D&D General Dice Fudging and Twist Endings

[Swarmkeeper]

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).

Glad this was pointed out. Here is the 5e guidance for reference:

Dice Rolling Establish expectations about rolling dice. Rolling in full view of everyone is a good starting point. If you see a player rolling and scooping the dice up before anyone else can see, encourage that player to be less secretive. When a die falls on the floor, do you count it or reroll it? When it lands cocked against a book, do you pull the book away and see where it lands, or reroll it? What about you, the DM? Do you make your rolls in the open or hide them behind a DM screen? Consider the following: If you roll dice where the players can see, they know you're playing impartially and not fudging rolls. Rolling behind a screen keeps the players guessing about the strength of their opposition. When a monster hits all the time, is it of a much higher level than the characters, or are you rolling high numbers? Rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit, or even a miss. Don't distort die rolls too often, though, and don't let on that you're doing it. Otherwise, your players might think they don't face any real risks-or worse, that you're playing favorites. A roll behind a screen can help preserve mystery. For example, if a player thinks there might be someone invisible nearby and makes a Wisdom (Perception) check, consider rolling a die behind the screen even if no one is there, making the player think someone is, indeed, hiding. Try not to overuse this trick. You might choose to make a roll for a player because you don't want the player to know how good the check total is. For example, if a player suspects a baroness might be charmed and wants to make a Wisdom (Insight) check, you could make the roll in secret for the player. If the player rolled and got a high number but didn't sense anything amiss, the player would be confident that the baroness wasn't charmed. With a low roll, a negative answer wouldn't mean much. A hidden roll allows uncertainty.

I

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am very much let the dice fall where they may

 

[soviet]

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?

The difference is consent. We (generally) accept that the GM has control over monster tactics and world events. As these are largely visible we also have the opportunity to speak up if a particular action doesn't seem plausible or fair, and potentially convince the GM to do something different.

A GM secretly changing a success to a failure or a failure to a success is different because I have no opportunity to challenge it and will never know that it happened at all. Which successes, failures, and plot developments were the organic result of play and which were the GM's decision?

If a group consents to the GM having this power then that's one thing. But my preference is that it never happen, come what may. And I GM like that too.

If a GM is open about it ('You know what guys, it kills the adventure if Jim falls off the ledge. Let's say he grabs a vine instead') then I also don't really have a problem with it, because again I am being asked if I accept.

 

[Cadence]

The difference is consent. We (generally) accept that the GM has control over monster tactics and world events. As these are largely visible we also have the opportunity to speak up if a particular action doesn't seem plausible or fair, and potentially convince the GM to do something different.

A GM secretly changing a success to a failure or a failure to a success is different because I have no opportunity to challenge it and will never know that it happened at all. Which successes, failures, and plot developments were the organic result of play and which were the GM's decision?

If a group consents to the GM having this power then that's one thing. But my preference is that it never happen, come what may. And I GM like that too.

If a GM is open about it ('You know what guys, it kills the adventure if Jim falls off the ledge. Let's say he grabs a vine instead') then I also don't really have a problem with it, because again I am being asked if I accept.

Completely agree.

What do you feel about the idea of the DM having a meta-currency for a limited number of rerolls/fixes on the fly? How does an agreement to that strike you vs. an agreement that the DM may fudge willy-nilly?

 

[Umbran]

All rolls are subject to after-the-fact dm fiat.

I am unclear why rolls are a problem with regard to fiat, but the legion of other things that are up for GM fiat are okay.

The difference is consent.

I touch on my reserving the right to fudge the occasional roll in every Session 0 for every campaign I run.

I have consent. So, that's not it.

 

[Kai Lord]

I don't like fudging die rolls nor do I ever want my DM to fudge. It just feels wrong and cheap (to me, your mileage may vary.)

However me and my buddies don't like just giving the dice carte blanche to utterly ruin people's fun either. To me that defeats the purpose of the game so we always at least try to orchestrate scenarios where it isn't so much "succeed or die" as it is "succeed or survive and regroup." Because in my experience the latter absolutely can feel like a crushing defeat of sorts, though rarely the fun/game ruining kind, and can even lead to greater feelings of euphoria when the PC's make their comeback and do emerge victorious. So if a fight goes bad and for whatever reason a PC or PC's can't escape then we tend to steer toward the time honored tradition of having the villain gloat before making his or her exit rather than mercilessly finishing off one of the heroes. To me that isn't "fudging" since it doesn't involve a die roll and is just the DM exercising his or her right to play the NPC's however he or she wishes.

Of course we always reserve the right for PC's to tackle some life or death threat head-on because they feel equally excited to either take out some bad guy or go out in a blaze of glory which does bring the chance of character death front and center but at least it's on the player's terms and super cinematic win or lose.

But I've experienced too many times over the past few decades as both a player and DM having some fluke roll absolutely ruining someone's experience (and sometimes ruining an adventure and worse yet sometimes ruining an entire campaign) for me to ever join the "victory is only sweet if death lurks around every corner" camp. Nah, not to me. Life is too short to leave that much to chance and I'd rather hedge bets that players and DM's alike will have fun more often than not.

 

[soviet]

I am unclear why rolls are a problem with regard to fiat, but the legion of other things that are up for GM fiat are okay.

It's been explained by the post of mine you quoted.

I touch on my reserving the right to fudge the occasional roll in every Session 0 for every campaign I run.

Not sure how much work 'touch on' is doing here, but OK.

I have consent. So, that's not it.

Are we only talking about your game? Have your players expressed dissatisfaction? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

 

[Kai Lord]

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.

I really find such a descriptor to be quite the misnomer, though I realize that it's so commonly used that me taking issue with it is hardly going to change anything.

I mean DL1 Dragons of Despair introduced the notion of "obscure deaths" and giving outs for PC's (and prominent NPC's) to live on and fight again in a widely marketed official product smack dab in the middle of 1E's heyday and a full half decade before even 2E was a thing.

Now maybe you or others are only specifically referring to 1970's D&D which of course would be fair but I can't help but feel that 80's AD&D gamers like myself who didn't play "high-risk hardcore" even back then would also be considered "old-fashioned."

 

[Umbran]

Are we only talking about your game?

Well, that's a great question. Maybe it should be asked of all those who have said fudging is bad, too? Somehow, they get to assert it using phrasing that does not make it specific to their own games, without being questioned on it.

The issue of consent is always a local one. I merely note that at any table at which the GM gets consent, then consent isn't a difference between fudging dice, and any of the other forms of fiat the GM is generally understood to make.

Have your players expressed dissatisfaction?

Not in the slightest.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

You contended that the difference between fudging, and other areas over which the GM has fiat control was consent - we consent to all the other bits, but not to fudging. Do I have that right?

If so, then you ask for consent, and suddenly that difference evaporates!

Indeed, if we talk about it, it becomes less contentious, because all the other fiats you say are things we "generally accept", which implies that we don't talk about it. Well, if we discuss fudging first, then it comes to us with a higher level of consent than all that stuff we just "generally accept".

Any difference that can be dispelled with a mature discussion between adults is not an essential difference.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I have no idea what this means.

It's a scene from Labyrinth, where the protagonist is confronted with two talking doors in the classic "one always lies, one always tells the truth" scenario.

I mean DL1 Dragons of Despair introduced the notion of "obscure deaths" and giving outs for PC's (and prominent NPC's) to live on and fight again in a widely marketed official product smack dab in the middle of 1E's heyday and a full half decade before even 2E was a thing.

One of the things I read in the new Marvel TTRPG beta rules that I'm still thinking about was that the default of going to 0 HP is not death; it is assumed that enemies and PCs don't fight to kill save for extraordinary circumstances.