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

[Cadence]

Would y'all count the following as fudging: Changing the tactical prowess of the bad guys and the response of reinforcements based on how the combat is going?

 

[Oofta]

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

 

[iserith]

Would y'all count the following as fudging: Changing the tactical prowess of the bad guys and the response of reinforcements based on how the combat is going?

Not necessarily in my view, but it depends on the context. For me it comes down to what has already been established and why the DM is making that choice. If the tactically proficient enemies suddenly start being not tactically proficient because the PCs are getting stomped, then that's something akin to fudging. If it was established that reinforcements appear at certain intervals or given certain triggers and then they don't show up at those intervals or when those triggers occur because the PCs are getting stomped, then that's something akin to fudging. I say "something akin to fudging" simply because I hold to the definition of fudging in an RPG context as ignoring die results. Easing up on good tactics or reinforcements thus isn't technically the same thing in my opinion, but it ends up having the same effect so I avoid this practice.

Essentially it all comes down to the DM presenting stakes that they ultimately cannot accept. The answer for that is, in my view, don't do that in the first place. Then you don't have to fudge or ease up on the PCs.

 

[BookTenTiger]

The only way I fudge is changing encounters before they happen based on the pacing of the session.

For example, if we've had a ton of big fights, I might adjust the next encounter to have more opportunities for exploration or social solutions.

Or if we are 30 minutes from the end of a session, I might move an encounter to a further room or another location so that we can get in a little more character time before the next fight.

Otherwise I roll in the open, and I have house rules that allow characters to discover Hit Points, AC, etc. For me as a DM, it's fun to lay my cards on the table and let the players figure out how to overcome challenges.

 

[Adamant]

There's no option for "I love fudge as a dessert but don't fudge in other ways", despite having the option for not liking fudge as a dessert, so I voted other.

 

[Blue]

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.

I'm sorry, there are thousands of valid ways to enjoy our hobby, and as "just a game" is a completely valid one. There's even a well known description of a "beer and pretzels" game showing there's a whole category of people who enjoy it so, and that's just very casual "just a game" games, not inclusive of all of the people who play it as "just a game".

It is not correct to assume it will always include other aspects like you are putting forth.

 

[GreyLord]

Would y'all count the following as fudging: Changing the tactical prowess of the bad guys and the response of reinforcements based on how the combat is going?

Yes, I do or would. It's not a bad thing though.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I'm sorry, there are thousands of valid ways to enjoy our hobby, and as "just a game" is a completely valid one. There's even a well known description of a "beer and pretzels" game showing there's a whole category of people who enjoy it so, and that's just very casual "just a game" games, not inclusive of all of the people who play it as "just a game".

It is not correct to assume it will always include other aspects like you are putting forth.

All the other aspects that I'm putting forth are inherently part of games. Especially a game like D&D. Once again, to clear things up, I am not talking about learning concrete knowledge like learning to do math, or learn empathy (even though TTRPGs are also inherently good for that). I am also not talking about one person teaching someone else something.

I'm talking about the simple loop where you acquire new knowledge, new experiences while playing a game, you learn from it and you adjust the way you play. You use your Witch Bolt on an enemy that's quite fragile and it dies too soon, you realize that it's best used on enemies that are tougher. You fight a tough enemy, and one of your player dies, you realize that you didn't have all the information you needed to face it.

I introduced my niece (9 years old) to D&D three weeks go, and there's a ton of it. Just learning the core mechanics of the game changed her behaviour drastically within half an hour. Understanding that asking for riskier things will lead to a check which success chances depends on a number on her sheet made her change the way she played.

It can be knowledge outside the game: like understanding the rules, learning what type of players you're sitting with, what kind of DM you're playing with, etc. It can be knowledge in the game: how your abilities are best used, what happens when you make a certain choice, how ward a certain task is, what faction an NPC is part of. Players just learn things and they change the way they play. Even in a beer and pretzel game. That's just what humans do.

To bring things back on topic, and to what my initial point was. I think that fudging is in most cases bad for player agency, and that if it's something you do frequently and your players understand it unconciously, it will affect their behavior at the table. They might become careless, disinterested, frustrated; it depends on them and your type of play. But I fail to see what good reactions could come out of a player realizing the impact of his choices are being diluted.

 

[Minigiant]

I normalize my rolls.

If the monster roll 19 19 20 18 17, I roll in a low roll to break it up

Likewise I lower and raise HP to match the Players's expectations.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Would y'all count the following as fudging: Changing the tactical prowess of the bad guys and the response of reinforcements based on how the combat is going?

It's basically more interesting and elegant way to achieve the same thing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Which also is one reason why I find the extreme negativity some people have towards fudging off-putting. Some GMs may not be that experienced, or otherwise just not that good at gauging what enemy stats will achieve what results (an issue exacerbated by the CR system being practically useless.) So if they feel fudging is an useful tool for running the sort of game they want, they shouldn't need to feel ashamed for using it.

 

[payn]

Which also is one reason why I find the extreme negativity some people have towards fudging off-putting. Some GMs may not be that experienced, or otherwise just not that good at gauging what enemy stats will achieve what results (an issue exacerbated by the CR system being practically useless.) So if they feel fudging is an useful tool for running the sort of game they want, they shouldn't need to feel ashamed for using it.

Some folks take a hardline, and I can understand that. There are several RPG methods and tools folks employ that I dislike on a conceptual level. I don't feel the need to explain their liking of such concepts by tearing them down personally.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Still waiting to hear how 'Whoops, I screwed up the encounter design, time to adjust accordingly' and 'RNJesus has made this fight more unfair than I expected, better reign it in' hurt player agency.

 

[TheSword]

The truth of the matter is that when it’s done properly no one would ever know you are fudging. Those little corrections that keep the game rolling on at pace. Which are only ever made in a DM visible space anyway.

Whether I decide to add shields to the orcs at the last minute or swap for greataxes has no impact on agency. Whether I decide the orc boss has a parry ability or not has no impact on free will. Or if I decide the wizard has the shield spell… or even a wand of Magic missile. The reinforcements arriving after 2 rounds or 5 rounds is entirely down to me as a DM.

The fallacy here is the idea that somehow, some of the DMs arbitrary decisions are pure and honest and others are corrupt and dishonest.

It’s easy to say changing dice rolls breaks trust. I have some sympathy for that opinion, even though it personally doesn’t bother me. Adding a potion of healing to a character at the last minute because you decide it’s reasonable they would have one, or making the boss 20 hp harder because you originally made them too weak is a lot harder to criticize I think.

I personally don’t believe this kind of fudging needs to be approved by the players in advance. It’s par for the course of game prep and frankly whether I do it a week in advance, in lunch break on the day of the game, or as the combat proceeds is frankly up to me. You’ll never know the difference so this is all theoretical.

 

[Arilyn]

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.

I think this is probably fairly common. And since new GMs lack the experience to eyeball the difficulty of an encounter (5e CRs are not helpful here,) a new GM should not feel bad for some on the fly adjusting. This is especially true if the players are new as well. Too many dead characters, especially in first few sessions, risk turning some players away from the hobby.

 

[Maxperson]

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

G.I. Joe!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The housing market is a much, much bigger market than TTRPGs ever hoped to be. Buyers hate when sellers cheat.

Yes, it's bigger. No, that does not make it directly applicable.

Surely it's a hell of a lot more applicable than housing, given, y'know, they're both games.

With a TTRPG you are putting trust into an individual whom you are granting authority to craft a game for your table. If for a specific table that means fudging, it means fudging.

Okay. So every DM that fudges should be honest with its players that that will happen, and will be concealed from them whenever it does?

Because I guarantee you most DMs that fudge do not do that. They would never tell the players that they fudge rolls sometimes. They might even do as Colville does, and literally fake physical die rolls in order to "prove" that the result was "real."

For instance I was running for my kids, niece and nephew. They were emotionally attached to their characters. I basically moved death off the table, and used what could be death to get them captured and need to be rescued or otherwise deeper into plots and bad situations.

That isn't fudging, for one thing, and is almost exactly how I run my own Dungeon World game for adult players. I say "almost" because PC death can happen, but it will never be permanent and irrevocable unless that's what the player wants. There haven't been too many situations where it was much of a concern because I admit I tend to underestimate my players' characters, something I have been working to address. (The fight I mentioned earlier that was fully intended to be "too hard" was a test, to see how high a bard would be too high. Now I know, and can use that information to set bars that are slightly lower but still very high, should I wish to.)

In another game dice lie where they may, but a foe with 1-2 HPs left I may just kill off to end combat where it's a forgone conclusion - because there's no tension left at that point and the pacing of the game during our limited widow of play is more important of a tool for table enjoyment than the possibility that a resource (HP, spell slot, etc.) might be expended from the player's side.

That isn't fudging either. It's impossible to conceal "okay guys, you've won, I won't drag this out." Calling a fight when it has become completely hopeless for one side or the other is a perfectly legitimate tool for maintaining pacing, and is completely orthogonal to fudging, unless it is done in secret. I have no idea why one would want to, since that kind of secret doesn't add anything that just being honest wouldn't.

 

[Tutara]

In a game where failure is part of the fun, there's no need to fudge.

D&D - in my opinion - doesn't do a very good job of making failure fun. I'm not talking about the hilarity of absolute catastrophic failure, or those meat grinders you used to run where everyone came with a pre-rolled four pack of victims, but rather that miserable drip feed of mediocre rolls that leaves a player feeling utterly pointless. They soldier on as their supposedly competent hero whiffs every round, not complaining but also plainly not enjoying themself. They don't chuck their toys, but they are disheartened.

In this circumstance, fudging is tempting, but the player isn't an idiot. They don't want me to cheat on their behalf out of pity. So what I do is let players accrue bonus points (like Momentum in 2D20, or spending XP in Numenera) that let them fudge their own dice to a limited degree (take 10, rerolls etc). I don't have to fudge, the players don't have to suck because of a bad D20 roll at the wrong time. Fudging becomes a mechanic rather than an indulgence.

If I've screwed up an encounter's balance, I'll correct it narratively rather than mechanically. Reinforcements will arrive, or enemies will withdraw or flee. I'll try to avoid ignoring dice rolls.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Note: I very specifically never fudge dice rolls. If the die roll is called for by the dm, the number rolled is the number. This sometimes causes problems, but the players feeling like the rolls are just suggestions takes the game out of the role-playing game experience, and part of the reason I play DnD and not another system is for the game.

I, as a habit, don't adjust npc stat numbers during combat. It's never worth the effort on my part, but mostly because balancing on-the-fly taxes math skills I'm bad at. Closest I'll get is declaring a fight over before the last hp is dealt because it's obvious the pc's will mop up the remaining minions with no effort.

I do feel free to make whatever adjustments I want during prep. That's just decisions I was going to be making on my own anyways.

Flipping the screen around, if I'm offering advice: if you're the dm, either state right out that you will fudge or never admit to fudging dices rolls. Because once fudging is on the table, an die not fudged is one you chose to let stand. All rolls are now subject to dm review. I'd say fudging hp in-play is similar.

Now, if you find yourself needing to fudge, because you noticed a mistake during prep... go ahead. Everyone makes mistakes. But I think the need should be seen as a sign of an error to be avoided in the future (ie don't use lots of shadows, no matter what the CR is). If you find yourself fudging a lot, you should work on how you prep.

 

[Maxperson]

Surely it's a hell of a lot more applicable than housing, given, y'know, they're both games.

That's like saying that commercial planes are a lot more applicable than housing to a discussion about cars, because both are transportation. I mean, yeah, it's true, but...

Computer games and the issues with cheating are too far from RPG fudging to be relevant. You're comparing commercial planes and cars.