D&D General Dice Fudging and Twist Endings

[iserith]

It's my understanding (and I may be wrong, so apologies in advance!) that you run very much beer & pretzels type of games (most of which don't run for very long?) So I can understand your not really worrying too much about the dramatic weight of a particular encounter, there'll be another one around the corner after all?

My games are lighthearted in tone, generally speaking, but they deal with serious things and last 20 to 30 (packed) four-hour sessions. I don't worry about the "dramatic weight" of an encounter because part of playing is seeing where things go. To that end, I try not to put my thumb on the scale too much. Sometimes it's tragedy. Sometimes it's comedy.

I ran what I considered to be a "road encounter" on Friday, for example, and it got very complicated and deadly, eventually ending with the PCs driving off the monster with the paladin's ability to turn fiends so they could steal its treasure before it got back 1 minute later. Things got even crazier when I generated the treasure randomly on the spot and two 9th-level scrolls were in it. (I roll the level, players pick the spell.) Now they want to go steal the demonic Ship of Chaos they've been seeing in the distance while traveling the Abyss and, with two wish spells, maybe now they can!

 

[GrahamWills]

Yeah, in this case, once in 64 million not often.

However, that's not as unlikely as you might think, given how many games of D&D are being played and therefore how many D20s are being rolled. Let's say, I dunno, a million games of D&D are happening per week (total hypothetical) and the average player rolls a D20 10 times (again, these are totally made up numbers to illustrate the point). Then we would expect a streak like yours to happen somewhere pretty regularly. It's cool and interesting that it happened to you, but it's not bending the laws of nature, or anything.

OK. Puts professional hat on.

The original statement was "I rolled a 20 around 6 times in a row, each one a confirmed crit."

So there is initial uncertainty about how many times the dice were rolled. People are not great at this sort of recollection, and while it's not impossible that the actual N was as low as 3, 4-5 seems more likely, so let's take it from this evidence that he rolled 4 or 5 times.

Next up, the dice. My upfront belief is that there is an unknown prior distribution of how unfair a dice is, but that distribution is likely to contain dice that roll given numbers more times as often as expected. Given the evidence that it did do so, the Bayesian in me says that I must update my prior (that the dice is a bit biased in an unknown direction) to say that the dice is biased to roll d20s. More precisely it was biased. Further testing is needed to see if it is currently biased. Maybe that side was slightly tacky or the other sides slippery for some reason.

I'll go with 2x as biased because people who test this do see that level of bias often enough, and because this result is so unusual I'm goin with the high end.

So we have a dice being thrown 4-5 times, each time with a 0.1 chance of a 20, for odds of one in 10,000 to 100,000. Let's take the middle 1:50000

However, since we are observing an event and noting its unusual nature after it has occurred, we have to ask "what other events would have been equally noteworthy?" As a player, I'd think you'd notice a similar sequence of 1s, so if either are considered notable, we're at 1:25000 odds.

So that's the odds if exactly one sequence had been attempted. But how many sequences were attempted that evening but that one player? Maybe 10 might be a good number (exact calculation is hard as we have overlapping sequences. I'm sort of guessing about 50 rolls an evening and ignoring the overlap odds completely to say 10 independent sequences), dropping the odds to 1:2500. And we have 5 players, each of whom could have done the same, so now it's down to 1:500

Take away: When you are presented with an observation that seems incredible, remember that it was only one of a very, very huge number of possible observations that could have seemed incredible. Also, if something yields an extreme result, consider that the input distributions may be extremely biased.

For additional reading: Look up legal cases where the jury were told that DNA evidence showed that the odds of the accused not being guilty were millions to one against, but in fact they were quite reasonable.(e.g. If Police Find a DNA “Match,” That Doesn’t Mean They Have the Right Suspect)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I don't expect that every monster "matches the version in the book."

But I expect that if you see an owlbear, and fight that owlbear, that owlbear's HP don't change while you are fighting it unless there is an actual, knowable reason why its HP change.

I expect that if you give hints, those hints matter and are correct (even if I misunderstood or misinterpreted them, because that's on me), unless and until you drop new hints. Hints that, if understood correctly, would reveal the old hints were wrong or incomplete or overly simplified etc.

I expect that, if we face the same creatures at the same level (e.g., we fight two owlbears now, and just two sessions later we fight an evil druid, whose menagerie includes another owlbear), then even if all of these owlbears don't match the book, they at least match one another. Unless, of course, a reason is given. Druid magic (What kind of magic? Can it be prevented or dispelled? Can we learn to exploit it ourselves? etc.), being imported from a foreign land (Which land? What else comes from there? How do that land's residents deal with owlbears? etc.), a divine boon or curse (From whom? Why? Is such intervention common? Can we petition the god(s) involved for aid? etc.), whatever the reason might be. But there has to be a reason, and that reason must be learnable (even if I fail to learn it through my own errors or through bad luck.)

It's my understanding (and I may be wrong, so apologies in advance!) that you run very much beer & pretzels type of games (most of which don't run for very long?) So I can understand your not really worrying too much about the dramatic weight of a particular encounter, there'll be another one around the corner after all?

I run an emphatically not beer-and-pretzels game (heavy emphasis on politics and intrigue, high fantasy action, moral and social consequences for choices are a big deal, etc.) The above is also my experience. If things go pear-shaped without going outright horrible, the excitement comes from needing to figure out how to dig themselves out of this hole they're in (in one memed-upon case, literally for our Bard; I memorably said, "<Bard>, you're in a hole. Why are you in a hole? Don't be in a hole." This has become a running gag mostly from the Bard's player!) If a fight goes absolutely swimmingly, or they figure out a clever trick to win way faster than expected, it becomes a memorably satisfying moment of "this time we outsmarted you, GM." And if it goes more or less as planned, then the fight is generally a stepping stone to some larger concern, like stopping an evil cult, overcoming a dangerous threat, cleansing a corrupted person, rescuing a hostage, etc., so the fight adds excitement by proxy, being an obstacle on the journey toward that larger concern.

Yeah I guess my table made their disappointment very clear when a boss encounter was an anticlimax.

Serious question: Should every fight always be uniformly "exciting"? Or is it healthy to have the occasional anticlimax?

People talk an awful lot about how horrible "balanced encounters" are (by which term they actually mean "uniform lockstep encounters"), but isn't this exactly the same thing? You're just forcing uniformity of feeling, rather than uniformity of challenge.

I guess I don't understand why my coming up with something 5 hours ago or 5 seconds ago makes any difference.

It's not "did I come up with it 5 seconds ago."

It's "as of 5 seconds ago, I am contradicting what had been true for the previous 5 hours. And you aren't allowed to know that that contradiction occurred. But you will have to deal with the fact that what was once true is now false and what is now true was previously false."

There is no underlying reality. At any moment I can just TPK the party after all.

Then here, finally, we have the actual problem. I expect—indeed, absolutely require—there to be some amount of underlying reality in order to feel any excitement whatsoever. If, as you say, at any moment for no reason whatsoever you can just say "rocks fall, everyone dies, good game, hope to see you around," that kills my investment in the game stone dead. If there is no underlying reality, there is no story. No adventure. Nothing to speculate about, nothing to plan for, nothing to investigate. It becomes an entirely empty experience, and I can have those whenever I like by numerous different means.

A game with no underlying reality is reduced to only its brute physical and mathematical facts. It is only pixels on a screen (or plastic on a table) and numbers in a document (or on a sheet of paper.) The underlying reality, even if we access it through abstractions and glossed-over elements, is vital to the experience, in exactly the same way as it would be for a book, TV show, movie, etc. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but it is the word "foolish" that is doing most of the work there: a wise consistency is the foundation of anything I could ever consider a "story."

 

[braro]

But I expect that if you see an owlbear, and fight that owlbear, that owlbear's HP don't change while you are fighting it unless there is an actual, knowable reason why its HP change.

So I am generally anti-fudging - I roll out in the open, and will often communicate the AC after the first few rounds (or after a PC hits it) or something. But I wanted to throw out something to get a perspective on where this hits on fudging.

If a character is attacking the last foe in an encounter, or one of the last foes, and after the damage roll the monster...

• Has a reason or inclination to fight to the death (Undead, Fantatic, Construct, whatever).
• Has less than 5-8 HP (actual number varies based on what's going on).
• Has no appreciable way to do damage enough to matter for the resource expenditures (IE, last minion in a big fight, or doesn't have attack bonus to hit the fighter they are in melee with, or is out of significant abilities).

I will sometimes just let that blow be a killing one, just to wrap up combat after it has passed its climax.

I don't think of that as fudging, more of just wrapping up, but curious if there is a negative side I haven't considered for this.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So I am generally anti-fudging - I roll out in the open, and will often communicate the AC after the first few rounds (or after a PC hits it) or something. But I wanted to throw out something to get a perspective on where this hits on fudging.

If a character is attacking the last foe in an encounter, or one of the last foes, and after the damage roll the monster...

• Has a reason or inclination to fight to the death (Undead, Fantatic, Construct, whatever).
• Has less than 5-8 HP (actual number varies based on what's going on).
• Has no appreciable way to do damage enough to matter for the resource expenditures (IE, last minion in a big fight, or doesn't have attack bonus to hit the fighter they are in melee with, or is out of significant abilities).

I will sometimes just let that blow be a killing one, just to wrap up combat after it has passed its climax.

I don't think of that as fudging, more of just wrapping up, but curious if there is a negative side I haven't considered for this.

Yeah, I've done that in the past and don't see pronouncing a foe dead at that point as that big a deal.

Further (or alternatively), consider the following rule for ability checks in 5e, and apply it to combat: Only roll when there is uncertainty in the outcome.

In your example above, the DM may adjudicate that there is no uncertainty that a last remaining foe with very few hit points is going to perish. Therefore, no attack roll is needed. Simply allow the next player to describe what their PC does to defeat the foe and move on to the next thing in the story.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So I am generally anti-fudging - I roll out in the open, and will often communicate the AC after the first few rounds (or after a PC hits it) or something. But I wanted to throw out something to get a perspective on where this hits on fudging.

If a character is attacking the last foe in an encounter, or one of the last foes, and after the damage roll the monster...

• Has a reason or inclination to fight to the death (Undead, Fantatic, Construct, whatever).
• Has less than 5-8 HP (actual number varies based on what's going on).
• Has no appreciable way to do damage enough to matter for the resource expenditures (IE, last minion in a big fight, or doesn't have attack bonus to hit the fighter they are in melee with, or is out of significant abilities).

I will sometimes just let that blow be a killing one, just to wrap up combat after it has passed its climax.

I don't think of that as fudging, more of just wrapping up, but curious if there is a negative side I haven't considered for this.

Yeah, I've done that in the past and don't see pronouncing a foe dead at that point as that big a deal.

Further (or alternatively), consider the following rule for ability checks in 5e, and apply it to combat: Only roll when there is uncertainty in the outcome.

In your example above, the DM may adjudicate that there is no uncertainty that a last remaining foe with very few hit points is going to perish. Therefore, no attack roll is needed. Simply allow the next player to describe what their PC does to defeat the foe and move on to the next thing in the story.

If done as "This thing is almost dead. Tell me how you kill it," then I have no problem. The players may not know the precise numerical value, but they are being told "it's basically dead, just finish it off." I see this as equivalent to deciding that the dice are not necessary, and thus not using them, because the outcome is certain (whether guaranteed or impossible), and thus saying to the players, "yeah, that just works" (or "no, you know that that couldn't work," though I prefer not to use that answer unless absolutely necessary.)

 

[Oofta]

I don't expect that every monster "matches the version in the book."

But I expect that if you see an owlbear, and fight that owlbear, that owlbear's HP don't change while you are fighting it unless there is an actual, knowable reason why its HP change.

I expect that if you give hints, those hints matter and are correct (even if I misunderstood or misinterpreted them, because that's on me), unless and until you drop new hints. Hints that, if understood correctly, would reveal the old hints were wrong or incomplete or overly simplified etc.

I expect that, if we face the same creatures at the same level (e.g., we fight two owlbears now, and just two sessions later we fight an evil druid, whose menagerie includes another owlbear), then even if all of these owlbears don't match the book, they at least match one another. Unless, of course, a reason is given. Druid magic (What kind of magic? Can it be prevented or dispelled? Can we learn to exploit it ourselves? etc.), being imported from a foreign land (Which land? What else comes from there? How do that land's residents deal with owlbears? etc.), a divine boon or curse (From whom? Why? Is such intervention common? Can we petition the god(s) involved for aid? etc.), whatever the reason might be. But there has to be a reason, and that reason must be learnable (even if I fail to learn it through my own errors or through bad luck.)


I run an emphatically not beer-and-pretzels game (heavy emphasis on politics and intrigue, high fantasy action, moral and social consequences for choices are a big deal, etc.) The above is also my experience. If things go pear-shaped without going outright horrible, the excitement comes from needing to figure out how to dig themselves out of this hole they're in (in one memed-upon case, literally for our Bard; I memorably said, "<Bard>, you're in a hole. Why are you in a hole? Don't be in a hole." This has become a running gag mostly from the Bard's player!) If a fight goes absolutely swimmingly, or they figure out a clever trick to win way faster than expected, it becomes a memorably satisfying moment of "this time we outsmarted you, GM." And if it goes more or less as planned, then the fight is generally a stepping stone to some larger concern, like stopping an evil cult, overcoming a dangerous threat, cleansing a corrupted person, rescuing a hostage, etc., so the fight adds excitement by proxy, being an obstacle on the journey toward that larger concern.


Serious question: Should every fight always be uniformly "exciting"? Or is it healthy to have the occasional anticlimax?

People talk an awful lot about how horrible "balanced encounters" are (by which term they actually mean "uniform lockstep encounters"), but isn't this exactly the same thing? You're just forcing uniformity of feeling, rather than uniformity of challenge.


It's not "did I come up with it 5 seconds ago."

It's "as of 5 seconds ago, I am contradicting what had been true for the previous 5 hours. And you aren't allowed to know that that contradiction occurred. But you will have to deal with the fact that what was once true is now false and what is now true was previously false."


Then here, finally, we have the actual problem. I expect—indeed, absolutely require—there to be some amount of underlying reality in order to feel any excitement whatsoever. If, as you say, at any moment for no reason whatsoever you can just say "rocks fall, everyone dies, good game, hope to see you around," that kills my investment in the game stone dead. If there is no underlying reality, there is no story. No adventure. Nothing to speculate about, nothing to plan for, nothing to investigate. It becomes an entirely empty experience, and I can have those whenever I like by numerous different means.

A game with no underlying reality is reduced to only its brute physical and mathematical facts. It is only pixels on a screen (or plastic on a table) and numbers in a document (or on a sheet of paper.) The underlying reality, even if we access it through abstractions and glossed-over elements, is vital to the experience, in exactly the same way as it would be for a book, TV show, movie, etc. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but it is the word "foolish" that is doing most of the work there: a wise consistency is the foundation of anything I could ever consider a "story."

Who says the owlbear in my campaign is the same as the owlbear from the MM? Why would any two owlbears be exactly the same? I tweak monsters all the time. Sometimes there's in world explanations, sometimes it's just that you stumbled across a particularly ornery owlbear.

It's not going to start breathing fire unless there's an in world reason, but some individual creatures may well be more or less dangerous than standard. I will likely give descriptive hints but just because you've never run across a dragon that casts spells doesn't mean this one won't.

Truly exceptional monsters are rare, but a fair amount of variance can happen more often. If the PCs don't know or somehow
learn something, I see no reason to inform the players.

 

[iserith]

I don't handwave away any hit points either. We go to the bitter end. The players still laugh about (at tonight's session even) the fire bat that Just Wouldn't Die.

 

[GrahamWills]

I guess it’s not surprising that those GMs who like strict simulationism are the ones who also tend to like confrontational styles of play. It might be that you need one for the other; if you give yourself the power to change things as you go along, you probably can’t get much fun from a confrontational style of gaming; it’s a necessary way to play so that you can feel good about how fair it was that the party got hosed.

Curious if there are GMs who run confrontational style games (where you talk in terms of the players beating or outsmarting the GM, where you feel poor play deserves character death, etc.) but aren’t die-hard simulationists?

 

[iserith]

I guess it’s not surprising that those GMs who like strict simulationism are the ones who also tend to like confrontational styles of play. It might be that you need one for the other; if you give yourself the power to change things as you go along, you probably can’t get much fun from a confrontational style of gaming; it’s a necessary way to play so that you can feel good about how fair it was that the party got hosed.

Curious if there are GMs who run confrontational style games (where you talk in terms of the players beating or outsmarting the GM, where you feel poor play deserves character death, etc.) but aren’t die-hard simulationists?

I'm not a "simulationist" (and don't care for the Forge theory from which that particular waffle is derived). I wouldn't say what I do is confrontational either because I don't see things in terms of beating or being beaten, though I do sometimes like to play the heel for effect. But I don't change my prep once it is introduced in any way in play and I don't fudge. I don't think there's a good reason to do those things.