D&D General Dice Fudging and Twist Endings

[Irlo]

But the outcome of my participation is subject to a secret veto. 'Sorry, that's a failure'. 'Yay, that was a success after all'.

Is that worse than the outcome of your particiation being subject to a random die roll? It doesn't seem any more or less participation to me.

I know the answer, of course -- to you (and a lot of people) it does seem worse. But I think participation in the game is a lot more than rolling dice and abiding by the results. The range of opinions about what makes the game worth playing is very interesting to me.

 

[soviet]

Is that worse than the outcome of your particiation being subject to a random die roll? It doesn't seem any more or less participation to me.

I know the answer, of course -- to you (and a lot of people) it does seem worse. But I think participation in the game is a lot more than rolling dice and abiding by the results. The range of opinions about what makes the game worth playing is very interesting to me.

I think for me it's about the process more than the result.

If genuine story things are at stake and we roll dice for it, that's exciting and unpredictable. Sometimes this will lead to unexpected outcomes where we are all (players and GM alike) taken aback. Sometimes it will lead to the perfect or 'poetic' outcome that we might have used if we were writing the events as a story, but with the added benefit that we know it came about naturally rather than because anyone's thumb was on the scales.

The downside of this is that sometimes things will turn out to be damp squibs, or anticlimaxes, or catastrophic failures. The fight against the big bad grinds on too long, or is over in the first round, or is eventually lost by the PCs. I kind of like these possibilities to be honest, it can be a refreshing change of pace. And it underlines the joy of when things really do work out how they 'should'.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well I was being a bit facetious, and I didn't come up with that quote. The underlying point is that all stories are intentional untruths, so you can make a case that they are technically lies, if of a benign and cooperative nature. On the other hand, maybe those lies reveal deeper truths - "there's a world of difference between truth and facts" (Maya Angelou).

See, that's the problem. They are not intentional untruths. That is the exact problem. They are intentional, yes. And they do not have literal, physical truth. That does not, therefore, mean they are intentional untruths. That would require, as I have said, the intent to deceive.

A story, in general, does not--and in particular a collaborative story can't do that to the people collaborating on it. No one plays D&D thinking it is literally, physically true, which is why the Chick Tracts about D&D are so hilarious. You do agree with this, right? That no one who plays D&D goes into it thinking, "I am LITERALLY, PHYSICALLY Black Leaf the Thief, and if Black Leaf dies, I AM ALSO DEAD."

So, when telling a story, we aren't talking about things that bear literal truth-value. That's perfectly fine; we talk about plenty of things with no literal truth value that have some other form of truth-value. Counter-factual claims, for example, can be true without being literal: "if it rains Monday morning, I will bring my umbrella" remains true even if it happens to be the case that on Monday, it doesn't rain--because it represents intent, regardless of whether that intent bears out. Or a mathematical statement can be abstractly true, such as the four-color theorem (TL;DR: simple maps, with no oceans/lakes/etc. and smooth borders, never require more than 4 colors to make sure all regions have different colors if they're connected by edges.) That's a truth that doesn't actually require there to be any such maps, or indeed any maps at all.

Stories, on the other hand, tend to be held to (at least) one of three standards. Either they need to be metaphorically true (representing something, whether it be a physcial thing e.g. a satire of real political persons or an abstract thing like a moral lesson), or they need to be subjectively true (depicting the experience someone has had, even if the actual facts that induce it are unreal), or they need to be at least self-consistently true (depicting something with minimal connection to anything real or abstract, but any "facts" established within the story remain so unless and until a greater understanding reveals that previous "facts" were incomplete or faulty.) A few, like documentaries and textbooks, may be held to the higher standard of literal truth, as they claim to be giving information about real-world events, but these are by far the minority among things people tend to call "stories."

Defining "lie" as "anything which is not literally true" is a poor definition of "lie," which does not comport with the way actual people use the term, creates major confusion regarding things like abstract, normative, or subjective/experiential truths, and is nearly guaranteed to get a ton of pushback. If we instead define "lie," as many dictionaries do, as (some variation of) "presenting a knowing falsehood as though it were literally true," we cut out all of that nonsense--but we also, definitionally, find that fiction becomes a third category. It is neither a lie, nor literally true; it is something else entirely, because it doesn't have literal truth-value, it is neither literally true nor literally false because it doesn't have the capacity to bear literal truth-value (most of the time; again, documentaries etc.) Much the same can be said of nonsense phrases: e.g., there is no true answer to the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?" if you never beat your wife in the first place (or do not have a wife, etc.) because the question is malformed. Or, "The current King of France is bald," which can be neither true nor false, because there is no "current King of France" to bear or lack the property of baldness. That doesn't make "the current King of France is bald" a lie. It makes it nonsense.

I don't think stories are entirely nonsense either, because stories almost always serve a purpose--perhaps good, perhaps bad, but some purpose nonetheless. But it would be a significant step up from the utterly incorrect notion that all storytelling is lies.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Is that worse than the outcome of your particiation being subject to a random die roll? It doesn't seem any more or less participation to me.

Yes. Dice are an open and expected part of the play process. You must learn to prepare for them to do any of the things in their range; if there's a 5% chance of instant death, you need to be ready for that to bear out 1 time in 20!

I know the answer, of course -- to you (and a lot of people) it does seem worse. But I think participation in the game is a lot more than rolling dice and abiding by the results. The range of opinions about what makes the game worth playing is very interesting to me.

Oh, absolutely it's TONS more than that. But this is a critical link in the chain. Think of it like a simple necklace. Some things--pendants, frills, finery--could be removed without causing the necklace to fall from your neck. Other things, the structural links of the chain itself, cannot be removed without causing the necklace to fall. There might be only one such link, e.g. the clasp at the back of the neck, or there might be many such links.

D&D is a game where there are multiple fundamental links. Fudging, whether it be die rolls or HP totals or mystery clues or whatever else, breaks one of those links. There are other links that are also critical and which must be preserved. Many of them never get the kind of cavalier treatment that this one does. For example, players abiding by whatever advancement rules the group uses.

I think for me it's about the process more than the result.

If genuine story things are at stake and we roll dice for it, that's exciting and unpredictable. Sometimes this will lead to unexpected outcomes where we are all (players and GM alike) taken aback. Sometimes it will lead to the perfect or 'poetic' outcome that we might have used if we were writing the events as a story, but with the added benefit that we know it came about naturally rather than because anyone's thumb was on the scales.

The downside of this is that sometimes things will turn out to be damp squibs, or anticlimaxes, or catastrophic failures. The fight against the big bad grinds on too long, or is over in the first round, or is eventually lost by the PCs. I kind of like these possibilities to be honest, it can be a refreshing change of pace. And it underlines the joy of when things really do work out how they 'should'.

Which for those who want to make use of dice without any response, is awesome.

For those who still want to manage things, or be prepared for the times where they accidentally leave in something as an option that they weren't ready for, or prepare something that ends up being a poor fit, there's a great deal you can do with diegetic responses or just being open with your players.

 

[jgsugden]

...It’s important to know when best to fudge a number and when not to. The ability to extend an encounter by falsifying rolls is tempting, but there are more satisfying ways to accomplish this. Adding a twist to the end of an encounter is far more engaging for players than simply prolonging it by using fudged rolls. Both of these methods can be tricky to use so let’s look at the do’s and don'ts of each.

Full article link: Dice Fudging and Twist Endings

I. Do. Not. Fudge.

I also do not insert something unplanned into a combat or otherwise twist the game on the fly to add more drama. These are crutches that give the game the exact opposite of what you intend to give it - boring flatness and a lack of variety.

If you try to make every battle an exciting climatic battle for survival - or make sure that every encounter has a shocking moment by adding a falling floor that wasn't planned, a spur of the moment switch, or something else - everything starts to feel the same. There are no highs and lows. There are no easy battles that make the PCs feel powerful. A tough battle no longer feels like a battle for survival - just a run of the mill encounter. And if you are twisting to add to challenges so that you can always be on the razer's edge, you're going to cut the PCs down eventually when they make a mistake or get a bad roll series.

I strive to put things into my setting and then let them go organically. I try to emulate a natural environment once I build them so that the creatures, environment and setting feels natural - and not contrived. This does result in the PCs encountering things that are easy for them to beat. That is cool, though, as it makes them feel strong and heroic. They also can encounter things far too difficult for them that may cut them down if they do not flee. That makes the world feel real, and they quickly learn that not every problem can be taken head on.

So how do I keep the game interesting for players is every battle is not full of surprise twists and battles that go down to the wire? I put other stakes into the design of the game so that battles have other importance over survival. The PCs may be protecting something, stopping something from escaping, trying to complete something while being attacked, trying to discover something while surviving an attack, etc.... These are not random, spur of the moment additions - they're built into the design for the setting and encounter setup. That gives them both interest and real weight, even when the PCs never fear for their lives in a battle.

Build an interesting world. Give the PCs ideas to explore. Trust that it will work out and give them a chance to be powerful figures in a world worth exploring - where it is worth exploring because the setting makes sense and feels lived in ... not contrived and repetitive.

 

[Umbran]

I don't create stakes I'm not willing to live with if the dice go either way.

That sounds less great when you realize that the GM is only one person at the table. Everyone else has to live with them too.

Add to that how the mathematics of many games is difficult to gauge, so that the stakes are not always obvious when you set out, especially when working with a new system, or new players.

In the end, it is your table, and you should do at it what makes you happy. But it would be better if the approach to discussion of techniques was more open to consideration of the rather diverse needs and desires that we don't all share.

 

[iserith]

That sounds less great when you realize that the GM is only one person at the table. Everyone else has to live with them too.

Add to that how the mathematics of many games is difficult to gauge, so that the stakes are not always obvious when you set out, especially when working with a new system, or new players.

In the end, it is your table, and you should do at it what makes you happy. But it would be better if the approach to discussion of techniques was more open to consideration of the rather diverse needs and desires that we don't all share.

Presumably the DM is in alignment with the players as to what they find acceptable as a group. As someone said, "That's what discussing things like adults in Session 0 is for."

I would suggest to players, and do, that they shouldn't just assume difficulty (e.g. that they know the monster is what they think it is and can do) or that it won't change based on things out of their control (e.g. dice results), and that having an escape plan is prudent. Boldly confront deadly perils, but do it intelligently, or prepare to fail more often than necessary. But also, suggest it's okay to fail, since in we're in alignment on what kinds of failure we all find fun.

 

[Umbran]

Yes. Dice are an open and expected part of the play process. You must learn to prepare for them to do any of the things in their range; if there's a 5% chance of instant death, you need to be ready for that to bear out 1 time in 20!

Unless you are also showing the players the entire stat block of every monster, and the pre-determined DC of every check, and so on, they don't know that there's a 5% chance of instant death to be ready for.

D&D is not chess or checkers, where all game information is available to all participants. Some information is kept from players. Player's ability to make judgements is a statistical best guess, based on what is expected on a large number of die rolls.

What happens on a small number of die rolls, however, is therefore not significant, in the real, statistical sense. If the GM is only touching a small number of rolls, then the overall game statistics aren't meaningfully impacted.

D&D is a game where there are multiple fundamental links. Fudging, whether it be die rolls or HP totals or mystery clues or whatever else, breaks one of those links.

Are you open to the idea that what are fundamental links for you, are not necessarily so fundamental for everyone?

Or is this a One True Way argument?

 

[guachi]

That often results in something more interesting than what I could have planned in advance, plus it reduces my prep (or at least allows me to focus on different prep)

The "more interesting" is also why I largely (though not entirely) like to run published adventures. As a DM I am always entertained seeing how all of us react to an adventure written by someone else.

 

[Imaculata]

Since I have started rolling out in the open, and have embraced Iserith's philosophy, the quality of my games has improved dramatically.

Players get to share in the thrill of combat by seeing me roll well for their opponents, or be entertained by how poorly I can roll as well. Having all of that out in the open, also makes it easier I feel for my players to estimate their odds in combat. I also straight up tell my players how things could have gone differently and let them know what my monsters can do afterwards. I don't keep monster stats a secret.