D&D General Dice Fudging and Twist Endings

[robus]

If your goal is excitement, why use the technique which has a serious (even if small) risk of doing the complete opposite of that, when there are other techniques that achieve exactly the same claimed end (fostering excitement) with exactly zero risk of this kind of unintended damage?

I dunno, I guess my players know that I'm making it all up? The one thing I haven't made up is the result of the dice roll which is why that seems sacrosanct while the rest is up for editing before or during the session.

To follow on from that - is it OK for a DM to come up with a new strategy during a session despite them devising an initial strategy before the session because the players did something unexpected?

I guess I wonder where the DM license to be creative with the fiction during a session starts and ends?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I dunno, I guess my players know that I'm making it all up? The one thing I haven't made up is the result of the dice roll which is why that seems sacrosanct while the rest is up for editing before or during the session.

I also oppose fudging monster HP, AC, reinforcements, etc. once battle is joined. If you give a reason, if you make it something the players can learn, then it isn't fudging, regardless of when you do it--modify to your heart's content so long as players are able to learn it. If it's secret, that's when there need to be strong limits.

To follow on from that - is it OK for a DM to come up with a new strategy during a session despite them devising an initial strategy before the session because the players did something unexpected?

I don't really know if I can say, because I don't know what "a new strategy" means. Different tactics, as in a person making a different tactical decision? People change their minds all the time, that's not strictly a problem. Radically different personality and priorities, such that you're effectively deleting the person they were and replacing them with a clone that doesn't act the same way? That's probably a bridge too far.

I guess I wonder where the DM license to be creative with the fiction during a session starts and ends?

I don't really understand what's confusing about it. Has the thing entered play? Then it should not be altered unless the players can* learn about it. Has it not entered play? Then there are few limits (not zero limits, rationality remains a thing, but the limits are otherwise very few.) Hence my practical examples above, where the players had actually researched the type of slime they mean to fight, or examined attack sites and interviewed survivors etc., and thus learned these slimes are weak to cold. That weakness has entered play, because they've actually engaged with it. Other aspects of the slimes might remain unknown--do they attack as a group, or as a single monster? How intelligent are they? Can they fission into two new creatures if damaged? Etc. All those questions could remain entirely unanswered, and thus completely free to alter up until the moment the party starts having an answer for them.

If you want some kind of rule of thumb:
Once the party actually sees the creature, don't change its stats unless you justify it and give the players a chance to find out what happened.
If the party hasn't seen the creature, but has done work to learn about the creature, anything they have learn is durable. You must justify any changes, and give the players a chance to find out what changed.
Same goes for things like "who killed the Countess," "the true identity of <player character's> father," and other factual/situation things that could be investigated.

Or if you want a really pithy maxim: "Don't contradict what the players have started to learn unless you justify it & let them learn anew."

If you DO justify it and let the players learn anew, then you by definition aren't fudging (it isn't secret, so it can't be fudging), and thus no problem occurs.

*It's not that they must learn of it--just that they can learn of it. But it must be a genuine, serious "can learn," not a fig-leaf excuse. Again, having to roll a double crit to learn it isn't being sincere about enabling players to learn, but you also don't need to shout it at them either.

---

To turn a question back on you: Why is it you seem to think that an opposition to fudging means putting a collar on GM creativity? Surely deceptive practices are far from the only tool in the GM toolbox. Indeed, I would hope that such a tool (as nearly everyone agrees, even very pro-fudging folks) would be used very sparingly if it is used at all. And if it is used so rarely, then opposing it can't be that much of an imposition on the creative GM. This isn't telling someone to paint without using any form of blue; it's telling someone not to use fluorescent yellow-green, a color that would rarely be needed and where its absence can be worked around without losing much of anything.

 

[iserith]

I dunno, I guess my players know that I'm making it all up? The one thing I haven't made up is the result of the dice roll which is why that seems sacrosanct while the rest is up for editing before or during the session.

To follow on from that - is it OK for a DM to come up with a new strategy during a session despite them devising an initial strategy before the session because the players did something unexpected?

I guess I wonder where the DM license to be creative with the fiction during a session starts and ends?

I would say the main thing is that, if something has already been established, it should not be contradicted by DM (or players).

 

[Clint_L]

I dunno, I guess my players know that I'm making it all up? The one thing I haven't made up is the result of the dice roll which is why that seems sacrosanct while the rest is up for editing before or during the session.

To follow on from that - is it OK for a DM to come up with a new strategy during a session despite them devising an initial strategy before the session because the players did something unexpected?

I guess I wonder where the DM license to be creative with the fiction during a session starts and ends?

I think that it's a cooperative storytelling game, so the limits are up to each group.

For me, I have chosen to limit myself by not fudging dice rolls because I have found that it makes the story more fun and more cooperative. At my games. YVMV.

Another limit I put on myself is to not meta-game by using my knowledge of the players' plans against them. So I don't see a problem devising a new strategy in response to something imaginative done by the players, as long as the strategy is consistent with what my NPCs would know rather than what I know. I always try to play my characters as believably as possible, given what they know and what I imagine as their motivations.

 

[Oofta]

Why is it more legitimate to assign you a homework question based on material actually presented in class, and not legitimate to assign you a homework question based on the lesson the teacher wishes they had taught originally?

It isn't complicated. The number you picked in advance is something the players could actually learn about--at least its general shape, if not its actual value. The number you "pick" on the fly, after battle is already joined and damage dice have already been rolled, is not something they can learn about--not even in principle. The whole point of doing the change is to make it undetectable, because if the players found out about the change, they'd probably feel at least a little disappointed (and possibly a lot disappointed.) The experience would instantly become less exciting.

This is why I legit do not understand the "I'm here to deliver an exciting experience" response. You're doing something that, if it were discovered, would instantly damage the excitement of the scene. Even if the players have already said in advance that they're fine with it, it would probably still damage the excitement of the scene, just to a lesser extent. For players that haven't, it's a risky gamble every time you do it.

If your goal is excitement, why use the technique which has a serious (even if small) risk of doing the complete opposite of that, when there are other techniques that achieve exactly the same claimed end (fostering excitement) with exactly zero risk of this kind of unintended damage?

If my goal is to create an exciting, but not completely deadly, encounter I only have so many choices. I can prep ahead of time and hope it works. I can usually set things up about right. I can prep ahead of time and adjust in response to how things unfold.

For the latter there are multiple ways of doing that

1. Altering tactics.
2. Changing the HP.
3. Changing attack bonus and damage of the enemies.
4. Bringing in, or ignoring, reinforcements.
5. Fudging dice.

I do #1 in game now and then. I do #2-3 ahead of time on a regular basis. Sometimes it's even just before initiative starts based on number and difficulty of encounters they've had and I expect them to have. On a very rare basis I'll do #2 after the encounter has started but only if I f'ed up. For #4 that would generally only be based on PC actions and the situation - did they sneak past the guards or does everyone and their mother know the fight is happening? But I won't bring in reinforcements unless it makes sense for the scenario, I don't want to drag out a fight that the PCs are winning just because it was too easy. I don't do #5 because I don't find that I need to and I don't appreciate it when DMs do it when I'm playing.

But as far as the players always know what their up against? Nah. Much of the time they do, especially if it's engaging a particularly tough enemy. But I like springing surprises on my group too much to broadcast everything all the time. Besides, sometimes I'm just reacting to what the PCs are doing in what I think is a logical fashion. It's fun to have a "Holy ****!" moment now and then.

 

[Umbran]

But as far as the players always know what their up against? Nah.

Players may know in a rough, qualitative sense, if they engage in play that allows them to determine such. But it isn't like I'm showing them the stat blocks of the enemy.

 

[Oofta]

Players may know in a rough, qualitative sense, if they engage in play that allows them to determine such. But it isn't like I'm showing them the stat blocks of the enemy.

I let people know in my session 0 that I change stat blocks on a fairly regular basis so they aren't surprised when it happens. Just because it looks like a [insert creature here] does not mean it matches the version in the book, although I'll frequently give hints.

 

[robus]

Players may know in a rough, qualitative sense, if they engage in play that allows them to determine such. But it isn't like I'm showing them the stat blocks of the enemy.

Yeah - I guess my players don't know that much about my foes? I certainly don't say things like "the NPC is at half hit points"

So really there's nothing much to learn except what kind of attacks it has and how hard it is to hit - which seems reasonable. But how many HP it has remaining right now? Never.

 

[robus]

I would say the main thing is that, if something has already been established, it should not be contradicted by DM (or players).

The only thing that's been established is this is a tough foe so expect a tough fight (and if it turns out I've woefully under stat'ed the tough foe, well it's going to get tougher than I thought, but not what my players thought!)

That's the thing I guess. I'm trying to deliver on the expectation rather than deliver a damp squib (as in the Black Spider from LMoP as stat'ed in the adventure).

 

[iserith]

The only thing that's been established is this is a tough foe so expect a tough fight (and if it turns out I've woefully under stat'ed the tough foe, well it's going to get tougher than I thought, but not what my players thought!)

That's the thing I guess. I'm trying to deliver on the expectation rather than deliver a damp squib (as in the Black Spider from LMoP as stat'ed in the adventure).

The challenge with telegraphing difficulty is that difficulty starts changing the moment the players make meaningful decisions and the dice start rolling. I think it's better to telegraph specific things the enemy can do rather than just say "tough" or "pushover" or whatever. Let the players decide if they find those things to be potentially difficult. For myself, I do not hold to any expectation that a fight should be one way or another. It is what it is and however it turns out is just how the story goes. So I really have no incentive at all to mess about with stats midstream.