DM Cheating

[Thornir Alekeg]

Side note: Two of us in the gaming group (another player and I, the "regular" DMs of the group) have taken to refusing raise deads and resurrections when our characters CLEARLY die, instead rolling up new characters, as an example to the other players not to put so much emotion into keeping a character around that we should fudge all the time if they die (which is something we used to do quite a bit). We're both trying to show how character death can also be a part of the game, rather than a "design flaw" that needs to be "whacked into shape." Also, it's fun to play with a new character if the old one buys the farm.

I agree that people should not be so attached to their character that they are not willing to accept its death. In my experience I have encountered a wide range in how people react and I try to keep it in mind. If the players are not enjoying themselves, then I probably won't either. For someone who might have trouble getting into a character, but finally has after some time, I'm not going to kill them off on a trivial die roll and force them back to square one. I'm not going to save them from their own stupidity, but I won't let them die simply because of one roll of the dice when they are playing well.

That said, I and the other DMs usually roll behind screens just in case we find the need to fudge one way or the other; however, the times I have rolled in the open has also added a visceral aspect to the game, and sometimes in really tense combats I'll specifically change up and take the screen away and roll in the open, just to perk up the players' attention.

That may be the most sensible compromise I've heard of. I will keep this in mind for when I return to DMing.

 

[buzz]

Quick addendum:

I don't know if it's helpful to bring in the term "perfect" in this discussion. There's some color to that term that I think can lead to confusion, even when used conditionally, e.g., "perfect for us."

I mean, I would never say that D&D 3.5 is perfect. The grappling rules alone disprove that. However, I don't see a need to fudge while playing or running it. E.g., those clunky grappling rules still produce results that work, IMO.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

If this is the case, wouldn't houseruling the lethality work better than fudging? Insta-kill spells drop you to -9 stable, implementing hero/luck/fate points, toning down the critical mechanic. I can only survive so many destruction spells on a 3 before I start to wonder why I'm rolling them in the first place.

Absolutely.

Just because AD&D and even D&D 3e did not come with an inline in-game solution to too much lethality does not mean such a solution does not exist. And unlike a lot of game mechanics, this one is painfully easy to port to your system of choice.

If you have more PC death in your games, give each player x number of Narration Points (call them what you like, but that's what they are), where x is equal to the number of times a given player's PC would die in unwanted circumstances if you didn't fudge. Spending a Narration Point allows the player to declare the result of an action - no dice, no fudging, nothing. If the player says "I automatically succeed at my save against death" or "the giant automatically fails to hit" - that's what happens. The point is expended, narration - and fiat - pass to the player who expended it, and PC death does not occur.

Of course, players can choose to spend their Narration Points on something else, in which case they're declaring their willingness to die to accomplish that task.

 

[kelson]

I can see how both sides of this discussion have a point. When I DM myself I occasionaly do cheat a bit in order to make the game go the way I intended, and fit the story better. I am in a campain currently with a DM who rolls openly, and sets his adventures at a VERY challenging level. A few weeks ago we watched as he rolled 4 consecutive nat 20's, and both of our frontline fighters dropped in one round. leaving a mage a psion and a druid in melle against 1 fighter 1 rogue 1 cleric and 1 dispeller (I dont know what these are actualy called but it pretty much nutralized all of our magic with counterspells, dispel magic, and the like. That was his only contribution to the fight.) We managed to survive, but it was the longest battle we have ever been in, A full 5 hour long battle when it was intended to be a minor encounter. If I had been DMing I would have fudged the dice somewhere or done something to make the game move on. by the end all of us wanted to just walk out of the house and the game ended with us angry and frusterated

 

[buzz]

When I DM myself I occasionaly do cheat a bit in order to make the game go the way I intended, and fit the story better.

This is another reason I'm not a big fan of fudging, but it's admittedly a whole 'nother can o' worms.

 

[Halivar]

Side note: Two of us in the gaming group (another player and I, the "regular" DMs of the group) have taken to refusing raise deads and resurrections when our characters CLEARLY die, instead rolling up new characters, as an example to the other players not to put so much emotion into keeping a character around that we should fudge all the time if they die (which is something we used to do quite a bit).

My Friday group has the exact opposite problem. PC deaths and TPK's are so frequent (I died five times in six sessions) that no one has any attachment whatsoever to their characters. The result? No one roleplays. The DM makes it so you've got a 50% survival chance (after all, isn't that a fair fight?), and the game degenerates into a strategy game, where getting interested in the plot gets you killed.

Now, I know this is an extreme example. Fighting creatures 5+ your CR is silly; but it outlines a difference in philosophies: in my Saturday group, the DM fudges, people rarely die (the most I ever died was 3 times in a two year-long campaign), but plot involvement and roleplay around the table is fantastic. I'm not saying that one follows from the other; I'm just saying that the perfect cinematic DM (IMO) uses every tool in his arsenal to enhance the story, player involvement, and roleplay; the DM screen is one of these tools.

 

[Kestrel]

Right, but you need to be careful... For example, if you tell the players one round that the bad guy missed an AC of 25 when your die showed a 15, he'd better not be hitting an AC of 21 the next round, when your die shows an 8. The players will notice that.

Yup...you gotta be careful if you're going to do it. While they may enjoy the results (an avoided TPK), they certainly don't want to feel that you changed something to keep them alive.

I'm not advocating fudging or changing things on a regular basis. I usually only do this if I feel that I totally misjudged an encounter as a GM. I would say that the majority of the time, the dice fall where they may.

As a side note, Action/Hero/Fate/Saveyourbutt Points are a great way to not to have to worry about this.

 

[Vague Jayhawk]

Through most of my gaming life we just let the dice fall and whomever dies, dies. I gamed with a few "killer DMs", but most were very fair.

I learned to create my characters optimized for defense, offense was secondary. I could count on half of my characters not making it to 5th level. I learned to use bribery, stealth, trickery, or running away and regrouping as legitimate tactical strategies for getting through adventures. We played smart and we had fun.

I moved and made a new group of gaming buddies. In this group it is perfectly acceptable for the DM to fudge dice to keep characters alive.

It was hard to adjust to this new style of play. Knowing that your character will survive no matter what opponents you face, or dumb-ass decisions you make, is frustrating and anti-climatic.

Edit: Although frustrating, it isn't all bad and I am starting to get used to it. Having a regular cast of characters does encourage more role-playing and a more consistant storyline.

 

[eyebeams]

Fudging of any kind makes me question why we're using the system in the first place. If the results the rules produce are "getting in the way of the fun" (as many GM advice sections put it), then either the system is badly designed, or else our group simply wants something it can't provide.

Naturally, systems that can provide what you want are necessarily limited in scope because it's functionally impossible to robustly test every permutation of a complex game *and* given instances of actual play do not match suppositions about what play will be like, even if those are based on statistics or instances of play another group's been up to. Game systems do stupid things no matter how cool you think they are, and they do them a lot.

Of course, systems that avoid this tend to be pretty simple and leave room for player interpretation. This doesn't actually remove moderation though, it simply entrenches it into play and provides a rhetorical dodge for people who want to avoid accusations of fudging. Of course, if one accepts this dodge, one must accept that no fudging actually occurs in D&D, because that is *also* entrenched into its system. But that would be silly.

 

[NanocTheCivilized]

I roll in the open and have done since 1980 - obviously some skill checks and monster saves need to be done in secret.

If the party seems to be in serious trouble I sometimes suggest they might want to consider running for it - or remind a player about a magic item he or she has but might have forgotten in the heat of the moment (after all, the character probably wouldn't have forgotten).

One of the things that could save a party in pre-3e versions of D&D is a morale check for the monsters. Sadly that's not an option in the current edition, where all monsters fight to the death unless the DM decides they run away (DM fiat if you think this is a bad thing, DM judgement if you think it's a good thing).

Cheers
Nanoc