As a GM, How Often Do You Fudge Dice Rolls?

[Umbran]

I don't fudge. I think over time it makes players play less thoughtfully since they assume they can only die when it's "ok". They like a challenge and they like to be kept ont heir toes--like playing a video game on hard mode.

Interesting, hard mode on videogames has often been achieved... by fudging against the player, rather than for them.

I think if you do fudge, it's just important to realize that you did because you were using a rule that included a result that wasn't actually one of the results you wanted in that situation.

So: if you fudge, it means you probably wanna rewrite that rule or not use that rule in that situation, so next time you won't have to fudge.

I certainly haven't done a study or anything, but I'm guessing most fudging is apt to happen in the general combat mechanics, not on something special to a particular situation. I would imagine the fudge is apt to be more like, "No, the bad guy doesn't hit (or do quite so much damage) - so, in a rule that the vast majority of the time does just fine, and doesn't need an overall rewrite, but in one specific context came up with a really unfortunate result.

So, if you fudge, it may mean that you're just editing one small thing, not requiring a real rewrite of a rule.

 

[Zak S]

Interesting, hard mode on videogames has often been achieved... by fudging against the player, rather than for them.



I certainly haven't done a study or anything, but I'm guessing most fudging is apt to happen in the general combat mechanics, not on something special to a particular situation. I would imagine the fudge is apt to be more like, "No, the bad guy doesn't hit (or do quite so much damage) - so, in a rule that the vast majority of the time does just fine, and doesn't need an overall rewrite, but in one specific context came up with a really unfortunate result.

So, if you fudge, it may mean that you're just editing one small thing, not requiring a real rewrite of a rule.

If combat is deadlier than you meant it to be, you made the monster too powerful or you are playing a game where combat is more dangerous than in the game you need to be playing.

If you think 8 points of damage is a "mistake", you shouldn't have had a monster swinging a weapon that did d8 damage in the first place.

 

[Zhaleskra]

If combat is deadlier than you meant it to be, you made the monster too powerful or you are playing a game where combat is more dangerous than in the game you need to be playing.

These are not the only options: the NPC got good rolls, the PCs assumed they were invincible. Adventuring is an inherently dangerous activity.

 

[Janx]

If combat is deadlier than you meant it to be, you made the monster too powerful or you are playing a game where combat is more dangerous than in the game you need to be playing.

If you think 8 points of damage is a "mistake", you shouldn't have had a monster swinging a weapon that did d8 damage in the first place.

hindsight is 20/20.

the GM doesn't realize 8 damage from 1d8 is more than he would prefer until the game actually gets to that encounter.

And that 8 damage is further context sensitive in that prior encounters may have hit harder on the PCs than expected, making that 8 damage significantly more serious than when the adventure started and the PCs had full hitpoints.

 

[Janx]

These are not the only options: the NPC got good rolls, the PCs assumed they were invincible. Adventuring is an inherently dangerous activity.

That depends on the style a group wants to play.

Not everybody wants to play with high stakes and frequent PC death. Playing with dice rolls in the open may actually change the play style to be more cautious and less heroic. One might say that's a good thing, but taken to extreme (with some players who will do so), it will lead to unfun as the party avoids doing anything they can't test with their 10' pole first.

 

[Janx]

I don't fudge. I think over time it makes players play less thoughtfully since they assume they can only die when it's "ok". They like a challenge and they like to be kept ont heir toes--like playing a video game on hard mode.

I think if you do fudge, it's just important to realize that you did because you were using a rule that included a result that wasn't actually one of the results you wanted in that situation.

So: if you fudge, it means you probably wanna rewrite that rule or not use that rule in that situation, so next time you won't have to fudge.

I roll right out in the open because I can't think of any reason to hide the rolls--when it's a big dangerous roll I often go "Ok on a 6 or more you die" and then shake shake shake...everyone gets super-involved.

I like that you acknowledge that somebody else might have a reason they feel is valid to fudge. i also like that you propose ideas for what to do after fudging, to reduce needing to fudge again.

Like Umbran pointed out however, your proposal for what to do after fudging might not be aligned with the typical example of fudging.

Fudging most often occurs in combat, using the pretty straightforward rules and getting a damage result that would kill somebody sooner than the GM would prefer.

There's no rule to correct/change. It's just bad luck, planning mistake, etc. It most likely depends on the situation and past encounters in the session, or even player mood (ex. somebody who just lost their job, dog, and SO doesn't need to lose their favorite PC that night as well).

It's also worth keeping in mind, that for some GMs (and some game designs), there are legitimate rolls to keep hidden. Detect Noise, Look for Traps are all things that the player (and PC) don't know that they failed. Thus, the roll and the result must be kept hidden so the GM can consistently say "you don't find any traps" whether the roll was bad or their genuinely were no traps.

 

[Zak S]

Again:

If any of these situations happen--you balanced the adventure wrong by choosing the wrong encounters. Or you are using the wrong ruleset.

The players presumably showed up to play a game where the monsters have an x chance of hitting them and (once they hit) have a y chance of doing z damage. Any outcome in that range should be acceptable to them or they should be playing a different game.

The GM then planned an adventure with the possibility of a certain number of foes being encountered over a certain amount of time. If any possible outcome within that range is not acceptable--they should have written the adventure differently.

"Bad luck" is part of the game and the set up. If players are willingly playing D&D it's because they have accepted the possibility of "bad luck" (regardless of their mood). If you want to insulate players from bad luck, do not play a game where bad luck has that much power or do not set up the game such that that many encounters are possible in that amount of time.

Players dying because they misjudged an encounter is part of the game. Judging the encounter properly is part of the skill involved in the game.

If the GM is doing everything right (giving signals, opportunities for clues, etc) and PCs die because they assumed they were invincible--they're losing because they played D&D poorly. Like in any other game: play poorly and you
lose.

If you don't want the possibility of death in nearly any encounter--play a game that isn't D&D. There are lots of games out there that allow players only to die when they want to or when they're "ready".

IF you signed up to play, it means you're ok with 3 kobolds in a row rolling 20s and getting criticals on the same PC. That's baked into the combat system of this particular game.

It's also worth keeping in mind, that for some GMs (and some game designs), there are legitimate rolls to keep hidden. Detect Noise, Look for Traps are all things that the player (and PC) don't know that they failed. Thus, the roll and the result must be kept hidden so the GM can consistently say "you don't find any traps" whether the roll was bad or their genuinely were no traps.

This is obviously true.

 

[Janx]

Again:

If any of these situations happen--you balanced the adventure wrong by choosing the wrong encounters. Or you are using the wrong ruleset.

That's inherently that the adventure or GM screwed up, but sometimes only obvious to the GM at run-time.

As for "wrong ruleset", I would recommend not going down that discussion path as it can be viewed as hostile. My peeps play D&D. period. There are no other rulesets for consideration. therefore, all problems have to be resolved within the D&D framework. Suggesting other rulesets is akin to not listening to the customer. And thus, is not conducive.

The players presumably showed up to play a game where the monsters have an x chance of hitting them and (once they hit) have a y chance of doing z damage. Any outcome in that range should be acceptable to them or they should be playing a different game.

I doubt the majority of players give much thought to the exact statistics that ruleset A offers versus ruleset B. they show up to play what their friend is willing to GM. or avoid that game because they can't stand the rules. Not much actual math involved.

The GM then planned an adventure with the possibility of a certain number of foes being encountered over a certain amount of time. If any possible outcome within that range is not acceptable--they should have written the adventure differently.

Again, this is inherently true. Fudging, to a GM who's made this mistake is how they silently resolve their mistake.

"Bad luck" is part of the game and the set up. If players are willingly playing D&D it's because they have accepted the possibility of "bad luck" (regardless of their mood). If you want to insulate players from bad luck, do not play a game where bad luck has that much power or do not set up the game such that that many encounters are possible in that amount of time.

Once again, telling me not to play D&D just ticks me off.

We've been quite happy playing D&D for 20+ years with whatever fudging is or isn't happening without some outsider who isn't even in our group telling us to play a different game.

Players dying because they misjudged an encounter is part of the game. Judging the encounter properly is part of the skill involved in the game.

And for some GMs who fudge, that PC would be dead. The fallacy is that a fudging GM is always fudging to protect the player. I posit that the first reason a GM fudges is to protect the player from the GM's mistake.

given that the adventure only says the monster does 1d8 damage because the GM wrote that last night, and the GM effectively changed his mind tonight at the game is ludicrous to assume that it is a sin to change that.

If the GM is doing everything right (giving signals, opportunities for clues, etc) and PCs die because they assumed they were invincible--they're losing because they played D&D poorly. Like in any other game: play poorly and you
lose.

If you don't want the possibility of death in nearly any encounter--play a game that isn't D&D. There are lots of games out there that allow players only to die when they want to or when they're "ready".

IF you signed up to play, it means you're ok with 3 kobolds in a row rolling 20s and getting criticals on the same PC. That's baked into the combat system of this particular game.

And in this scenario of a party choosing poorly, a GM who fudges lightly is likely to let the PCs die. their mistake is not his mistake.

I would NOT agree that signing up to play means tacit acceptance or even cognizance that 3 crits in a row could happen on the same PC. People are very poor at seeing all possibilities and acknowledging that they could happen.

People sign up to play, to have a good time with their friends. They chose D&D because it's fun most of the time. they don't tend to think deeper into contract law on what terms they accepted when they sat down to play.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Not having the sense to run away from a fight that isn't going well is a problem with the player, not the adventure, the GM, or even whether or not the GM fudges.

Unless the GM has cruelly closed all possible escape routes, or blocks them as soon as you get to them.

 

[Zak S]

People sign up to play, to have a good time with their friends. They chose D&D because it's fun most of the time. they don't tend to think deeper into contract law on what terms they accepted when they sat down to play.

To me that's like saying you went to play baseball but when the pitcher struck you out you were like "Hey! Wait!" Like, this is what the game is largely about: your ability to hit the ball. D&D is, as a skill, about risk management, paying attention to the situation, tactics and strategy, thinking ahead. There are tons of other fantasy RPGs that aren't and won't punish you for just showing up and ignoring what's going on if you're not into that.

As for the whole "insulating from the GM's mistake" issues--yes, that's what I said above: if you find yourself fudging, realize it's because you, the GM, made a mistake in how you set up the scenario and do a better job next time. Never include an encounter that can create an outcome your group doesn't want.

To sum up:

If a PC dies because the player wasn't paying attention: that is exactly what is supposed to happen. If the goalie isn't paying attention, the other team scores. That's how the game works. The possibility of losing creates the incentive to be inventive, alert, and savvy enough to win.

If a PC dies (or the adventure otherwise goes somewhere undesirable) because the GM messed up--the GM might fudge to cover it but the important point is for the GM to realize there was a fundamental flaw in how they set up their adventure and never do that again. If it's the combat system--next time have the monsters take prisoners or some other thing that you and your group can handle.