Search results

There's no extra work in that you're already creating stakes as situations arise in your game. It's part of DMing - everyone has to do it. It's baked into the rules. You're deciding what happens on a success or a failure on a given roll (or a given challenge). All you need do now is instead of...

I dont't think I'm wrong about why fudging happens: The DM cannot accept the stakes that they themselves created then left to the dice to decide. That's not insulting. That's just what it is. The difference is that if the stakes are set so that success and failure are both acceptable outcomes...

At a certain point, I think it's helpful to just let it go in this regard. The d20 is already swingy. The players sometimes make awful decisions. While the DM controls a great deal of the game, there are a ton of inputs into the experience they do not control, and that may as well in my view...

The outcome is, and possibly the motivation, but you don't have to fudge the dice here. It's unnecessary. But I personally take it a step further and don't change my prep either. The players have no expectations that any given fight, for example, will be "balanced" or "level appropriate." It's...

What do you think you have to do with your "time before the game" to avoid fudging? Because I don't do anything, outside of occasionally making house rules at the start of the adventure or campaign. And that seems pretty common in my experience as far as prep goes.

For my part, I'm specifically talking about fudging dice, not changing things in the context of the setting which is perfectly in the DM's remit.

I see fudging as a kludge to deal with an underlying problem. So if it is a preference, it looks to me like a preference for not going a little deeper to the source of the issue and removing it. It's possible some DMs aren't aware how they are the cause, even though they are regularly setting...

In this particular area, however, it is possible to achieve perfection, at least where removing the necessity of fudging is concerned, and it's actually really easy. Here's how: Before you call for a die roll, think about (and maybe even announce) what success and failure look like. Assuming...

1. Is someone necessarily not "staying in character" by refusing the fruit? I would say no. Even if a player's primary motivation was to refuse the fruit to avoid risk, I'm sure anyone can come up with a reason the character did that which is reasonably consistent with how they normally act in...

Sure, loads of DMs in my experience reflexively call for rolls without considering a number of things, but we can see here that the fudging has an underlying cause. Focus on the cause, I'm saying.

Fudging isn't necessary at all if the stakes are something the DM buys into. It's only when they don't that they fudge. So, don't create stakes you can't buy into, then you don't have to fudge.

There's not really anything a PC "would" do though. Just "might" or "could" do. So not eating could easily be justified, too. I wonder how much of any given player's decision would be based on not being seen to "metagame," too.

I could see it being argued either way. It's really up to the DM to say whether it's noticeable or not. In this case, it's not clear.

That's my point though - the d20 is swingy. So whether it rolls low or rolls high, it's still up to the DM to say what those good or bad results will be prior to the roll. So why choose something that nobody wants, only to be forced to ignore it if the die rolls that way? This seems pointless to me.

What's your incentive to do that?

Except the DM is setting the stakes anyway, so nobody would be going out of their way here. All they have to do is make sure that both success and failure are fun and memorable for everyone (even if it sucks for the characters). This isn't even really about avoiding fudging so much as creating a...

Because it's not necessary to consult the dice if you're going to ignore the dice anyway. Just say what happens if you're going to do that. This isn't abdication of responsibility at all. It's just setting stakes that everyone at the table can live with and following through with whatever the...

Someone who was looking at this scenario told me another angle worth considering is what incentive the players other than me even have to eat the fruit. I ate the fruit, knowing full well the situation was suspect, because I was trying to get some sweet, sweet Inspiration. So I portrayed my...

Are you using actual milestone XP or what people just call "milestone XP" but is really just story-based advancement or "whenever the DM feels like leveling up the PCs." Because if it's actual milestone XP, you should be setting actual milestones - goals and objectives - which may include...

I'm not really sure what "sudden" looks like in this context. I ate the fruit, they didn't. Not really sure how this whole line of inquiry matters.