D&D General Dice Fudging and Twist Endings

[Cadence]

I ran a game of WFRP 1e last night where the group were attacked by a frenzied troll. I rolled everything out in the open and declared the relevant stats when they came up. As it played out one PC got badly hurt and then an allied NPC got the death blow on it before anything worse could happen. It felt genuinely exciting and uncertain in a way that no stage managed sequence ever could be.

I didn't realize there were people on here who constantly or even regularly "stage managed" things?

 

[billd91]

I didn't realize there were people on here who constantly or even regularly "stage managed" things?

You mean aside from building dungeons (sets), stocking them with props, and populating them with encounters designed to be balanced and fun?

 

[iserith]

thing is, these situations aren't those that i would feel that someone who does fudge would fudge for, sure they're high stakes but just having high stakes isn't enough to motivate someone to fudge, what's more a motivator is randomised unfairness, when some monster's multiattack crits 3 times in a round against a target, or in a situation like as was mentioned earlier upthread when an intimidation play attack from the giant/ogre(?) outright killed a player before initative was even rolled.

Arguably, the dice are the most fair thing at the table though. They save you or destroy you, or the monsters, in more or less equal measure over time. What I see in your examples is the DM not agreeing to the stakes they themselves created by having rules or situations in play that can result in outcomes they don't want, thus incentivizing fudging. In effect, the DM is saying "death is a possibility that can arise out of some element of randomness, except when I decide otherwise." Which means, ultimately, that when your character does die, it's because the DM said so because they could just decide that didn't happen by fudging. What a terrible burden for the DM in my view!

Why not just take death off the table? Or set up some other means to resolve this (e.g. "dead" characters are actually just knocked out the scene and come back in the next scene) other than presenting it as one thing, but quietly changing it behind the scenes so it's really another? Why not just get it out in the open? What is gained?

 

[Cadence]

You mean aside from building dungeons (sets), stocking them with props, and populating them with encounters designed to be balanced and fun?

Doh! I had script writing and directing in my head. Now I'm wondering about how we use "stage manage" colloquially vs. around an actual stage.

 

[Clint_L]

thing is, these situations aren't those that i would feel that someone who does fudge would fudge for, sure they're high stakes but just having high stakes isn't enough to motivate someone to fudge, what's more a motivator is randomised unfairness, when some monster's multiattack crits 3 times in a round against a target...

That doesn't seem unfair to me. Three critical hits in a row is super unlucky, but completely fair.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

thing is, these situations aren't those that i would feel that someone who does fudge would fudge for, sure they're high stakes but just having high stakes isn't enough to motivate someone to fudge, what's more a motivator is randomised unfairness, when some monster's multiattack crits 3 times in a round against a target, or in a situation like as was mentioned earlier upthread when an intimidation play attack from the giant/ogre(?) outright killed a player before initative was even rolled.

Is it "unfairness", though, if the table has agreed to roll in the open and abide by the outcomes?

 

[Oofta]

thing is, these situations aren't those that i would feel that someone who does fudge would fudge for, sure they're high stakes but just having high stakes isn't enough to motivate someone to fudge, what's more a motivator is randomised unfairness, when some monster's multiattack crits 3 times in a round against a target, or in a situation like as was mentioned earlier upthread when an intimidation play attack from the giant/ogre(?) outright killed a player before initative was even rolled.

In the scenario you quoted, part of the reason I had a near TPK was because I multiple crits with sneak attack damage applied. Again, if I fudged dice because I didn't think it was "fair" we wouldn't have had the nail-biter finish that we did. Would it be "fair" if I told a PC that they didn't really crit a third time on my NPC?

I used to pull punches much more long ago*, including fudging the dice. I just decided the game was more enjoyable for everyone when I don't.

*I still use less than optimal tactics now and then. For example I don't normally double-tap unconscious PCs because the group doesn't want the game to be that lethal.

 

[GrahamWills]

That doesn't seem unfair to me. Three critical hits in a row is super unlucky, but completely fair.

A lot depends on what you mean by "fair". Is it fair that I was born in a rich country and do not have to worry about food, whereas someone else is facing death through starvation through no fault of their own?

Is it fair to say that both a billionaire and a homeless person must pay $1000 to avoid spending a night in jail?

There's an important distinction between "fair" -- in the technical sense of a fair dice; something that is unbiased and ignores context, and in the moral sense.

When I see a player who loves their character, and has played intelligently and well, dying because they were super unlucky, it may be fair in the technical sense, but unfair in the moral sense. So I consider restoring the moral fairness by undoing the technical fairness.

 

[GrahamWills]

In effect, the DM is saying "death is a possibility that can arise out of some element of randomness, except when I decide otherwise." Which means, ultimately, that when your character does die, it's because the DM said so because they could just decide that didn't happen by fudging. What a terrible burden for the DM in my view!

Why not just take death off the table? Or set up some other means to resolve this (e.g. "dead" characters are actually just knocked out the scene and come back in the next scene) other than presenting it as one thing, but quietly changing it behind the scenes so it's really another? Why not just get it out in the open? What is gained?

I agree; taking your second point first; when setting up a campaign one question I always ask is "how often should we expect a character to die?" and typically I get an answer of "one or two per year of play time". I'm running Pendragon at the moment, which has a higher rate, but that is because it specifically has character death as an event that does not eliminate roleplaying.

In most games a character dying ends roleplaying opportunities. We play the game to roleplay, and you cannot roleplay a dead character in most games, so character death is essentially saying "you will no longer have any fun with this character". For some, they find that threat makes the playing of the character more fun, but I find it a tired and banal threat. If the best a GM can do to set stakes for an encounter is "if you fail your character will be taken away, then I'm honestly a little disappointed in the GM.

Pendragon has the concept of playing a family of knights though, so a character death is mitigated. You'll play the former knight's son and that character will still be a strong presence. So for Pendragon, our players are happier with increased lethality.

And that leads into your first point -- it is too terrible a burden for the GM, and it need not be so. In most campaigns if the mechanics call for a player death, I'll ask the player how comfortable they are with that. It doesn't have to be my decision. And I have mature players who, actually, are usually fine with it. Maybe one time in five they will take my alternative out.

Like many things in GMing, talking it out upfront, and then presenting players with options to give them agency in their character's fate is just a good way to go.

 

[Clint_L]

When I see a player who loves their character, and has played intelligently and well, dying because they were super unlucky, it may be fair in the technical sense, but unfair in the moral sense. So I consider restoring the moral fairness by undoing the technical fairness.

That's cool. It's your table and your campaign. I don't know the context or anyone involved. I point out that you are imposing yourself as the judge of what result is fair and what is not.

All I can say is that I eventually discovered that, at my own table, I was imposing my own view of what should happen for the story and what was best for the players, and when I stopped doing that, the players appreciated it. I found that rolling my dice openly, just like the players, seemed to increase their agency at my table. It was putting their fate in their hands, rather than mine.