D&D General A DMG for all of us

[Umbran]

My point is that sure, if you have a platform you can make products without Beyond behind them.

Sure.

Mind you, there's a bunch of publishers and games out there that started without a built-in platform, and managed the trick anyway.

 

[Remathilis]

There are two different occasions for fudging that we need to disentangle. The first, which you've mentioned, is papering over cracks in the rules. The better solution is for the group to change the rules to something that suits them. I'd also suggest that discretionary rules like random encounter charts are not in the same league as action resolution.

The second occasion is when the DM wants to enforce their particular vision of how things should play out. This is plainly bad.

The point was that the DMG is telling players it's okay to ignore the dice if the result of the roll would lead to a worse play experience for those involved.

Now can that be abused by bad DMs? Absolutely. But a DM doesn't need to cheat at dice to do that. A DM can add 100 hit points to an almost defeated monster. They can up it's armor class mid fight, declare any roll the PC make to save a failure or decide to add extra traps, monsters or whatnot to a dungeon. The DM doesn't have to even roll to do that, it's part of thec roll of game facilitator. They can cheat wildly even if the roll all their rolls in the open. And unless the players have equal knowledge of all the monsters and trap statistics as the DM, you can cheat like this pretty easily. And no amount of open dice rolling is going to stop it. Bad DMs are gonna be bad.

Who is the DM to decide whether something 'hurts the experience' or not? Don't the other participants also have an interest in this?

The game itself. It cedes power to the DM as facilitator of the game. The DM has control over a lot of the levers of the game. Ideally, the DM uses this power for Good and to make the game more fun. But some don't. Fudging dice, like altering an adventure on the fly, should be done for the betterment of the game. Not everyone will use it responsibility, but if the goal was complete neutrality, we'd be playing HeroQuest instead.

 

[Loren the GM]

It seems like a lot of discussion has not read the book in question or gathered the context around any of this.

In Chapter 1, there is a large section on how each DM and game is unique.

It starts by presenting The Rule of Fun (the right way to play D&D is the way you and your players agree to and enjoy). This is how it couches the entire chapter; everything discussed after is presenting options on how various tables may play, and providing options for how a DM can run a game.

The Rule of Fun​

D&D is a game, and everyone should have fun playing it. Everyone shares equal responsibility in moving the game along, and everyone contributes to the fun when they treat each other with respect and consideration: talking through disagreements among players or their characters, and remembering that arguments or mean-spirited squabbles can get in the way of the fun.

People have many different ideas about what makes D&D fun. The “right way” to play D&D is the way you and your players agree to and enjoy. If everyone comes to the table prepared to contribute to the game, the entire table is likely to have a wonderful and memorable time.

Then it discusses Play Style, which suggests there are lots of ways to play the game:

Play Style​

Here are some questions that can help you define your unique style as a DM and the kind of game you want to run:

Hack and Slash or Immersive Roleplaying? Does the game focus on combat and action or on a rich story with detailed NPCs?

All Ages or Mature Themes? Is the game for all ages, or does it involve mature themes?

Gritty or Cinematic? Do you prefer gritty realism, or are you more focused on making the game feel cinematic and superheroic?

Serious or Silly? Do you want to maintain a serious tone, or is humor your goal?

Preplanned or Improvised? Do you like to plan thoroughly, or do you prefer to improvise?

General or Thematic? Is the game a mixture of themes and genres, or does it center on a particular theme or a genre such as horror?

Morally Ambiguous or Heroic? Are you comfortable with moral ambiguity, such as allowing the characters to explore whether the end justifies the means? Or are you happier with straightforward heroic principles, such as justice, sacrifice, and helping the downtrodden?

It then talks about atmosphere, delegation of parts of the game (such as tracking initiative), how to learn to play by observing other DMs, how to make sure everyone at the table is having fun, setting expectations, dealing with conflict at the table, respect, sharing the spotlight, and then DM Die Rolling:

DM Die Rolling​

Should you hide your die rolls behind a DM screen, or should you roll your dice in the open for all the players to see? Choose either approach, and be consistent. Each approach has benefits:

Hidden Die Rolls. Hiding your die rolls keeps them mysterious and allows you to alter results if you want to. For example, you could ignore a Critical Hit to save a character’s life. Don’t alter die rolls too often, though, and never let the players know when you fudge a die roll.

Visible Die Rolls. Rolling dice in the open demonstrates impartiality—you’re not fudging rolls to the characters’ benefit or detriment.

Even if you usually roll behind a screen, it can be fun to make an especially dramatic roll where everyone can see it.

Notice they aren't saying one is better than the other, or that you should fudge rolls, only that there are various ways to play, and that however you play, you should be consistent.

It then continues to discuss respect at the table, social contracts, rules discussions, antisocial behavior, people exploiting rules, etc.

The next chapter builds on all of this, providing more details on the types of players you may encounter and what they want out of the game, how to handle playing with varying group sizes, how to play with multiple DMs, how to narrate the game well, and then into the crucial Resolving Outcomes section, which talks through all the various rolls in the game and how to handle them.

Within that section is an excellent portion on how to handle Consequences, which is a direct connection in my mind to fudging rolls. It presents options of varying levels of failure, success and failure with degrees or costs, and critical rolls. All of these are ways for DMs to mitigate rolls with or without fudging a dice roll as well.

tl;dr The book is much more nuanced than any cherry picked line is giving credit for, and I think almost all of these conversations are overblown based on people either taking things out of context or not having read the source material.

 

[TiQuinn]

Notice they aren't saying one is better than the other, or that you should fudge rolls, only that there are various ways to play, and that however you play, you should be consistent.

I’m not questioning that this is a thing. I’m questioning that the game itself should present it as an option.

 

[Loren the GM]

I’m not questioning that this is a thing. I’m questioning that the game itself should present it as an option.

It is one valid form of play, even if it is one you would never use. Why shouldn't it be presented as an option in the DMs Guide as it discusses various ways to play the game, in a section that allows each DM to choose from a large selection of options and ideas on what might make running a game interesting for them?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is one valid form of play, even if it is one you would never use. Why shouldn't it be presented as an option in the DMs Guide as it discusses various ways to play the game, in a section that allows each DM to choose from a large selection of options and ideas on what might make running a game interesting for them?

I assume he feels that the option is toxic to what he considers good and fair play, and would rather it not catch on, which is more likely when it appears in the DM book for the most popular RPG.

 

[TiQuinn]

It is one valid form of play, even if it is one you would never use. Why shouldn't it be presented as an option in the DMs Guide as it discusses various ways to play the game, in a section that allows each DM to choose from a large selection of options and ideas on what might make running a game interesting for them?

I feel it undercuts the rules themselves. It’s like posting a 55 MPH speed limit but writing underneath it (but it’s okay if you go faster.)

 

[Umbran]

I’m not questioning that this is a thing. I’m questioning that the game itself should present it as an option.

Better to present it as an option, such that it is out in the open, than to not present it, and have people do it clumsily, with no thought or discussion at all.

It isn't like the DMG's silence will stop it from happening, or even reduce the frequency. People have been fudging dice rolls since dice were created (so, before recorded history).

 

[TiQuinn]

Better to present it as an option, such that it is out in the open, than to not present it, and have people do it clumsily, with no thought or discussion at all.

It isn't like the DMG's silence will stop it from happening, or even reduce the frequency. People have been fudging dice rolls since dice were created (so, before recorded history).

Sure, it’s always been happening. How often do you see the rules of a game endorse it?

 

[Loren the GM]

I feel it undercuts the rules themselves. It’s like posting a 55 MPH speed limit but writing underneath it (but it’s okay if you go faster.)

The very next option listed is the opposite rule, saying you always play obeying the speed limit. Again, these are options. Not hard and fast rules. Couched in a discussion of everything that happens at the table should be fun for everyone. Just because it isn't how you have fun with the game doesn't mean it isn't a valid way for another group to have fun, and it is different than the speed limit because it only impacts the table playing.

What is fair is having agreed on rules. Whether those rules include fudging dice rolls is entirely a table preference.