D&D General Dice Fudging and Twist Endings

[Clint_L]

For me, the way I usually bias in the players’ favor is by being generous in adjudication. So if the players are in a tough situation and one says that they want to distract the monster, I might look at the DC25 for the recommended levels and think that the distraction plan is a good one, so make that a DC20 instead. To me, as a statistician, I don‘t really see a lot of difference between a GM modifying a dice roll by +5 and determining a target number at -5.

The difference is that the players have a chance of failing the latter and not the former. You have taken their fate into your own hands.

When you determine the DC and let the players know before they roll, there are real stakes. They could fail that roll. When you tell them to roll and then secretly turn their failure into a success (because let's be honest, you're not adding +5; you're adding whatever they needed to succeed), you're pretending there were stakes, but there really weren't, and experience has taught me that my players pick up on it sooner rather than later. Why ask them to roll when the roll doesn't matter? In that case, just tell them what happens.

Rolling openly, in front of the players, adds a ton of dramatic tension to the story. YVMV, but I'm never going back to secret rolls and fudging to get my preferred outcome. Let the dice fall where they may, is my motto. My players love it. It's exciting, and they feel like they are responsible for their own fates.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This implies that for each round of cheering, there are 19 times where the party suffered a TPK and were unable to keep roleplaying their characters.

Precisely correct. This is something I am generally opposed to, so I take steps to prevent it--but those steps do not include what I call "fudging." That is, "fudging" is "secretly altering the results of rolls (or mathematical equivalents e.g. adding HP) to cause specific outcomes, while behaving as though these rolls(/etc.) were unaltered."

So either you do indeed kill entire parties with high regularity, or you do something as a GM which means that the players are more likely to succeed than the dice odds would indicate. Whether that is dice fudging, making adjudications that favor the players, or ignoring a piece of the world for a bit, there’s the irrefutable fact that either players must have many miserable experiences for each “golden roll of excitement” experience, or you are doing something to bias in the players favor.

There are (at least) four other options:
Don't employ random adjudication in the first place, when randomness could produce outcomes you find unacceptable. This is usually phrased in the reverse however, that is, "I only roll when the outcomes of rolling are ones I am willing to accept" or similar.
Intrude diegetically to fix problems when they arise. That is, the bad result is openly stated...and then it's stated that something prevents the bad result. This then leaves open questions of why the bad result was nullified, which leads to more story.
Prepare safeguards in advance, so when unacceptable outcomes inevitably appear, you can simply draw on existing material to restore equilibrium. The bad result still occurs, but the unacceptable consequences are forestalled.
Openly say, "Oh, that wouldn't be fun. Let's do this instead." In other words, make clear that you are setting aside the dice and doing what you think is best. (I don't like this approach as much, but it's still useful to have.)

For me, the way I usually bias in the players’ favor is by being generous in adjudication. So if the players are in a tough situation and one says that they want to distract the monster, I might look at the DC25 for the recommended levels and think that the distraction plan is a good one, so make that a DC20 instead. To me, as a statistician, I don‘t really see a lot of difference between a GM modifying a dice roll by +5 and determining a target number at -5. As a GM, I’m asking subjective decisions all the time that can be life and death to the party (“how thick are the walls between your scuffle and the guardroom”, “how dense is the fog”. “How high is the drop to the valley floor”, ”does this household have a dog”) and it would be ludicrous to think I can be completely objective when I make these decision, so I know I’m already fudging in the players favor. Picking one aspect of the GM’s toolbox and saying ”this I will not be subjective on” should not make a GM think that when a TPK occurs, they have no responsibility for it at all. You made a dozen decisions that lead to it; it’s not the dice that killed them, it’s you

Your first example, altering the DC, sounds like a perfectly valid diegetic response, one that doesn't even require special reveals. "Your plan is a good one; it will make the upcoming challenges easier to deal with" is almost certainly something you SHOULD tell the players. At which point, you aren't fudging at all; you're simply rolling with the ways the players' choices have changed the state of play.

Again, to be extremely clear, "fudging" as I have used the term (essentially everywhere, not just this thread) means "secretly altering the results of rolls(/equivalents) to cause specific outcomes, while behaving as though those rolls were unaltered." Simply having a predisposition to give your players the benefit of the doubt is not, and cannot be, fudging. Actually having a critical hit roll out, and then secretly and covertly invalidating that crit and trying to prevent the players from discovering this, is "fudging." As would adding 20 HP to the boss in order to prevent it dying too soon.

Things that are not fudging would include:

• Deciding and stating that, because the player character comes from a semi-prominent merchant family, they get a bonus to diplomatic rolls with other merchants when relevant.
  Having a fight come to a close early when you know the players have won and it's only mop-up time, e.g. by having the last man standing surrender, or turning to a player and saying, "It's basically dead. Tell me how you kill it--no need to roll." (Again, the telling the players thing is important here.)
• Preventing a critical hit that would kill a PC (or even a beloved NPC)...and saying "you KNOW that should've killed <char>...but somehow it didn't. You'll have to figure out why later, for now you need to save them!"
• Having a boss survive attacks that should kill it (essentially the same as the previous, just affecting a villain rather than a hero)
• Simply ruling that some task succeeds (or fails!) without a roll, and stating why that happens

Hopefully this is illustrative of what I mean. There are tons of things you can do that don't require "fudging," as I use the term.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So if the players are in a tough situation and one says that they want to distract the monster, I might look at the DC25 for the recommended levels and think that the distraction plan is a good one, so make that a DC20 instead.

Just noticing this bit... and am wondering what is meant by "for the recommended levels". I guess this thread is D&D General so that might be how older versions of the game did it, I'm not really sure. But in 5e, the characters' levels do not determine the DC. The characters' abilities do not determine the DC either. And the particular obstacle, be it a jammed dungeon door or a particularly sleepy guard, do not solely determine the DC (published adventures often annoy me in this regard). The DC - if one is needed at all - is set by the DM once the PC's goal is clear and their approach to achieving the goal is clear as well.

ETA: maybe you mean the difficulty level rather than character level? In that case, yes, feel free to use the recommended level for the DC but, I would say, do so after the plan is described.

 

[ilgatto]

Perhaps despite many notions to the contrary, I believe that playing D&D can have a serious competitive element as far as the relation between players and DM is concerned. Therefore, I see the rules of the game as the ultimate, neutral referee and judge of what goes and doesn't go, to be obeyed by both players and DM. This includes the DM rolling dice and sticking to the results.

As noted by some upthread, there are many, many ways to run sessions (and therefore encounters) and make them suspenseful enough to make the players actually fear for the lives of their PCs or worse.

Now. Do I ever fudge die-rolls as a DM? For this, I will refer to remarks made by wiser folk than me (e.g., here and here) and say: “Of course I don't.”

Heck, in this game, the GM was clear - if one of the players felt so strongly that their fun meant that they needed to fudge some rolls themselves, that was okay. Player fun was more important than absolute truthfulness. (...) I don't expect anyone did lie on a roll, but wouldn't have cared if they had.

Exactly.
Like all DM's I have seen players at my table roll dice multiple times when they shouldn't - and even witnessed some rolling natural "20's" almost on command. I let them for the reason given by @Umbran above, although I am not above giving them a side-eye every now and then to add to the fun devilish. However, I will intervene in cases of blatantly obvious cheating or in life-or-death situations and those of some other importance.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Now. Do I ever fudge die-rolls as a DM? For this, I will refer to remarks made by wiser folk than me (e.g., here and here) and say: “Of course I don't.”

So. Do you agree, then, that a vital component of fudging is that it must be kept forever secret from the players? That they would, in all likelihood, become upset if it were discovered?

 

[Bacon Bits]

So. Do you agree, then, that a vital component of fudging is that it must be kept forever secret from the players? That they would, in all likelihood, become upset if it were discovered?

Upset? No.

Disillusioned? Probably. However, many players don't have a positive experience when they learn how the sausage is made. That's why you don't tell them when you reskin an earth elemental as the powered-up form of the kobold priest. And why you don't list all the treasure that the players neglected to find. Or tell the players that the NPC that they were certain was a sinister agent was really an agent from their mentor trying to aid them. Or that the "cursed" sword they were carrying around was a sentient +5 holy avenger trying to get the paladin to touch it for 6 seconds.

The fact that a DM should keep secrets should not be mistaken as a reason to condemn different DMing styles.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Upset? No.

Disillusioned? Probably. However, many players don't have a positive experience when they learn how the sausage is made. That's why you don't tell them when you reskin an earth elemental as the powered-up form of the kobold priest. And why you don't list all the treasure that the players neglected to find. Or tell the players that the NPC that they were certain was a sinister agent was really an agent from their mentor trying to aid them. Or that the "cursed" sword they were carrying around was a sentient +5 holy avenger trying to get the paladin to touch it for 6 seconds.

The fact that a DM should keep secrets should not be mistaken as a reason to condemn different DMing styles.

I'd say, at least at some tables, there is a significant difference between story secrets and adjudication secrets.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Upset? No.

Disillusioned? Probably.

How does disillusionment not qualify as a form of being upset? Google defines "disillusioned" as, "disappointed in someone or something that one discovers to be less good than one had believed." I would absolutely call disappointment a form of being upset.

However, many players don't have a positive experience when they learn how the sausage is made. That's why you don't tell them when you reskin an earth elemental as the powered-up form of the kobold priest.

I have told my players this and they were delighted at how small tweaks can change the impact of an experience. I did not tell them in play, because DW explicitly says "Never speak the name of your move" for GMs, but I told them after.

People only get upset if you either (a) make a big deal about "the sausage" ingredients while it's literally in front of them, or (b) maintain a falss pretense of things being perfectly custom when they are not. No false pretense, no negative experience. That's...sort of my whole thesis here. Not revealing every single detail instantly is fine; keeping secrets about how the game works from the IRL players is not.

And why you don't list all the treasure that the players neglected to find.

Wholly different subject. I see no connection between this and secretly invalidating the results of player action(s.)

Or tell the players that the NPC that they were certain was a sinister agent was really an agent from their mentor trying to aid them.

They will find this out naturally through play. No need to taunt them with it. Completely unrelated to discovering fudging.

Or that the "cursed" sword they were carrying around was a sentient +5 holy avenger trying to get the paladin to touch it for 6 seconds.

Not really sure why this wouldn't just...happen? Sounds to me like a pretty boring game if incredibly interesting situations are never allowed to occur because of one tiny misconception with zero chance to ever correct, since, y'know, IRL people do this incredibly dangerous maneuver sometimes referred to as "changing one's mind"...

The fact that a DM should keep secrets should not be mistaken as a reason to condemn different DMing styles.

Again, this conflates two completely unrelated things.

One is faking rolls (or equivalents, e.g. boosting monster HP so it survives long enough to do a cool thing or whatever), which involves deceiving the players about the game they're playing. This deception not only must be preserved so as to not upset ("disappoint," whatever) them, but to prevent the game itself from unraveling should the tactic ever be discovered. The players must never be allowed to know it happened, or trust may be irreparably lost.

The other is having facts or information within the world which the characters are not necessarily aware of and which will not be simply volunteered to them without reason. This is not even deception; it is simply a fact of playing a game where only one person can metaphorically "see" it (the GM), and everyone else must ask questions of that person to reveal things about it. By the very nature of playing a game structured in this way, there must be information the characters do not have but would like to know, and which the players must uncover through their actions.

To keep such information not merely secret, but inaccessible (essential to fudging), would be a pretty big problem, because playing the game critically depends on that accessibility! But...and this is utterly vital...the fact that the players have a genuine chance to get that info does not, in any way, require that they MUST get it. They could simply miss it! If they do, that's a consequence that can feed into future events. Even the missed treasure from an adventure! The fact that it was missed can become a future plot point, and lead to more story. Fail forward: even if PCs fail, the story advances. It just may not advance in the direction they want it to!

GMs having information about the world that the characters don't is essential to play. GMs having information about how the game works that the players don't is not at all necessary for play.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I'd say, at least at some tables, there is a significant difference between story secrets and adjudication secrets.

I don't see them as any different. Neither in purpose nor consequence.

Drawing a distinction feels like very explicitly saying "this part is a board game, and it does X" and then saying, "this part is story, and it does Y" and not expecting the two to have a united mission.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't see them as any different. Neither in purpose nor consequence.

Drawing a distinction feels like very explicitly saying "this part is a board game, and it does X" and then saying, "this part is story, and it does Y" and not expecting the two to have a united mission.

Having a united mission does not make them identical. I love it--absolutely adore it--when mechanics and story sing in perfect harmony. It's why I love 4e's Lay on Hands more than any other version ever made. Because, unlike every other version I've seen* (which is either "roll and maybe you get something" or, more commonly, "you have a pool of X points to spend"), 4e Lay on Hands is very literally, "I give of myself, to replenish you." You are sacrificing your own vitality (healing surges) in order to heal others.

But that harmony is beautiful in part because it is an effort. It doesn't happen naturally. Game and story may work toward a common goal, but often do so in very different ways. It is story-appropriate, for example, that Wizards are probably relatively rare among adventurers, because to even become a Wizard you need an extensive education in most cases. We accept, however, that the representation of Wizards amongst adventurers does not entirely jive with most ways the class is presented narratively, because it is more valuable to let players play what they want to play--a fully, 100% game-centric motivation with no story component at all--than it is to accurately model the demographics of the fantasy setting. Conversely, it is not because of gameplay value that the writers spend a meaningful chunk of time talking about things like economics or ecology; that time could have been spent working on mechanical things instead, but it is valuable in and of itself to have information about the ecology, culture, economics, history, and technology of the world, even if large sections of those things are never relevant to anyone's actual game. Those things are purely story-centric, with no game component at all.

Further, I have stressed repeatedly the fact that there are actually more story-centric ways to address these concerns. Diegetic solutions and prepared safety nets are both things which actually inject new story, not just enabling the existing story to continue.

We are playing a game. We are also telling a story. Lose either one, and the experience dies. Sometimes, the two walk hand in hand. Other times, one is pushing while the other is pulling: different actions, common goals. It is useful to recognize that this is true, and thus useful to recognize that there is value in questions about how the game is played and what "the rules" even are, as rules. (Just as it is useful to recognize that there is value questions about how the story is told, and what "the story" even is, as a story.)

* Well, there's also 13A, but it's essentially the 4e version ported over, no surprise given Heinsoo was a lead designer for both games.