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

[delericho]

I try really hard not to fudge things. On those occasions that I do (generally because I've screwed up encounter design), I'll generally omit some monster actions and/or have them use suboptimal tactics for a round. Very occasionally, I'll declare a lower damage total than it should be.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, the thread was nice for couple of pages before accusations about dishonesty and lies started...

I tend to not fudge. I'm pretty sure haven't done so once during the current campaign I'm running. But I don't consider it an inherently bad thing. Games are imperfect, and if you need to occasionally kick the engine to get the results you want, so be it. Though if you find yourself doing so often, it might be an indication that the system simply is not suited for your purposes.

And the reason why I'm not fudging is simply my own enjoyment as a GM. If the GM so desires, they can pretty much always force the things to go the way they want, and usually even do it so that the players don't notice. But as a GM, I find that boring. I want to be on the edge of my seat too, not knowing what's going to happen. So it's for my benefit, the players wouldn't know either way, and would be unlikely to care.

 

[Oofta]

I fudge for one reason and one reason only: to bring to an end combats that have outlived their purpose, and even then only if there's no other out.

If I want to end a fight because it's a foregone conclusion, I'll just narrate the end of the fight.

I played in a 4e combat against an enemy with ridiculously high defenses. We cleared out their backup and the battle basically ended anything interesting after about a half hour. It took us damn near another hour of constantly whiffing before we finally brought it down.


Never again. Not on my watch, anyway.

I think this is one of the advantages of bounded accuracy, it's rare to hit that in a 5E game. On the other hand, if it looks like a fight is turning into a slog something will change. I'll call it, the BBEG will attempt to escape or call for reinforcements, something. There's many ways of addressing it other than fudging.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There's many ways of addressing it other than fudging.

I myself don't find any appreciable difference between "calling it" and fudging. In both cases the DM is just choosing to no longer play the board game as per the rules of said game. So one isn't any better or worse than the other to me.

 

[Jer]

I don't bother to fudge dice rolls anymore. I used to fudge them to a) save the party from a TPK when I as the DM didn't want to deal with restarting a campaign or b) to end a combat early when we were running late or when it was obvious that the players had won and they were just cleaning up minions.

Now I don't do either - I've adopted the idea of "campaign losses" from 13th age for all of my D&D-like games, so if there's going to be a TPK it becomes a campaign loss instead. And these days if I want to end a combat early I just tell the players "and since you've taken out the boss the minions scatter and/or surrender" and since we're all old people who have schedules, everyone appreciates it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No fudging dice, hp or AC. I might knock pcs unconscious if it makes sense or let the enemy flee instead of going for the killing blow if stayinf for the kill would also result in the enemy's death.
Many foes also don't want to die.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well, the thread was nice for couple of pages before accusations about dishonesty and lies started...

Let's be honest, that is basically the point of fudging threads.

 

[Hex08]

fudging threads.

That sounds gross

 

[Vaalingrade]

That sounds gross

All witchhunts are gross, my friend.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

And also, since when is D&D a game where the DM is supposed to be teaching lessons to his players ? Isn't it a game that everyone, players and DM, play just for fun ?

I always respect my DM, but I would not play with a DM who came to the table thinking that he is there to teach me anything. Fortunately, I have never encountered that kind of attitude in a DM.

You don't need a teacher to learn lesson. When you put your hand on the open stove and burn yourself when you're young, you learn a lesson.

I'm not teaching anything to anyone. But it goes both ways, what you do, allows and forbid at a table, whether it's through explicit or implicit rulings has an effect on the behaviour of the people at the table.

 

[Oofta]

I myself don't find any appreciable difference between "calling it" and fudging. In both cases the DM is just choosing to no longer play the board game as per the rules of said game. So one isn't any better or worse than the other to me.

One is being open about the fact that you're ending the fight because it's no longer interesting, the other is being deceptive. Whether being deceptive is good or bad is a personal opinion, I personally try to avoid it.

 

[Stormonu]

If a player's paranoia comes up with something interesting, I just might make it come true. I can't think of everything, and sometimes other people come up with some really good ideas that are just too great to pass up.

I will rarely sometimes modify encounters - add an extra wave, beef up or tone down an opponent. Always in making things more interesting, whatever the outcome. One example I can think of is adding that 1 point of damage to a PCs attack when a monster gets drops to 1 hit point - generally only if its the last opponent the PCs are facing and it doesn't have a chance in hell of retaliating noticeably against the PCs.

For me, the dice are a tool and the story isn't written until it happens. If making changes makes the game more memorable, I'm not opposed to it.

 

[Hex08]

I tend to not fudge. I'm pretty sure haven't done so once during the current campaign I'm running. But I don't consider it an inherently bad thing.

This is what I think some people are missing here, most who fudge (at least those posting here) seem to view it the way you do. It doesn't happen often and probably not enough to matter or derail a game.

Most RPGs are full of judgement calls made by the DM over a wide variety of situations and the occasional fudge, as long as it's not ruining people's time, is just another judgement call. Neither side is inherently right or wrong here, the end result is what is ok with the group as a whole.

 

[Lyxen]

You don't need a teacher to learn lesson.

And, again, who says that D&D is about learning a lesson ? I thought it was just a game...

When you put your hand on the open stove and burn yourself when you're young, you learn a lesson.

Yeah, right, that's certainly what people are looking for when playing D&D, an experience akin to putting one's hand on the open stove. For fun, of course....

I'm not teaching anything to anyone. But it goes both ways, what you do, allows and forbid at a table, whether it's through explicit or implicit rulings has an effect on the behaviour of the people at the table.

Or, you know, you could discuss the game openly with your players, as part of session 0 and a debrief and have even greater effect on the behaviour without all the negative strings attached...

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

Folks, let us make this clear - if you cannot have a discussion about techniques without accusing people of cheating, lying, or dishonesty, you will not be in the discussion.

I will let instances from the early pages slide, as there was no warning. Consider yourselves lucky.

Please continue in a mature, rational, and respectful manner. Thanks for your attention.

 

[Burnside]

To be used very sparingly and with restraint, basically under two conditions:

- I screwed something up technically, like not noticing monster was supposed to have legendary action X or resistance X until mid-way through combat encounter. In that case, monster may suddenly get some extra HP to compensate for my mistake

- Session is going too long and needs to end (especially for one-shots). Monsters may get their hit points shaved.

Since most monsters are presented as having a range of hit points, arguably this is fine anyway. But on rare occasions for the reasons noted above, monster HP can be a little fluid. Probably happens once or twice a year.

 

[Umbran]

There is nothing dishonest about the practice, if it is discussed before play begins. It is one of my basic Session Zero topics.

 

[payn]

One thing I noticed about my own fudging. I fudged a lot more often when I first started GMing. Often, it was a scramble to get the game working because of my inexperience. The more experienced I became with the game system, and being a GM in general, the less and less I resorted to fudging.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

And, again, who says that D&D is about learning a lesson ? I thought it was just a game...

Nobody said it was about learning a lesson. But you can learn lessons while playing it. And games are probably the best tools we have to teach and learn. There's a whole billion market about it. So the it's just a game thing doesn't hold.

Yeah, right, that's certainly what people are looking for when playing D&D, an experience akin to putting one's hand on the open stove. For fun, of course....

I don't know why you're pulling things in such directions. I never said it was like that. I said learning lessons don't require a teacher. I used the common example of the stove to image the fact that just going through experiences can teach you things. Just like trying something new in your game and having great success teaches about what works, etc.

Or, you know, you could discuss the game openly with your players, as part of session 0 and a debrief and have even greater effect on the behaviour without all the negative strings attached...

I do and always did. Are these things exclusive? The point is, behaviours that you let happen at your table will happen. And when I say behaviour, I don't mean like someone eating chips or being rude. I talk about design. You come at the table with some design intentions, you created a scenario to create a mood, or scare your players, or make them feel challenged, or reward them for some past doings. What design intentions you bring affect the behaviour they will have. Just like rewarding XP for gold promotes a certain behaviour.

And the point that was discussed, before being derailed, is that, in my opinion, the vast majority of decisions that cancels your players agency will, in the long run, dissuade any behaviour of being involved in the act of decision-making. We have discussions about this stuff all the time on this board. I've seen countless discussions about how the deadliness of encounters and how if your players know that if they do very bad decisions someone might die makes them more involved in the encounter because they take it seriously. It's not like I'm coming from the left field with the proposition I'm making...

 

[FrozenNorth]

Knowing what exactly ?

It is a reference to a cheesy line from an old TV show.