Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dice Fudging and Twist Endings
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8971059" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Precisely correct. This is something I am generally opposed to, so I take steps to prevent it--but those steps do not include what I call "fudging." That is, "fudging" is "secretly altering the results of rolls (or mathematical equivalents e.g. adding HP) to cause specific outcomes, while behaving as though these rolls(/etc.) were unaltered."</p><p></p><p></p><p>There are (at least) four other options:</p><p>Don't employ random adjudication in the first place, when randomness could produce outcomes you find unacceptable. This is usually phrased in the reverse however, that is, "I only roll when the outcomes of rolling are ones I am willing to accept" or similar.</p><p>Intrude diegetically to fix problems when they arise. That is, the bad result is openly stated...and then it's stated that something <em>prevents</em> the bad result. This then leaves open questions of <em>why</em> the bad result was nullified, which leads to more story.</p><p>Prepare safeguards in advance, so when unacceptable outcomes inevitably appear, you can simply draw on existing material to restore equilibrium. The bad result still occurs, but the unacceptable consequences are forestalled.</p><p>Openly say, "Oh, that wouldn't be fun. Let's do this instead." In other words, make clear that you are setting aside the dice and doing what you think is best. (I don't <em>like</em> this approach as much, but it's still useful to have.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Your first example, altering the DC, sounds like a perfectly valid diegetic response, one that doesn't even require special reveals. "Your plan is a good one; it will make the upcoming challenges easier to deal with" is almost certainly something you SHOULD tell the players. At which point, you aren't fudging at all; you're simply rolling with the ways the players' choices have changed the state of play.</p><p></p><p>Again, to be <em>extremely clear</em>, "fudging" as I have used the term (essentially everywhere, not just this thread) means "secretly altering the results of rolls(/equivalents) to cause specific outcomes, while behaving as though those rolls were unaltered." Simply having a predisposition to give your players the benefit of the doubt is not, and cannot be, fudging. <em>Actually</em> having a critical hit roll out, and then <em>secretly and covertly</em> invalidating that crit and trying to prevent the players from discovering this, is "fudging." As would adding 20 HP to the boss in order to prevent it dying too soon.</p><p></p><p>Things that <em>are not</em> fudging would include:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Deciding <em>and stating</em> that, because the player character comes from a semi-prominent merchant family, they get a bonus to diplomatic rolls with other merchants when relevant.<br /> Having a fight come to a close early when you know the players have won and it's only mop-up time, e.g. by having the last man standing surrender, or turning to a player and saying, "It's basically dead. Tell me how you kill it--no need to roll." (Again, the <em>telling the players</em> thing is important here.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Preventing a critical hit that would kill a PC (or even a beloved NPC)...and <em>saying</em> "you KNOW that should've killed <char>...but somehow it didn't. You'll have to figure out why later, for now you need to save them!"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Having a boss survive attacks that <em>should</em> kill it (essentially the same as the previous, just affecting a villain rather than a hero)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Simply ruling that some task succeeds (or fails!) without a roll, and stating why that happens</li> </ul><p>Hopefully this is illustrative of what I mean. There are <em>tons</em> of things you can do that don't require "fudging," as I use the term.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8971059, member: 6790260"] Precisely correct. This is something I am generally opposed to, so I take steps to prevent it--but those steps do not include what I call "fudging." That is, "fudging" is "secretly altering the results of rolls (or mathematical equivalents e.g. adding HP) to cause specific outcomes, while behaving as though these rolls(/etc.) were unaltered." There are (at least) four other options: Don't employ random adjudication in the first place, when randomness could produce outcomes you find unacceptable. This is usually phrased in the reverse however, that is, "I only roll when the outcomes of rolling are ones I am willing to accept" or similar. Intrude diegetically to fix problems when they arise. That is, the bad result is openly stated...and then it's stated that something [I]prevents[/I] the bad result. This then leaves open questions of [I]why[/I] the bad result was nullified, which leads to more story. Prepare safeguards in advance, so when unacceptable outcomes inevitably appear, you can simply draw on existing material to restore equilibrium. The bad result still occurs, but the unacceptable consequences are forestalled. Openly say, "Oh, that wouldn't be fun. Let's do this instead." In other words, make clear that you are setting aside the dice and doing what you think is best. (I don't [I]like[/I] this approach as much, but it's still useful to have.) Your first example, altering the DC, sounds like a perfectly valid diegetic response, one that doesn't even require special reveals. "Your plan is a good one; it will make the upcoming challenges easier to deal with" is almost certainly something you SHOULD tell the players. At which point, you aren't fudging at all; you're simply rolling with the ways the players' choices have changed the state of play. Again, to be [I]extremely clear[/I], "fudging" as I have used the term (essentially everywhere, not just this thread) means "secretly altering the results of rolls(/equivalents) to cause specific outcomes, while behaving as though those rolls were unaltered." Simply having a predisposition to give your players the benefit of the doubt is not, and cannot be, fudging. [I]Actually[/I] having a critical hit roll out, and then [I]secretly and covertly[/I] invalidating that crit and trying to prevent the players from discovering this, is "fudging." As would adding 20 HP to the boss in order to prevent it dying too soon. Things that [I]are not[/I] fudging would include: [LIST] [*]Deciding [I]and stating[/I] that, because the player character comes from a semi-prominent merchant family, they get a bonus to diplomatic rolls with other merchants when relevant. Having a fight come to a close early when you know the players have won and it's only mop-up time, e.g. by having the last man standing surrender, or turning to a player and saying, "It's basically dead. Tell me how you kill it--no need to roll." (Again, the [I]telling the players[/I] thing is important here.) [*]Preventing a critical hit that would kill a PC (or even a beloved NPC)...and [I]saying[/I] "you KNOW that should've killed <char>...but somehow it didn't. You'll have to figure out why later, for now you need to save them!" [*]Having a boss survive attacks that [I]should[/I] kill it (essentially the same as the previous, just affecting a villain rather than a hero) [*]Simply ruling that some task succeeds (or fails!) without a roll, and stating why that happens [/LIST] Hopefully this is illustrative of what I mean. There are [I]tons[/I] of things you can do that don't require "fudging," as I use the term. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dice Fudging and Twist Endings
Top