D&D 5E DMs, how do you fudge?

[Benjamin Olson]

Cheating is dishonesty or deception with regard to the rules. It doesn't matter if the books tell you you can or should do it. Being told "you can totally lie about this on your taxes" does not make it not lying.

Roleplaying is an acting and make-believe game. It is based entirely on forms of lying.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Roleplaying is an acting and make-believe game. It is based entirely on forms of lying.

No, it's not. Fantasy and lies are very, very different things. I get really sick of people parroting this line because it is completely false.

A fantasy is fictional, yes, which means it is not physically real. Not being physically real is not, at all, the same as being a falsehood about actually real things like dice or the rules for a monster.

 

[J.Quondam]

Then why the efforts to keep it secret--not just "not telling the players while you do it," but going out of one's way to actively prevent anyone ever finding out?

If it's so good for the game, why do so many players get so upset when they find out it happens?

Do GMs really go to great lengths to hide it? Do players really get upset about it?
If it was really such a taboo thing to do, why does this sort of question pop up so often across the interwebz?

I mean, sure, we hear lots of anecdotes to that effect around here, in a forum full of opinionated grogs. But surveys tell us that we here are not a representative sample of D&D gamers. Out in the rest of the world, among the vast majority of gamers who are newer, more casual, and/or have a huge diversity of reasons they play, I would seriously question this assumption about the sanctity of the dice.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

No, it's not. Fantasy and lies are very, very different things. I get really sick of people parroting this line because it is completely false.

A fantasy is fictional, yes, which means it is not physically real. Not being physically real is not, at all, the same as being a falsehood about actually real things like dice or the rules for a monster.

The rules for a monster aren't "real things" in sense comparable to a die roll. The DM either adopts them or creates them, and changing them at any point is little different from any other form of DM improvisation.

What is the point where you feel the DM is no longer allowed to use any of their creative freedom in monster design? Is it when initiative is rolled, or is it when they sit down at the table that day? Or can they only ever run vanilla, WotC approved monsters exactly as published? My stance is that they can keep making judicious adjustments to a stat block until the imaginary critter draws its last imaginary breath, so long as they do so in good faith.

 

[tetrasodium]

Then why the efforts to keep it secret--not just "not telling the players while you do it," but going out of one's way to actively prevent anyone ever finding out?

Misdirection, illusion through guided assumption, deception, & showmanship don't work as well if the audience is told how it was employed to draw out desired emotions or play off expectations. This is a great book on it because it includes sources where you can read deep into interesting topics over a wide range of subject matter.

If it's so good for the game, why do so many players get so upset when they find out it happens?

Most don't. I've been at a table where a player of mine who GM's mentioned how players would be shocked how often GM's fudge things in the PC's favor & openly discussed it without issue while running a combat. When the combat was over someone asked if I fudged anything & stared them dead in the eye with a flatly emotionless "no, I never fudge anything. dice rule all things & DCs are set in advance before I call for them." or something that left them with the exact impression of having no idea if I was being sarcastic honest or dishonest that I wanted to. The reason for why telling the players that something was fudged is the same reason a magician doesn't explain the trick to the audience & an adult doesn't tell a kid that they threw a game deliberately. Telling them spoils the illusion & resulting endorphin rush that goes with both the victory of a win and the tension that leads up to it.

IME players who get upset about things like that are playing to win a game that has no winners. Some might get frustrated if they feel like or suspect the GM is taking it easy on them because it cheapens the struggle & victory, but that's really not quite the same as being upset though.

 

[Blue]

I guess your saying having the player characters loose a fight is a bad thing? I see it as more of something that will happen from time to time.

Nope, not in the slightest. I'm for them losing fights occasionally. I actually brought that up in an earlier post in this thread.

I was addressing your claim "I don't "fudge" dice rolls. There is no need to. ... Combat encounters are built with a set, predetermined outcome as part of the game play. It's never 100%, but it's often 99% likely to happen my way."

Unless you always lowball and expect players to win, mathematically there is no chance to get anywhere near that success rate.

And that I think it the difference in play - there is uncertainty in combat, and with only a couple of dozen d20 rolls per combat - not nearly enough to expect statistical average all the time - we absolutely will get combat that swing far one way or the other.

So if you don't fudge because you don't need to because you get what you are expecting 99% of the time. But math says that you don't actually get what you expect with near that certainty.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I've only been a DM for all of one month now, so my n on this is too small for any confident claims about where I do or will "bend the results" of something. One thing on which I am firmly resolved, though, is where I will not fudge: under no circumstance will I fudge any results in order to (1) conceal a DM error, (2) avoid a scenario that taxes the DM's imagination, or (3) guarantee a scenario the DM planned on.

At heart, I figure, it's not my game: it's a world that I built, but in that world it's their game.

 

[Hex08]

Then why the efforts to keep it secret--not just "not telling the players while you do it," but going out of one's way to actively prevent anyone ever finding out?

If it's so good for the game, why do so many players get so upset when they find out it happens?

There's a fair number of unwarranted assumptions going on here. You make it sound like those who fudge are hiding some deep dark secret, we aren't. We make the choice to fudge and move on. We don't inform the players because it can ruin immersion. However, I have let it slip that I've fudged and in almost four decades I've never had a player get upset about it. Also, please remember that most who do fudge probably do it infrequently.

 

[Musing Mage]

Unless the fudge is made with maple, it doesn't come to my table.

Mmm... maple...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Do GMs really go to great lengths to hide it? Do players really get upset about it?
If it was really such a taboo thing to do, why does this sort of question pop up so often across the interwebz?

I mean, sure, we hear lots of anecdotes to that effect around here, in a forum full of opinionated grogs. But surveys tell us that we here are not a representative sample of D&D gamers. Out in the rest of the world, among the vast majority of gamers who are newer, more casual, and/or have a huge diversity of reasons they play, I would seriously question this assumption about the sanctity of the dice.

Sure we do. It crops up in a much, much, much bigger field than TTRPGs, as already mentioned earlier in this thread: video games.

Video games contain computer opponents, and a significant chunk of them cheat heinously. This is not, strictly, because designers want the computers to cheat--it is rather that the very limited automated "AI" scripts cannot hope to keep up with more than an extremely inexperienced player. Designing these "AI" scripts (they really aren't artificial intelligences--they're waaaaay to simple for that) so they don't need to cheat is very hard. Only a few games I've ever played reach that point, e.g. Galactic Civilizations has some really excellent AI that can do some very long-range plays, truly earning the "intelligence" part of the term AI.

Game AI designers are pretty open about this: they say "cheat wherever you can"...and also "never get caught cheating." That's not just for show. Getting caught cheating can really upset your players. It can upset them to the point where they will not just stop playing your game, they'll actively campaign against it, trying to encourage other people not to buy it. Machiavelli might have been writing satire with The Prince, but his advice was still good there: "Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated..." Probably the only thing that inspires more hate in gamers overall than cheating (whether it be player cheating or AI cheating) is a pay-to-win cash shop.

The rules for a monster aren't "real things" in sense comparable to a die roll. The DM either adopts them or creates them, and changing them at any point is little different from any other form of DM improvisation.

What is the point where you feel the DM is no longer allowed to use any of their creative freedom in monster design? Is it when initiative is rolled, or is it when they sit down at the table that day? Or can they only ever run vanilla, WotC approved monsters exactly as published? My stance is that they can keep making judicious adjustments to a stat block until the imaginary critter draws its last imaginary breath, so long as they do so in good faith.

I was very clear about this already. As soon as the creature enters the state of play, depending on what specifically the party is doing. Once the mini/token/etc. is on the battlemap (or has entered the combat if TOTM, etc.), they've entered play.

Also, you have taken me to a much, much greater extent than I said...even though I've been very clear about this several times in this thread. I didn't say DMs could do nothing whatsoever. I said they shouldn't do it secretly. Justify the changes. Make it diegetic. Make it something the players can potentially learn about...and, more importantly, do something about. You still have an enormous amount of creative freedom without needing to resort to fudging. This is not an issue of "never ever change anything." Nor am I saying "never make anything mysterious or unanswered." Instead, I'm saying, "if you change things, the players should be able to learn about and respond to that change." Give them exactly the same opportunity to discover the in-the-world aspects of what you're doing as they have for any plot-related stuff you're doing. You don't have to show them how the sausage is made, but you shouldn't tell them it's 100% all-beef sausage when it's 20% chicken hearts and 10%-30% vegetable protein.

Misdirection, illusion through guided assumption, deception, & showmanship don't work as well if the audience is told how it was employed to draw out desired emotions or play off expectations. This is a great book on it because it includes sources where you can read deep into interesting topics over a wide range of subject matter.

There is a difference between "showmanship"--which is a matter of performance--and straight-up lying to people about what things they're doing or achieving. Plus, at a magic show, people actually consent to being deceived, they (almost never) actually play any part in the trick, and (most importantly of all) have no skin in the game.

Most don't.

[Citation needed.] Video gamers respond exceptionally poorly to any perception of "cheating" on the part of the AI in a game. This is an objective fact. Indeed, they respond so poorly even to the perception of cheating that some games are designed with slightly player-favoring RNG to prevent the rare, but statistically completely possible, runs of success for the AI or failure for the player. (I've been dealing with a bit of this myself lately in a game--I was having chains of five consecutive "severe failure" events, when the game explicitly says this should only occur 15% of the time, meaning getting a string of 5 consecutive failures should only happen about one in every 13169 attempts...and this was happening on my third attempt at this event chain.)

I've been at a table where a player of mine who GM's mentioned how players would be shocked how often GM's fudge things in the PC's favor & openly discussed it without issue while running a combat. When the combat was over someone asked if I fudged anything & stared them dead in the eye with a flatly emotionless "no, I never fudge anything. dice rule all things & DCs are set in advance before I call for them." or something that left them with the exact impression of having no idea if I was being sarcastic honest or dishonest that I wanted to.

I feel like I'm missing something with this anecdote. That is, I understand what you've said, but I don't see what you're going for with it.

The reason for why telling the players that something was fudged is the same reason a magician doesn't explain the trick to the audience & an adult doesn't tell a kid that they threw a game deliberately. Telling them spoils the illusion & resulting endorphin rush that goes with both the victory of a win and the tension that leads up to it.

Okay but...hear me out...

What if you just didn't? You wouldn't need to deceive them. Then it wouldn't be possible to "spoil the illusion." It wouldn't be possible to take away the endorphin rush or ruin the tension. The tension, the win, the endorphins--they would all be real (for, y'know, an appropriate definition of "real" that allows for us being nerds pretending to be elves and half-demons and quarter-flumph ex-vampires.)

A magician's trick is not suddenly made pointless when it turns out the trick was real all along. Indeed, to reveal that it was actually real, rather than merely a known and tolerated illusion, usually enhances the experience greatly.

IME players who get upset about things like that are playing to win a game that has no winners. Some might get frustrated if they feel like or suspect the GM is taking it easy on them because it cheapens the struggle & victory, but that's really not quite the same as being upset though.

Well, I can certainly tell you that is not me. I do enjoy well-done tactical combat, but my true love is the roleplay angle. I adore a really good setting and context where I can realistically examine how my character would react to things and play through their struggles and moral choices. That's why, in the DW game I run, I've told my players not to worry about character death. Even if their characters die, that just means a new adventure for trying to bounce back from that death, possibly with yet further revelations as a result of their afterlife journey. Because the real challenges, the real victories and defeats, lie in the choices they make. The mistakes and the oaths, the alliances and betrayals. Challenging the numbers on their character sheet is easy. Challenging the player with choices where only they can decide what the "right answer" is...THAT is what is beautiful to me, as both DM and player.

And yet, I still vehemently oppose fudging.

So if you don't fudge because you don't need to because you get what you are expecting 99% of the time. But math says that you don't actually get what you expect with near that certainty.

You're committing the same error as the above: assuming that the only possible way to change things is secretly. It's not, and never has been. Sure, don't shout from the rooftops "I AM MODIFYING THIS MONSTER!" But you can make your changes diegetic, observable, accessible to the characters. The players may fail to capitalize on that accessibility, that's perfectly fine. But if you did at least make a good-faith effort at that accessibility, go ahead! Change literally anything that is reasonable to change, if it should lead to better results.

Again, I gave an example earlier in this thread of doing exactly this thing. I can control difficulty without needing to fudge. The extremely slight increase in difficulty is more than compensated for by, as noted above, turning it from magic trick to magic truth. And even then, I have not really needed to modify things that much--though some of that, I admit, comes from me being willing to let a fight be "disappointing" or "too strong" if that's what results.

 

[bloodtide]

So if you don't fudge because you don't need to because you get what you are expecting 99% of the time. But math says that you don't actually get what you expect with near that certainty.

I'm not sure you get the "math". A couple of tweaks an I can make any foe near unbeatable or an easy target. Plus adding in the environment, setting, effects and foe tactics.

Example: I want the characters to fall into the trap at spot x.....so some foes attack and then run away to spot x. Like 99% of the time the crazy mad xp thirsty players will chase the fleeing monster...right into the trap. The "math" does not matter.

If I want some character death I toss in a 3d encounter...like being underwater. Many players get super frustrated with 360 attacks and it leads to easy character death.

I guess you are thinking that combat is just rolling a bunch of dice and seeing what happens? My point is that I don't do that. I don't hinge things I want in my game on such combat. I do LOVE tons and tons and tons of randomness.......but things I want happen as I create/alter the game reality.

 

[Hex08]

If it's so good for the game, why do so many players get so upset when they find out it happens?

[Citation needed.]

If you are going to make claims that so many players get upset and don't give a citation then you can't really ask someone else for one when they say most don't.

It crops up in a much, much, much bigger field than TTRPGs, as already mentioned earlier in this thread: video games.

Also, comparing a TTRPG to a video game is a bad idea. Most TTRPGs are not competitive (they are not GM vs players) but most video games are (PvE or PvP) and that's a fundamental difference. Also, when a programmer makes a poor design decision the players have to deal with it forever or until the game is patched. In a TTRPG the DM can correct the problem on the fly (fudging).

I don't really understand your vehemence here. Obviously fudging is ok at some people's tables and it's not really your place to judge. Similarly, I doubt anyone here who is arguing that fudging is ok is judging you or your game because you don't.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There's a fair number of unwarranted assumptions going on here. You make it sound like those who fudge are hiding some deep dark secret, we aren't. We make the choice to fudge and move on. We don't inform the players because it can ruin immersion.

Okay. If a player challenged you over it, particularly during a session, what would you say? If you found out that one of your players actually does find fudging deeply upsetting, would you stop doing it? Or would you simply work to make sure they never find out?

However, I have let it slip that I've fudged and in almost four decades I've never had a player get upset about it. Also, please remember that most who do fudge probably do it infrequently.

I don't care if you do it once every hundred sessions--that still means you're always willing to do so whenever you think it's warranted. You still stand between the action and the consequence, even if you deign to let things play on as they were most of the time.

No one would say Augustus was not passing judgment on the gladiators with his pollice verso, even if every single time he urged the attacker to do whatever they intended to do in the first place.

[Citation needed.]

If you are going to make claims that so many players get upset and don't give a citation then you can't really ask someone else for one when they say most don't.

As said above: Video games. A much, much bigger market than TTRPGs ever hoped to be. Players hate when video games cheat. A reveal that AI cheat in a game is understood to be a bad thing by game AI designers. MMORPGs exist specifically because it is possible to approximate the rule-adjudication functions of DMs using a video game--and I can guarantee you that MMO players absolutely despise it when it turns out creatures in the world can break rules the players are forced to obey.

 

[Maxperson]

Roleplaying is an acting and make-believe game. It is based entirely on forms of lying.

A lie is an intentional deception. In all the years I was a player, nobody ever believed I was a human cleric of Tymora or an elven wizard, because I wasn't deceiving them(not sure how I even would) into believing that I was those things. Same as a DM. The game is not about deception of the players/DM, so it's not about lying.

 

[Maxperson]

As said above: Video games. A much, much bigger market than TTRPGs ever hoped to be. Players hate when video games cheat. A reveal that AI cheat in a game is understood to be a bad thing by game AI designers. MMORPGs exist specifically because it is possible to approximate the rule-adjudication functions of DMs using a video game--and I can guarantee you that MMO players absolutely despise it when it turns out creatures in the world can break rules the players are forced to obey.

This is a False Equivalence, though. Video games cheating is not the same as a DM fudging in limited circumstances. First, there is no real intelligence fudging in a video game. Second, it's usually some sort of glitch, and nobody wants to lose to a glitch. Third, video games have win/lose situations, so people playing them are going into video games with a different mindset than tabletop RPGs.

I'm sure there are more reasons that they are not the same and shouldn't be equated, but those three are more than enough.

 

[Hex08]

As said above: Video games. A much, much bigger market than TTRPGs ever hoped to be. Players hate when video games cheat. A reveal that AI cheat in a game is understood to be a bad thing by game AI designers. MMORPGs exist specifically because it is possible to approximate the rule-adjudication functions of DMs using a video game--and I can guarantee you that MMO players absolutely despise it when it turns out creatures in the world can break rules the players are forced to obey.

You probably replied when I was editing my post but if you go back and read it again you will see I addressed that point in my edit.

Okay. If a player challenged you over it, particularly during a session, what would you say? If you found out that one of your players actually does find fudging deeply upsetting, would you stop doing it? Or would you simply work to make sure they never find out?

I would stop doing it for that player, no harm no foul. However, as I said previously in this thread - in about 40 years of gaming I have never had a player complain about it. But once again, my point was that you were acting like we were hiding some big dark secret when that's simply not the case.

 

[Vael]

Depends. In online play ... since we all use a dice-roller, I don't fudge at all.

In person ... I've rerolled on random tables when I didn't care for the outcome that came up and in a few fairly rare instances when I believe I misjudged how difficult an encounter would be, turned a hit or two into a miss to give the PCs a bit of breathing room.

 

[iserith]

Easy. I do not adjust.

The closest thing I do that is close to fudging is to play some of the foes less than what would be considered optimal. And I do that only if it is a streak of incredible bad luck.

What players often do at my table is.... to flee away from the fight if the fight goes against them. That is why they have things such as caltrops, ball bearings and spells that remove them from sight and/or slow the enemies. Fleeing is often the better part of valor in my games. Enemies will try to flee, so will the players.

Same. It's not like I'm breaking out the slide rule to try and make the ultimate balanced encounter anyway so there's not really a situation where I'm thinking I've put something too powerful before the PCs. CRs and encounter balance has never been an exact science and it's all out the window the second the players start making decisions anyway.

If the players think it's too tough, they can have their characters try to flee. If they didn't prepare for that eventuality, that's on them.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I was very clear about this already. As soon as the creature enters the state of play, depending on what specifically the party is doing. Once the mini/token/etc. is on the battlemap (or has entered the combat if TOTM, etc.), they've entered play.

Yes well, perhaps you were clear. I entirely disagree.

To me the monster is malleable until XP is awarded. The only magic of having "entered play" is that I will not change attributes of monters that have already explicitly come up in play after they do so. But a D&D critter is not a single discrete thing, it is a bundle of decisions the DM has made which become relevant at different times. Players may have learned it's AC but that has nothing to do with it's Wisdom score which I reserve the right to change until it has made a Wisdom check. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Not that I change things often, or without what I consider a good reason. But when I do I would be no more likely to have a conversation with the players about it (as you advocate) than I would any of the other times I change the adventure in any other way (meaning sometimes I would, but I don't think it is necessary or desirable to do so as a matter of policy).

A lie is an intentional deception. In all the years I was a player, nobody ever believed I was a human cleric of Tymora or an elven wizard, because I wasn't deceiving them(not sure how I even would) into believing that I was those things. Same as a DM. The game is not about deception of the players/DM, so it's not about lying.

Sure. I really butchered what I intended to convey there. I meant to tease the poster I was responding to about a hardline stance on all fudging being lying given that historically many thinkers (c.f. Plato) considered theater a form of lying, or creating fantasy worlds a form of lying. But I forgot to put a "from some philosophical perspectives" qualifier in there.

I guess I roleplayed the part too well.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

Obviously, there's dozen of different examples of fudging and we would probably all have different opinions on them.

Let's look at other examples. Some from this very thread.

1. One of your players has missed his attack three rounds in a row. He rolls a 15, you look at your notes, that monster had an AC of 16. But you just decide to fudge the result and make the monster AC a 15. "You hit!". I may come from a good place, but I think this is destructive to the contract between DM, players and the game. If I fudge things to make them have success sometimes, how they can they be sure what when they truly succeed it was because of either their choices/their rolls?
2. The players blasted through an encounter, or outright dodged it because they were smart or found an ingenious way ahead. They have way more resources than what was planned when they get to the biggest fight of the dungeon. Should we tweak it to make it harder? It should be epic, it's the last fight. I think this is a bad idea. Your players made some decisions, they used their agency and they were rewarded. They'll reach that fight in a much better posture and will most likely heroically prevail. Why on earth would you steal it from them. It's a thousand times more satisfying to know that your wits allowed this outcome (something I often share with my players after the session) than to be forced in an outcome no matter what your choices are.

We've often discussed about the very different type of players and tables there are. The players acting versus the players describing their characters action, the ones that like optimizing their characters and the ones that don't. The ones that want some dungeon delving, and the ones that want a large drama with plenty of characters, etc. What's interesting is that, in my experience, every single type of player, in every single type of campaign that I ran, in every game, or setting always had its agency at heart. Any of these players, in any of these contexts would have felt robbed by some of the examples.

In my opinion, there's nothing more sacrosanct in TTRPGs then respecting the players' agency and the consequences of their actions. If your fudges or tweaks affects that, you're striking at sacred essence of the game you're playing.