D&D General Dice Fudging and Twist Endings

[Ralif Redhammer]

It absolutely is not.

 

[nevin]

Chocolate fudge is the only fudging allow at tables. Roll in the open and let the cursing fly.

but I like Peanut Butter fudge :-(

 

[EzekielRaiden]

View attachment 277071

I have no idea what this means.

 

[Jack Daniel]

And for those who would ask "Why don't you just narrate results then?" if a DM fudges... I'd ask "Why don't you just play a tactical board game rather than D&D then?" if you don't.

Because tactical board games do not admit tactical infinity. There is little room for lateral thinking in HeroQuest or Gloomhaven.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Counterpoint: Dungeons & Dragons is not a board game. Combats do not need to be run neutrally so they produce "winners" and "losers" of the board game.

And for those who would ask "Why don't you just narrate results then?" if a DM fudges... I'd ask "Why don't you just play a tactical board game rather than D&D then?" if you don't.

Building off @Jack Daniel's answer: Because a tactical board game doesn't actually include diversity in character story, and cannot respond to my diegetic choices in a satisfying way; it can only process what choices fit within the board, as it were.

None of which has anything to do with fudging. Because you are just narrating the results. You're just employing the false pretense of dice first.

 

[Umbran]

Because tactical board games do not admit tactical infinity. There is little room for lateral thinking in HeroQuest or Gloomhaven.

The game part of RPGs isn't what offers tactical infinity, though. GM judgement (or GM fiat, depending how you think of it) does. Tactical infinity only comes from a GM call on the fly.

We may now begin trying to dance around how GM judgment around die rolls is bad, but GM judgement over tactical options is okay.

 

[Jack Daniel]

The game part of RPGs isn't what offers tactical infinity, though. GM judgement (or GM fiat, depending how you think of it) does. Tactical infinity only comes from a GM call on the fly.

We may now begin trying to dance around how GM judgment around die rolls is bad, but GM judgement over tactical options is okay.

It'd be a waste of a waltz then.

The "game part of an RPG" isn't a thing without whatever is facilitating tactical infinity (GM judgement, distributed authority, player consensus, whatever). Remove that from the equation and you don't have an RPG at all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Because tactical board games do not admit tactical infinity. There is little room for lateral thinking in HeroQuest or Gloomhaven.

And narrating a story to people does not admit player decision.

Changing or ignoring one die roll does not invalidate the other hundreds of decisions the players and all the other die rolls make to create random, unplanned events.

So my point still stands. If all the "anti-fudgers" believe that if you are going to fudge even one roll then there is no difference between that and writing out a complete story and just telling it to the players... then I say there is no difference between not fudging and just playing a board game. We can both go to the extremes all day.

Or... if what is actually the case... is a wonderful and large middle ground and nuance between the two extremes. If you and @EzekielRaiden would care to head towards the middle and admit that ignoring one die roll out of thousands does not turn a D&D campaign into a novel, then I'm more than happy to meet you there with a more measured take on the sanctity of game mechanics.

 

[jmartkdr2]

And narrating a story to people does not admit player decision.

Changing or ignoring one die roll does not invalidate the other hundreds of decisions the players and all the other die rolls make to create random, unplanned events.

So my point still stands. If all the "anti-fudgers" believe that if you are going to fudge even one roll then there is no difference between that and writing out a complete story and just telling it to the players... then I say there is no difference between not fudging and just playing a board game. We can both go to the extremes all day.

Or... if what is actually the case... is a wonderful and large middle ground and nuance between the two extremes. If you and @EzekielRaiden would care to head towards the middle and admit that ignoring one die roll out of thousands does not turn a D&D campaign into a novel, then I'm more than happy to meet you there with a more measured take on the sanctity of game mechanics.

The point, I believe, is this: if the dm is willing to fudge (yes, even one roll out of thousands) then any die not fudged is one the dm decided not to fudge. All rolls are subject to after-the-fact dm fiat.

Is that substantially different from the existing before-the-roll fiat of calling for the roll in the first place? I can’t prove it, but it feels different to me.

 

[Cadence]

The point, I believe, is this: if the dm is willing to fudge (yes, even one roll out of thousands) then any die not fudged is one the dm decided not to fudge. All rolls are subject to after-the-fact dm fiat.

Is that substantially different from the existing before-the-roll fiat of calling for the roll in the first place? I can’t prove it, but it feels different to me.

I think there are lots of cases where a conscious decision isn't made - the DM doesn't think about fudging it unless something draws their attention. IRL, if I see that an airplane has crashed into a house I will call 911 I don't think I'm meaningfully evaluating whether planes have hit houses as I drive through the neighborhood (or if they're in fire, or have people in masks carrying out the TV), and it would feel odd to me if any neighbor worried I was deciding willy nilly if I should call 911 on them.

That being said, it certainly seems solid to me to suspect that any die roll of a similar nature would be subject to fudging!

I'm not sure that dice fudging feels different to me than timely bad/good tactics or reinforcements showing up/not showing up, etc... "Crap, that fight was too easy, get ready for wandering monsters to weaken us before the BBEG". Or if the monsters always seemed to offer terms if it swung against the party, or reinforcements showed up if the party was doing well, etc... But I get that die fudging feels worse to some/many.

I wonder how personal preference varies on these things. I think I hate 13th ages day=fixed number of encounters method of enforcing balance than I do a rare dice fudge to do so.

Would it feel different to you if the DM had a limited metacurrency they could spend to adjust things on the fly?