D&D General Dice Fudging and Twist Endings

[Cadence]

I really don't think that is what is intended.

For example, am I fudging rolls if I just decide that this particular action should be an automatic success in a certain context that comes up? And sometimes I'll make rolls behind the screen just to raise the narrative tension, especially if the players are taking too long. That's "lying" to them, but I don't think it's unethical.

I like how the 5e DMG encourages the DM to establish "Table Rues" about things like how you (as DM) will be running dice rolling. It feels like as long as the DM has let them know it might happen it isn't "lying" to them in the moral sense -- since they've agreed to the rules.

I am always amazed at how players can view things I think have very similar effects very differently (can I fudge a monsters damage roll down vs. can I have it choose to attack very sub-optimally).

I've sometimes pondered the idea of having a DM equivalent of inspiration to avoid the urge to do it to often.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I really don't think that is what is intended.

For example, am I fudging rolls if I just decide that this particular action should be an automatic success in a certain context that comes up?

Do you ask for a roll and not say, "Actually, nah, this just succeeds"? Then you are fudging. You are asking for a roll, and then secretly disregarding that roll.

And sometimes I'll make rolls behind the screen just to raise the narrative tension, especially if the players are taking too long. That's "lying" to them, but I don't think it's unethical.

I mean, you're literally making them think something that is false, intentionally.

 

[Umbran]

There's only been one person that I really questioned whether their rolls were truthful.

Heck, in this game, the GM was clear - if one of the players felt so strongly that their fun meant that they needed to fudge some rolls themselves, that was okay. Player fun was more important than absolute truthfulness.

I don't expect anyone did lie on a roll, but wouldn't have cared if they had.

 

[Umbran]

Alternative facts can be quite popular, yes. I don't consider their popularity particularly relevant.

Yeah, well, it isn't like anyone here is Arbiter of Facts for anyone else's table. So, maybe your assessment of whether a thing is "alternative" is of questionable relevance, too.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

The DM's role is to maximize the fun at the table.

If the group doesn't like the high-risk hardcore (old-fashioned) game, then fudging dice may be appreciated. It's really a judgement by the DM though, because admitting a fudge to help the PCs survive is a big nono. They gotta think they did it themselves.

 

[reelo]

The DM's role is to maximize the fun at the table.

I disagree. That responsibility falls on everyone equally. The DM's role is to "roleplay" everything that is not a PC, and to impartially interpret the results of the dice.

The DM is not the players' court-jester.

 

[Cadence]

I disagree. That responsibility falls on everyone equally. The DM's role is to "roleplay" everything that is not a PC, and to impartially interpret the results of the dice.

That wasn't in the rules in either 1e or 5e. (1e DMG page 110 is explicitly in favor of fudging sometimes , 5e DMG page 235 leaves it as a table rule).

Impartial dicing seems a fine choice (and is one 5e mentions as a possiblity).

The DM is not the players' court-jester.

"The DM is there to see that the adventure is interesting and that everyone enjoys the game."
- Moldvay

"A common mistake most DMs make is to rely too much on random die rolls."
- Cook

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Heck, in this game, the GM was clear - if one of the players felt so strongly that their fun meant that they needed to fudge some rolls themselves, that was okay. Player fun was more important than absolute truthfulness.

I don't expect anyone did lie on a roll, but wouldn't have cared if they had.

Fascinating. In my experience, there's a huge difference between the player that gives into the temptation every once in a while, and the player that pathologically cheats at every dice roll. For me the former is when it becomes a problem, and can definitely impact everyone else's enjoyment of the game.

I disagree. That responsibility falls on everyone equally. The DM's role is to "roleplay" everything that is not a PC, and to impartially interpret the results of the dice.

While I agree that everyone at the table should be invested in the group having fun, what is the saying from Animal Farm... "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." The DM has more authority, and therefore more responsibility.

 

[reelo]

"The DM is there to see that the adventure is interesting and that everyone enjoys the game."
- Moldvay

I don't disagree with Moldvay, as far as "interesting adventure" goes, but when it comes to the enjoyment of the game, I maintain that the responsability is shared equally. The players don't "consume" a campaign "prepared for them by the DM", they create it, together as a group, on the fly. If the game is boring, it's not the sole fault of the DM.

 

[nevin]

the debate has been going around since the 70's. It will never end. For the record I'd rather fudge an occasional roll than let one bad roll derail the game.