D&D General Dice Fudging and Twist Endings

[Clint_L]

One other thing that I will add, is that I find a lot of our best story moments come from failures and unexpected turns, not successes. I've had whole story arcs that turned out completely differently than I had imagined both because of player choices but also because of the rolls I made and they made. That makes the game WAY more fun for me, because even though I put all the pieces in place at the start of the arc, often in painstaking detail, I have no idea how it is going to come out, and so I get to experience the story along with my players.

This is partly down to how I build my campaigns: they are extremely sandboxy, so depending on what the players do and how they fare, some storylines never even get touched (this is fine; I save them for a future campaign). For example, I just ran a campaign centred on a port city, and came in with a half dozen significant storylines prepared and about a dozen 1-2 game story hooks as well. By the time they moved on, only a few of those had been touched.

 

[Oofta]

Did you mean "whichever side of the table I'm on"? It's the only way I can make sense of your reply which I don't disagree with.

Oops, DM's screen. Meaning whether I'm a DM or player.

 

[GrahamWills]

There's no illusion of danger in my games. I straight up tell my players what the consequences of my next roll could be, and then roll it right in front of them, out in the open.

For example:

At one point in my campaign, an undead pirate helt a blade to the throat of a poor bar maiden, and threatened to kill her. One of the players chose to try and disarm the undead with a spell, before he could kill her. So I straight up told the players:

"Roll for initiative. If the undead goes first, she dies. If YOU are first, you still have to succeed at a disarm check, and she could still die. Roll the die!"

And then we both rolled out in the open simultaneously. The whole group could see what the outcome was right on the spot. That is not an illusion of danger. That is very real, very FAIR danger. Knowing the DM will accept the outcome, without knowing the outcome of the dice yet, heightens tension and excitement. No hidden rolls, no hidden outcomes. Everything out in the open.

It is fair in one sense, in the sense that you have (possibly unfairly) created an encounter and (possibly unfairly) decided that the bar maid cannot fight back and (possibly unfairly) decided that the damage will automatically kill her and (possibly unfairly) decided to treat the encounter as combat and so invoke initiative rules and (possibly unfairly) only allowed one player to make a disarm attempt and (possibly unfairly) not allowed the player to make a surprise attack and (possibly unfairly) decided that a deception check cannot be made to cast the spell without showing it and (possibly unfairly) decided that an arcane check cannot be made to cast the spell without showing it -- but you are going to (fairly) abide by the roll.

Let me be clear -- I've done the exact same thing; this is not a ding on you as a GM; and if a player then came back with other suggestions you could easily entertain them (but again you would be making more "possibly unfair" decisions). You are doing the right thing.

But there's no fairness here -- your job as a GM is to set up hundreds of things, all subjective, and you did so. You tried to be as fair as possible, but the encounter is still dominated by your subjective decisions. As are the encounters I run and the ones every GM runs. Fairness in a game is entirely up to the GM, and abiding by dice rolls or not is at best a small slice of that fairness

 

[Imaculata]

It is fair in one sense, in the sense that you have (possibly unfairly) created an encounter and (possibly unfairly) decided that the bar maid cannot fight back and (possibly unfairly) decided that the damage will automatically kill her and (possibly unfairly) decided to treat the encounter as combat and so invoke initiative rules and (possibly unfairly) only allowed one player to make a disarm attempt and (possibly unfairly) not allowed the player to make a surprise attack and (possibly unfairly) decided that a deception check cannot be made to cast the spell without showing it and (possibly unfairly) decided that an arcane check cannot be made to cast the spell without showing it -- but you are going to (fairly) abide by the roll.

Wow, you made up a lot of stuff there.
None of that was true.

 

[Clint_L]

It is fair in one sense, in the sense that you have (possibly unfairly) created an encounter and (possibly unfairly) decided that the bar maid cannot fight back and (possibly unfairly) decided that the damage will automatically kill her and (possibly unfairly) decided to treat the encounter as combat and so invoke initiative rules and (possibly unfairly) only allowed one player to make a disarm attempt and (possibly unfairly) not allowed the player to make a surprise attack and (possibly unfairly) decided that a deception check cannot be made to cast the spell without showing it and (possibly unfairly) decided that an arcane check cannot be made to cast the spell without showing it -- but you are going to (fairly) abide by the roll.

Let me be clear -- I've done the exact same thing; this is not a ding on you as a GM; and if a player then came back with other suggestions you could easily entertain them (but again you would be making more "possibly unfair" decisions). You are doing the right thing.

But there's no fairness here -- your job as a GM is to set up hundreds of things, all subjective, and you did so. You tried to be as fair as possible, but the encounter is still dominated by your subjective decisions. As are the encounters I run and the ones every GM runs. Fairness in a game is entirely up to the GM, and abiding by dice rolls or not is at best a small slice of that fairness

This is an apples and oranges comparison. Obviously, as head storyteller you have a great deal of control over the narrative. That is not in dispute. But the fairly explicit agreement built into the game is that when you go to the dice, you are ceding that control and handing it over to chance. The whole crux of this discussion is whether you should fake doing so or not.

At my games, I have found that the best result comes from sticking to that compact and letting the dice fall where they may.

 

[Oofta]

It is fair in one sense, in the sense that you have (possibly unfairly) created an encounter and (possibly unfairly) decided that the bar maid cannot fight back and (possibly unfairly) decided that the damage will automatically kill her and (possibly unfairly) decided to treat the encounter as combat and so invoke initiative rules and (possibly unfairly) only allowed one player to make a disarm attempt and (possibly unfairly) not allowed the player to make a surprise attack and (possibly unfairly) decided that a deception check cannot be made to cast the spell without showing it and (possibly unfairly) decided that an arcane check cannot be made to cast the spell without showing it -- but you are going to (fairly) abide by the roll.

Let me be clear -- I've done the exact same thing; this is not a ding on you as a GM; and if a player then came back with other suggestions you could easily entertain them (but again you would be making more "possibly unfair" decisions). You are doing the right thing.

But there's no fairness here -- your job as a GM is to set up hundreds of things, all subjective, and you did so. You tried to be as fair as possible, but the encounter is still dominated by your subjective decisions. As are the encounters I run and the ones every GM runs. Fairness in a game is entirely up to the GM, and abiding by dice rolls or not is at best a small slice of that fairness

There's many ways of changing up encounters without changing the roll of the dice (which is primarily what I would consider fudging). The DM can decide that the barmaid is really a polymorphed silver dragon before initiative is rolled or the NPC was just bluffing as a couple of examples.

But the question is, why? The player made a decision and chose a risky (to the barmaid at least) option. If I were to run this scenario - NPC with knife at the throat of an innocent - I may have done it a bit different but the resolution would likely have been the same or similar. The world and it's inhabitants don't change in order for the PCs to automatically "win". Sometimes the PCs should lose, or at least have a bad outcome.

There are details I may change. In this case I may have given the player an insight check to understand the consequences and ask if they still want to do it. An option for them would be to try to cast the spell using sleight of hand which, if successful, would have given them advantage on the initiative check. The barmaid may have an option to realize what the PC is about to do and roll for initiative herself.

But the most likely result is that the innocent dies if the PC fails initiative because the world reacts to actions taken, fairness or unfairness doesn't really come into the picture. I'm not not on the side of the PCs or NPCs in this case. I'm not going to claim to always be totally neutral judge, but in this case and at this level of detail I would be.

 

[Imaculata]

In this case I may have given the player an insight check to understand the consequences and ask if they still want to do it.

To be clear, this is what I did. I straight up tell my players: this is what the stakes are, do you want to go through with it?

The barmaid is grappled and helpless. With a knife at her throat, it is basically a coup-de-grace for the undead pirate.

The players can try to do anything they want. But the much more important point of this example was:

-Real stakes, real danger.
-Stakes and possible outcomes on the table, before players take their action.
-Accept the outcome of the dice, with no hidden roll or fudging.

You CAN try to disarm the undead pirate, but it IS risky. Can you attempt other things? Sure! But this enemy is specifically looking out for any sudden moves and you are a few feet away from him. So if you're going to do something, you'd have to be quicker than him. Therefor, initiative.

Players don't even need to roll insight. I tell them what will happen if they fail, then ask if they want to go through with it. Thats perfectly fair I think, and creates real suspense.

 

[Oofta]

To be clear, this is what I did. I straight up tell my players: this is what the stakes are, do you want to go through with it?

The barmaid is grappled and helpless. With a knife at her throat, it is basically a coup-de-grace for the undead pirate.

The players can try to do anything they want. But the much more important point of this example was:

-Real stakes, real danger.
-Stakes and possible outcomes on the table, before players take their action.
-Accept the outcome of the dice, with no hidden roll or fudging.

You CAN try to disarm the undead pirate, bit it is risky. Can you attempt other things? Of course! But this enemy is specifically looking out for any sudden moves and you are a few feet away from him. So if you're going to do something, you'd have to be quicker than him. Therefor, initiative.

I agree - if someone goes to cast a spell (even an innocuous one*) in my games it's time to roll initiative and let the dice fall where they may. There are a lot of ways of resolving this but if the PC is taking a chance that they can disarm the pirate before they kill the barmaid then it should be an actual risk with actual consequences.

*Assuming the NPCs have no idea what you're casting and it's a potentially hostile situation of course.