense of narritive and putting a finger on the scales in that rare moment where the opposite situation is happening is preferable to letting a main pillar of story topple and fall to random chance.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

"The DM is there to see that the adventure is interesting and that everyone enjoys the game."
- Moldvay

Which does not mean that it is the DM's responsibility that everyone has fun. It is their responsibility to work with the players so that the group experience is enjoyable. The two are very different things, and conflating them leads to the "tyranny of fun."

"A common mistake most DMs make is to rely too much on random die rolls."
- Cook

Certainly. Don't invoke die rolls when they aren't necessary. Just go with what you've already decided is the case. Don't pretend that you aren't doing that. Just do it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

the debate has been going around since the 70's. It will never end. For the record I'd rather fudge an occasional roll than let one bad roll derail the game.

If there's a roll where you don't actually want to allow the consequences, don't roll, or explicitly alter the results of the roll (preferably before the roll) so they will be acceptable to you.

You should never be rolling if you don't actually want what results from rolling. This is a lesson a lot of DMs simply refuse to learn, for reasons beyond my ken.

 

[nevin]

Even the best DM's make mistakes and roll what they shouldn't thus the fudge vs never fudge argument. But we'll never agree on this so saying we can't learn is a big condescending. I understand your position. I just disagree with it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is a lesson a lot of DMs simply refuse to learn, for reasons beyond my ken.

Because other DMs aren't running games for your players, for whom I'm guessing absolute honesty apparently is a must. Other players don't care. Or they find the act of rolling their skills, abilities, and attacks more fun and important than the actual results that are garnered from them.

I've never learned that "lesson" because it's not a lesson I believe in. Dice are random event generator just like DMs are. And DMs can generate random events just as well as dice can, and sometimes do it even better. Dice work fine a good most of the time which is why I use them... but I've never been beholden to them.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm in the camp of not fudging (i.e rolling in the open) and having the DM only call for rolls that have meaningful consequences as a failure condition. If, as DM, I'm not prepared to accept the meaningful consequences of a failed roll, I need to question myself on why I'm calling for a roll in the first place. And this is all predicated on the players being able to make informed decisions for their PCs - at our table, the players have some sense of what's at stake before the dice hit the table.

In general, I agree. But if another dm is trying to do his and just sort of fails to judge correctly whether a roll should have been called in the first place, they an just retcon the roll. Or, if they can change the result secretly, that's another valid tool to use to correct the situation.

Heck, I could spend all day imagining edge cases where I can see fudging as being justified. BUT if you find yourself doing this often, you should look at how you prep and/or run the game.

In other words, fudging is a (not the but a) perfectly cromulent way to deal with screwing up somewhere else.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because other DMs aren't running games for your players, for whom I'm guessing absolute honesty apparently is a must. Other players don't care. Or they find the act of rolling their skills, abilities, and attacks more fun and important than the actual results that are garnered from them.

I've never learned that "lesson" because it's not a lesson I believe in. Dice are random event generator just like DMs are. And DMs can generate random events just as well as dice can, and sometimes do it even better. Dice work fine a good most of the time which is why I use them... but I've never been beholden to them.

What does honesty have to do with "don't roll when you don't need to"?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In general, I agree. But if another dm is trying to do his and just sort of fails to judge correctly whether a roll should have been called in the first place, they an just retcon the roll. Or, if they can change the result secretly, that's another valid tool to use to correct the situation.

IMO, admitting and addressing your mistakes is an incredibly important thing. Expecting every DM to maintain a facade of absolute perfection is one of the biggest reasons people fear starting (that and the belief that they must have absolutely encyclopedic knowledge of both the game rules and all possible scenario components the players might ask about.) Teaching DMs that it is perfectly okay to make mistakes, and that dealing with them calmly and rationally is healthy and leads to (much) better DMing, is a far, far, far better lesson than "you can trick your players into thinking you never make mistakes if you just never allow them to know."

Heck, I could spend all day imagining edge cases where I can see fudging as being justified. BUT if you find yourself doing this often, you should look at how you prep and/or run the game.

In other words, fudging is a (not the but a) perfectly cromulent way to deal with screwing up somewhere else.

Again, I disagree. Either it is a crutch--as you say, something that should be eliminated by changing one's process--or it is a deception. Neither of these is good. It should be avoided. Anything productive that can be achieved with fudging can be achieved without. No one has ever presented me with a single situation that could only be solved by fudging, and almost all of the "edge cases" you speak of are terribly, terribly contrived to begin with.