D&D General Dice Fudging and Twist Endings

[EzekielRaiden]

100%.

'It's for the good of the game, it increases everyone's fun. However if they ever found out, it would cause big problems.'

Which, functionally, means that a DM that embraces fudging must be signing up for that aforementioned argument: "I am sufficiently good at fudging that my players will never find out that I'm doing it."

If it's somehow hilarious or beyond the pale for players to always know every single time DMs fudge, how is it not at least dubious that a DM can keep doing it without ever once getting caught? And if they do get caught...? Even groups that claim to be okay with it in the abstract may not always be okay with it in every individual circumstance.

 

[Cadence]

Which, functionally, means that a DM that embraces fudging must be signing up for that aforementioned argument: "I am sufficiently good at fudging that my players will never find out that I'm doing it."

The part I don't get is why for some posters this doesn't seem to apply to adjusting hp, ac, spells known, reinforcements, or willingness to take prisoners on the fly. The bad guys fighting to the death whenever they're losing and putting the breaks on whenever they're winning, or getting reinforcements just enough to make it competitive but never enough to TPK. Etc. It's not like those things aren't obvious the second or third time they happen.

As an aside, I had a player question my rolls several times over a few weeks in one campaign*. Offered to show him my dice rolling window on every single one - because the rolls were all right there. If the player is paranoid and willing to have a 100% Type II error rate, it's all kind of hopeless no matter what the DM is doing.

* I think almost all were in jest when the monsters were getting good rolls against the party. If I thought he was serious I probably would have booted him. (They were rolling in discord hooked to beyond. I didn't have the monsters loaded in and so had a plain dice rolling program that kept all the rolls. I kind of like the players not knowing if I'm rolling a perception check or the like for a monster if they don't know there is someone watching them, for example).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The part I don't get is why for some posters this doesn't seem to apply to adjusting hp, ac, spells known, reinforcements, or willingness to take prisoners on the fly.

All but the last are things I would put in the same general category of fudging. Altering HP is exactly equivalent to forcing specific damage rolls (whether lower or higher), you're just altering the other side of the equation. Same for AC and hit rolls. Altering spells known on the fly and reinforcements is shifting the world beneath the players' feet, making what was false true and potentially making what was true false, with no way for the players to know that.

Willingness to take prisoners, on the other hand, is a dispositional thing: it depends on the mood of the person in question. Dispositions can change pretty fluidly, even mercurially. Unless there's a very good established reason why someone definitely wouldn't ever take prisoners, I expect that they'll be able to stop, think, reconsider, and decide how best to proceed. Because that's what any thinking being would do. Maybe they think they'll get a good ransom, for example.

The bad guys fighting to the death whenever they're losing and putting the breaks on whenever they're winning,

Sometimes, being caught is as bad as, or worse than, taking whatever risks one needs to take to try to win. But in general I don't have sapient opponents fight to the death unless they have good reason (e.g., cultists who despise non-believers and refuse to be subjected to what they consider false "mercy.") Conversely, killing your opponents when you could extract information from them is often unwise, especially in a world where intrigue is fairly important.

or getting reinforcements just enough to make it competitive but never enough to TPK. Etc. It's not like those things aren't obvious the second or third time they happen.

Sure. I'd never have unjustified reinforcements show up as a secret "DM oopsie" patch, because I see that as fudging. That's one of those things where you either learn to prepare in advance, or you learn to make it an interesting plot point, how DID these reinforcements know to show up? etc.

As an aside, I had a player question my rolls several times over a few weeks in one campaign*. Offered to show him my dice rolling window on every single one - because the rolls were all right there. If the player is paranoid and willing to have a 100% Type II error rate, it's all kind of hopeless no matter what the DM is doing.

* I think almost all were in jest when the monsters were getting good rolls against the party. If I thought he was serious I probably would have booted him. (They were rolling in discord hooked to beyond. I didn't have the monsters loaded in and so had a plain dice rolling program.

People talk a lot about "don't you trust your GM" etc., but very rarely seem to consider that trust is something a GM must earn, not something that the GM is simply entitled to. Indeed, it isn't just earned, it must be actively sustained, cultivated. Pulling moves that boil down to "I'm the GM, don't you trust me?" are exactly the sort of thing which spends much more trust than is generated, even when the trust is appropriate/warranted.

This is one of the areas where I find it so incredibly frustrating that there's such a pearl-clutching fear of "player entitlement," and yet a near blindness to the very possibility of GM entitlement. As though it couldn't possibly be the case that the GM could be demanding or petulant in a game-damaging way, that every expectation the GM has must be definitionally productive.

I kind of like the players not knowing if I'm rolling a perception check or the like for a monster if they don't know there is someone watching them, for example).

Personally, I've actually found it much more productive as a GM skill-building exercise that I can't do that (DW doesn't allow secret perception-type rolls.) It forces you to do a lot more of the work, to really think through not just what the players should know, but what they do know. I've found it also largely prevents "gotcha" type surprises.

 

[Cadence]

Willingness to take prisoners, on the other hand, is a dispositional thing: it depends on the mood of the person in question. Dispositions can change pretty fluidly, even mercurially. Unless there's a very good established reason why someone definitely wouldn't ever take prisoners, I expect that they'll be able to stop, think, reconsider, and decide how best to proceed. Because that's what any thinking being would do. Maybe they think they'll get a good ransom, for example.

Sometimes, being caught is as bad as, or worse than, taking whatever risks one needs to take to try to win. But in general I don't have sapient opponents fight to the death unless they have good reason (e.g., cultists who despise non-believers and refuse to be subjected to what they consider false "mercy.") Conversely, killing your opponents when you could extract information from them is often unwise, especially in a world where intrigue is fairly important.

Having the bad guys never do those things would feel strange. Having them always do it gets like the shows or comics where the villain always monologues just enough for the hero to be rescued. Once in a while the monologue is worthwhile, the rest it just feels like it's rubbing my face in how the risk wasn't real. Maybe this is why I loathe comic stories where failure is the world being destroyed. You know if it does happen time travel or some other cheese will fix it... (which was fine the first three times I read it).

Sure. I'd never have unjustified reinforcements show up as a secret "DM oopsie" patch, because I see that as fudging. That's one of those things where you either learn to prepare in advance, or you learn to make it an interesting plot point, how DID these reinforcements know to show up? etc.

Having a room down the hall with guards that have a chance of hearing something seems like a thing. Only rolling of the party is doing well (if bad guy reinforcements) or doing badly (if good guy reinforcements) seems close enough to me to fudging I don't see a significant difference. Others mileage obviously varies.

People talk a lot about "don't you trust your GM" etc., but very rarely seem to consider that trust is something a GM must earn, not something that the GM is simply entitled to. Indeed, it isn't just earned, it must be actively sustained, cultivated. Pulling moves that boil down to "I'm the GM, don't you trust me?" are exactly the sort of thing which spends much more trust than is generated, even when the trust is appropriate/warranted.

It feels immeasurably sad to me that some people approach every game they're in with friends expecting that someone is cheating and being hypersensitized to it.

This is one of the areas where I find it so incredibly frustrating that there's such a pearl-clutching fear of "player entitlement," and yet a near blindness to the very possibility of GM entitlement. As though it couldn't possibly be the case that the GM could be demanding or petulant in a game-damaging way, that every expectation the GM has must be definitionally productive.

Has anyone said that?

Personally, I've actually found it much more productive as a GM skill-building exercise that I can't do that (DW doesn't allow secret perception-type rolls.) It forces you to do a lot more of the work, to really think through not just what the players should know, but what they do know. I've found it also largely prevents "gotcha" type surprises.

How would the players know something in 5e that their passive perception checks failed to catch? Isn't passive perception exactly designed to tell what they perceive about hidden things they aren't actively trying to spot?

 

[Krachek]

It is a matter of game expectation.
If players want to be challenged, make tough call and take clever decision, fudging is disappointing.
If players want to have a good time, much like in a show or a movie, then fudging is part of the show.

 

[iserith]

The part I don't get is why for some posters this doesn't seem to apply to adjusting hp, ac, spells known, reinforcements, or willingness to take prisoners on the fly. The bad guys fighting to the death whenever they're losing and putting the breaks on whenever they're winning, or getting reinforcements just enough to make it competitive but never enough to TPK. Etc. It's not like those things aren't obvious the second or third time they happen.

I don't recommend doing those things either, and personally do not do them. When I see it happening as a player, it feels bad to me. Set the stakes at the start of the challenge - life or death, freedom or capture, or whatever other goals are on the table - and follow through to see how it turns out.

 

[Imaculata]

And changing AC mid fight is a lot easier to notice than a lot of other things, since the players might know they were missing before. How odd would it be if the same attack now all of a sudden hits?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Having the bad guys never do those things would feel strange. Having them always do it gets like the shows or comics where the villain always monologues just enough for the hero to be rescued. Once in a while the monologue is worthwhile, the rest it just feels like it's rubbing my face in how the risk wasn't real. Maybe this is why I loathe comic stories where failure is the world being destroyed. You know if it does happen time travel or some other cheese will fix it... (which was fine the first three times I read it).

As with many things, judicious use matters. I told my players the game I run is overall bright. Enemies prefer to take prisoners because they consider prisoners useful, for ransom, conversion, sacrifice...various benefits. Most won't totally fight to the death, but some will because they have ideological commitments. Etc.

As for the other bit there, IMO a story which hinges only on the final outcome being totally uncertain is not very effective as a story. It is better, more effective, to make a story where the outcome is less relevant than the journey. If the world is in danger, if will be saved, but what will the characters sacrifice in order to save it? What hardships will they endure? How will they fundamentally change as people because of that story? That's where the actual drama and meaning lie. Final stakes are less effective than ongoing stakes unless a story is genuinely about to end...and even then, most times, failure at the end would be a deeply unsatisfying ending. So best to make stakes that require painful sacrifice, genuinely thinking outside the box, or overcoming limitations or long-running faults in order to succeed. That's where things are gripping and intense.

Having a room down the hall with guards that have a chance of hearing something seems like a thing. Only rolling of the party is doing well (if bad guy reinforcements) or doing badly (if good guy reinforcements) seems close enough to me to fudging I don't see a significant difference. Others mileage obviously varies.

I guess? I might just forget TBH. But diegetic references to this ("this is the second time reinforcements have arrived when your enemy was on the ropes...something is going on here, deeper than it appears") are a way to make these alterations story-contributing, actually justified even if technically after the fact, rather than fudging.

It feels immeasurably sad to me that some people approach every game they're in with friends expecting that someone is cheating and being hypersensitized to it.

Well, in fairness, most of my games have been with people who weren't my friends before we started playing.

Has anyone said that?

I don't personally think the rhetorical question is very useful here. Obviously not. To openly say such a thing would be pretty foolish. But I have absolutely seen people (don't think I've seen it in this thread) who are intensely agitated by the merest hint of "player entitlement," but who (openly) think DMs are slaving away for their ungrateful, petulant, flippant players, and thus inherently deserve unlimited trust and respect at all times no matter what techniques they employ. So, while they may not explicitly believe DM entitlement is impossible, their explicit arguments do hinge upon such a thing being impossible.

How would the players know something in 5e that their passive perception checks failed to catch?

Because you tell them. Using a system which doesn't allow secret checks (which is what Dungeon World does) forces you to not rely on stuff that could only be known via secret checks. I consider this a valuable lesson for the GM.

Isn't passive perception exactly designed to tell what they perceive about hidden things they aren't actively trying to spot?

In some senses, yes. In other senses, no. I am confident you don't consult passive perception every single time you need to describe a room to the party. You just describe it. Being forced to use a system where you cannot rely on such passive and/or secret checks forces you to be evocative, specific, and thorough: you don't have the luxury of leaving out details that can be picked up via passive perception.

 

[robus]

I don't recommend doing those things either, and personally do not do them. When I see it happening as a player, it feels bad to me. Set the stakes at the start of the challenge - life or death, freedom or capture, or whatever other goals are on the table - and follow through to see how it turns out.

I’ve adjusted HP on the fly until I learned to just give my monsters max HP. Part of that is learning how to balance the challenge to your players.

 

[Cadence]

<areas of agreenent or no comment snipped>

Well, in fairness, most of my games have been with people who weren't my friends before we started playing.

A lot of MtG tournaments are against strangers and I don't think my null hypothesis there is that they're cheating/fudging/lying either. ::::

Now I'm wonder if trying to think about whether I'm suspecting them or not sometime will actually make me do it.

Because you tell them. Using a system which doesn't allow secret checks (which is what Dungeon World does) forces you to not rely on stuff that could only be known via secret checks. I consider this a valuable lesson for the GM.


In some senses, yes. In other senses, no. I am confident you don't consult passive perception every single time you need to describe a room to the party. You just describe it. Being forced to use a system where you cannot rely on such passive and/or secret checks forces you to be evocative, specific, and thorough: you don't have the luxury of leaving out details that can be picked up via passive perception.

This line started with me saying sometimes I like the players not knowing a roll was made. I should have given the example in my head at the time. I was picturing some hidden guards trying to spot the party. If the party isn't doing anything special and their passive perception isn't high enough then they don't see the guards. Knowing a roll was taking place feels like it will result in the party being extra cautious simply because a roll was made even though the characters didn't notice a change.

I wouldn't use passive perception on obvious and non-hidden-non-small things like a general room description.