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

[jmartkdr2]

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.

In this particular case: conceding is usually a part of board games, even if it's not in the rules. I've been in many board games where we didn't wait for every last meeple to be officially removed form the board. Ergo, the dm declaring the fight over without rolling for each extra minion is conceding, ad conceding isn't out of line with the concept of combat-as-boardgame.

Obviously it can be done badly or whatever, but it doesn't have the same sense of violation of social contract that changing a rolled result does.

 

[payn]

I was thinking about the MMO video games comparison earlier. I think its more spot on to think about how the game mechanics are just adjudicated by the A.I. Often, the designers and programmers don't see all angles and possibilities. So players either suffer from things not working well, or from things perhaps working too well. Later, these mechanics are changed in a patch or update. I can the see the case that a human GM is making the patch or update right at the table. Sometimes, you gotta play it out, and perhaps you work it out with the group for later games. However, sometimes something is just not going right in the moment and needs a quick fix.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

And I completely disagree. The two are actually very close on this specific matter, because they both involve design decisions and producing entertaining gameplay. Sure, coding an AI is a very different skill from speaking in silly voices, but both things are "how to create an effective opposition that actually challenges human players in an entertaining way." Further, it is a matter of the philosophy involved, and very specifically the explicit admonition to never, EVER let the players find out that your AI cheats, because they WILL react very badly.

Even if commercial planes and cars are very different, they still have common concerns like "be aerodynamic" and "be efficient with fuel." People were challenging, in this analogy, that there was any evidence whatsoever that anyone ever cares that much about fuel. I have demonstrated that, in a plausibly related field, people REALLY REALLY do care about fuel. It is silly to say that we cannot even remotely consider how much concern people have about deceptive enforcement of rules in games when video games give us an excellent (and significantly larger) pool of "people who play games and get upset about the rules of those games being enforced deceptively."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Later, these mechanics are changed in a patch or update. I can the see the case that a human GM is making the patch or update right at the table. Sometimes, you gotta play it out, and perhaps you work it out with the group for later games. However, sometimes something is just not going right in the moment and needs a quick fix.

Okay, great example!

Have you seen how players react to patch changes that aren't mentioned in the patch notes?

Because that is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm talking about. Like when New World put out its first major update, they had (finally, after a couple months of making every patch direct to the live game) added a PTR ("public test realm" for non-MMO folks; a public patch testing server) for players to see and experience some of the changes that would be made. Except...they put in a whole bunch of secret changes that weren't shown on the PTR and weren't mentioned in the patch notes. Most of these changes were intended to make the experience take longer, including a huge increase to the amount of time required to reach top tier crafting and gathering. The players were absolutely furious that these changes went in without any documentation (no mention in patch notes) or preview on the PTR.

That, right there, is exactly the kind of fury that is readily spawned by making secret changes and then having those changes be discovered later. So yes, I totally grant that analogy! I just don't think it's an analogy you actually want to make. (I fully expect someone else to repudiate it now for being inapplicable.)

(Also, in case it is relevant to anyone, I don't actually play NW. I can't stand PvP focused games and their hyperfocus on competition and zero-sum gaming. I much prefer cooperating with others, whether to RP, discuss lore, explore the world, fight some stuff, etc.)

 

[jmartkdr2]

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?

I definitely wouldn't call it "fudging," since that implies taking something 'solid' and treating it as fluid. If the die rolled a 15, it's usually taken to mean it's 15, not 'somewhere in the 13-17 range'. But what the monster choses to do with it's action is already fluid - you were going to make the choice anyways, theoretically from any of the available options*, so any legal choice (which includes 'try something beyond the rules') is still within the parameters of the game.

* I'm assuming you mean "legal" moves, and not randomly adding new powers to a monster mid-fight.

Now, the reasoning behind your choice might be a factor:

If you're changing how the monsters behave because they have new information (including wrong information), that's just rp.

If you're changing monster behavior because you totally forgot they had an ability and now they start using it... that's fine.

If your changing monster behavior because the fight is getting boring and you want to mix it up... that's also fine. Players are free to do the same thing. (I often, as a player, use an ability in a less-than optimal way simply because I just got it and I want to use my new toy spell.)

If you're changing monster behavior because you want a specific end result... that's getting into railroading territory, and this thread is controversial enough.

If you have multiple reasons, things get more complicated.

 

[Blue]

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?

Not what I said. I said that the players have put trust in the DM to run the game. That has nothing to do with disclosing or not if something is fudged.

That isn't fudging,

Wait a second... I change numbers rolled and damage done so that my kids and niece & nephew's characters won't die and that's not fudging?

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.

Changing someone's HPs down so they are killed before what was written in the encounter isn't fudging?

And it's impossible to conceal?

I don't really see much point to continuing to converse, if changing dice or modifying a onster after the encounter starts to get a specific effect isn't fudging, then I don't know how you mean the word and frankly it's so far from the comon definition I see no value in learning your meaning. And from the top bit you don't understand my words either.

 

[Maxperson]

And I completely disagree. The two are actually very close on this specific matter, because they both involve design decisions and producing entertaining gameplay. Sure, coding an AI is a very different skill from speaking in silly voices, but both things are "how to create an effective opposition that actually challenges human players in an entertaining way." Further, it is a matter of the philosophy involved, and very specifically the explicit admonition to never, EVER let the players find out that your AI cheats, because they WILL react very badly.

First, there's a big difference between computers cheating and DM fudging(which is not cheating). Second, the computer cheating is about challenge or accomplishing a design goal, regardless of player desires. The vast majority of fudging being described in these threads is not about that at all. Third, the mindset a player has when dealing with a computer RPG is very different than the mindset a player has when sitting down for a tabletop RPG. The DM is granted a lot more leeway than a computer AI.

It's apples and oranges. Rocket ships and boats. Computer RPGs and sit down RPGs are not close to being the same.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I find it hilarious that people don't understand that video games cheat both ways. What do they thing difficulty sliders even are? It is a way to choose what level and type of cheating you want the computer to apply.

It's the primary purpose of all lies: to make things run smoother because humans have programmed themselves to say they hate lies while absolutely requiring them.

 

[Lanefan]

I definitely wouldn't call it "fudging," since that implies taking something 'solid' and treating it as fluid. If the die rolled a 15, it's usually taken to mean it's 15, not 'somewhere in the 13-17 range'. But what the monster choses to do with it's action is already fluid - you were going to make the choice anyways, theoretically from any of the available options*, so any legal choice (which includes 'try something beyond the rules') is still within the parameters of the game.

* I'm assuming you mean "legal" moves, and not randomly adding new powers to a monster mid-fight.

Now, the reasoning behind your choice might be a factor:

If you're changing how the monsters behave because they have new information (including wrong information), that's just rp.

If you're changing monster behavior because you totally forgot they had an ability and now they start using it... that's fine.

If your changing monster behavior because the fight is getting boring and you want to mix it up... that's also fine. Players are free to do the same thing. (I often, as a player, use an ability in a less-than optimal way simply because I just got it and I want to use my new toy spell.)

If you're changing monster behavior because you want a specific end result... that's getting into railroading territory, and this thread is controversial enough.

If you have multiple reasons, things get more complicated.

There's one more:

If you're changing monster behavior because you weant a more specific process toward an already-likely end result... then what?

An example here would be changing an opponent's behavior such that the combat plays out a bit longer and comes across as more exciting to the players, even though the party's win was and still is almost guaranteed.

 

[OB1]

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.

This!

For me, it goes back to Fate (DM control of the world, monsters and NPCs), Choice (Player control of their PCs) and Chance (dice control over uncertain outcomes). The whole point of rolling dice is to invite randomness into the game, to have chance decide the outcome instead of the player or DM.

So I won't adjust HP of monsters or give them a new ability mid combat either (since HP and CR is a sort of DC) but I will change tactics or have something unexpected happen in the event that I realize I screwed up my encounter. For example, I once created what I thought was a middle of the road encounter that the PCs could not escape from and after 1 round I realized it could only end in TPK of the party. I had the big bad (an evil cleric) call out to a dozen or so minions to lend him strength and prove their loyalty by throwing themselves into a lava pool (that was already established), thus rebalancing the encounter to the level I had intended. It worked thematically (was super evil/creepy) and was seamless to the players, who then blamed big bad's next big hit on what had happened. In my own head, the big bad expected to gain some advantage from it, but didn't, thus establishing a reason in fiction for the events.

 

[Oofta]

I find it hilarious that people don't understand that video games cheat both ways. What do they thing difficulty sliders even are? It is a way to choose what level and type of cheating you want the computer to apply.

It's the primary purpose of all lies: to make things run smoother because humans have programmed themselves to say they hate lies while absolutely requiring them.

There's a huge difference between difficulty settings and "cheating". Some old school racing games would just have cars teleport in if they were too far behind - that's cheating. On the other hand turning up the difficulty level so that the AI is more competent (and the best AI's can now beat the best sim racing drivers) is not. One changes the rules of the game, one doesn't.

It's the same with fudging for me. I adjust monsters all the time before the encounter starts for a variety of reasons, I don't remember the last time I fudged a roll. One is playing by the rules of the game - customizing monsters is core - the other is ignoring the rules of the game to achieve a desired goal.

As always I'm not saying fudging is inherently wrong, it's just something I try to avoid. If you do it too often I think it takes something away from the game when the players realize what you're doing.

 

[payn]

Okay, great example!

Have you seen how players react to patch changes that aren't mentioned in the patch notes?

Because that is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm talking about. Like when New World put out its first major update, they had (finally, after a couple months of making every patch direct to the live game) added a PTR ("public test realm" for non-MMO folks; a public patch testing server) for players to see and experience some of the changes that would be made. Except...they put in a whole bunch of secret changes that weren't shown on the PTR and weren't mentioned in the patch notes. Most of these changes were intended to make the experience take longer, including a huge increase to the amount of time required to reach top tier crafting and gathering. The players were absolutely furious that these changes went in without any documentation (no mention in patch notes) or preview on the PTR.

That, right there, is exactly the kind of fury that is readily spawned by making secret changes and then having those changes be discovered later. So yes, I totally grant that analogy! I just don't think it's an analogy you actually want to make. (I fully expect someone else to repudiate it now for being inapplicable.)

(Also, in case it is relevant to anyone, I don't actually play NW. I can't stand PvP focused games and their hyperfocus on competition and zero-sum gaming. I much prefer cooperating with others, whether to RP, discuss lore, explore the world, fight some stuff, etc.)

Sure, its got a problematic side, and I bet many an MMO developer has taken note since. I would be very surprised if games didn't have stealth patches you didn't even know about. Tho, oh man if you find out!!!

 

[DND_Reborn]

So, I only skimmed the last five pages so this might have been brought up at some point (I know I hinted at this either in this thread or the other one--I'm not sure which LOL!):

How would you, as DM, and the other players at your table feel, if a PLAYER fudged a die roll?

Suppose your say a save is DC 16, you know the PC gets a+4 bonus, and the player rolls, but only got a 10. They tell you they made it, but a player next to them saw the roll, and calls them out?

Now what happens? Perhaps that save would keep the PC in the fight, while failing it means death??

Another scenario:

A PC is wearing a chain shirt and has an AC of 17. You make your attack roll and the hit AC 17, announcing to the group that you hit AC 17. You look at the player, who responds, "Whew! Just missed me!" That "miss" keeps the PC in the fight as well, and next round they rally the group to save the day. Does that matter to you as DM?

IMO if you are fudging things as DM, you should be cool with players doing the same. After all, they are doing it to make the game more fun for them.

DMs have choices and agency in the game based on their decisions (about the world, encounters, magic items allowed, etc.) and players have agency in the game by the choices and actions of the PCs.

I just feel like fudging rolls, changing the "script" in an encounter, etc. makes it so those decisions don't carry the same weight anymore. Now, if your group has this discussion before you play and everyone is fine with the DM and/or players fudging things--then no issue; but otherwise? Probably an issue...

As an aside, all this got me thinking: what if players and the DM agreed you could fudge ONE thing per session or level or something? If everyone agrees to that, it would give them a chance to change the reality of the game, in essence allowing them to write their own story, for a bigger part than they might otherwise have. I do sort of like that idea...

 

[jasper]

I no longer fudge because I roll out in the open. But if I were...

3 cups	Semi-Sweet Chocolate Chips
1 (14-ounce) can	Sweetened Condensed Milk
2 tablespoons	Butter

 

[jasper]

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.

I disagree. I have called a fight either because the monsters were going down next round, or I was up against the clock and wanted to move on to part 3 of the module. But I am an Adventure League DM.

 

[p_johnston]

So I used to fudge a fair bit when I first started to DM and have done so a lot less as the years have gone on. I've found that after years of being a DM that I can usually accomplish the narrative goals I want with other means then just changing the numbers on a monster or a roll. (NPC tactics/choice/intervention).

I typically am fairly free with information with the players. I will often just straight up tell them the monsters AC, HP, etc (Honestly especially with AC a lot of times it just makes things quicker if after a couple rounds I just announce "AC is 17 just tell me if you hit. Don't care about the number.") Same with DC's a lot of times. More often then not if I don't tell that info to the players it has more to do with me forgetting then actually trying to keep it hidden.

As for Die rolling I don't exactly roll in the open but that has more to do with convenience then anything else. I roll wherever and however is easiest for me. If the players can see it great. If they can't fine. I've rolled behind a screen, on the table in front of them, in a die tray by my side, etc. I've even had die roll across the table and had the player closest to it tell me the result and just used that. The only reason I didn't use a virtual roller while my group was playing online was that it was just more annoying then just rolling a die, not to keep information hidden.

The closest I get to fudging most often is tweaking monster abilities, especially ones I've made. Things like throwing a recharge on an ability or deciding that it's a once per battle not twice per battle thing. Stuff like that. Sometimes you try and have a monster do something cool and just don't realize how deadly it is.

Final thought is that a lot of people have said they will shave the last couple points off of a monsters HP if the party gets it down to 1 or 2. While I have no problem with this practice (used to do it myself long ago) now days I much prefer to loudly announce to the party every time they manage to get an enemy to precisely 1 hp to watch my players groan. It's become somewhat of a joke with my group how often they manage to do it.

 

[bloodtide]

No, I think combat is a aspect of play with a large amount of uncertainty determined by randomness and that the players control a large amount of authorship.

For you to be in complete control, you need to overcome both the randomness and the player agency - because there are times they will do things you don't expect that would lead to a different outcome than you are aiming for.

I hadn't followed that path because that's pretty much railroading and I didn't expect that that. But I really don't see any other way to read about what you doing.

You are confusing everything by lumping everything together.

When we are talking about fudgeing a roll, we are talking about changing a dice roll. It's when the DM has a monster attack a character...rolls 100 damage ...then freaks out as they don't want the character to die so the fudge it...and say "oh, um, 25 damage"

MY point is that is you can't handel the result of a random roll, THEN NEVER MAKE THAT RANDOM ROLL. See, it is easy.

The two examples from a couple pages back:

1.Sad Bob. So poor, Sad Bob rolls low dice and his character misses three times in a fight. Bob is all Sad and not having Fun Would I EVER fudge his missed roll four so Bob's character can hit, and Bob be happy? NEVER. Bob can roll ones and twos for every attack for all I care.

2.The group has an easy encounter or by passes a "planned" encounter so the group has "more" resources then the DM "planned" for the group to have for the final battle. Ok...there is SO much wrong with that whole wacky idea of the DM "planning" all that in the first place. I don't "plan" like that. Some times encounters are easy, sometimes they are hard....and they are hard a LOT more as I'm a Hard Fun type DM. Between that easy encounter will likely be at least a couple other encouters before the "big" one...so the characters will most likely use and loose resources before that. And even if they did it somehow...so what...they might have a slightly less then hard 'big' encounter. Maybe....but there is a good chance it would still be hard.

 

[Maxperson]

It's the same with fudging for me. I adjust monsters all the time before the encounter starts for a variety of reasons, I don't remember the last time I fudged a roll. One is playing by the rules of the game - customizing monsters is core - the other is ignoring the rules of the game to achieve a desired goal.

Fudging is an officially recommended 5e table rule. It's not ignoring the rules of the game to use it.

 

[Jahydin]

When playing 5E, I guess I'd be a "fudger"...

I don't limit myself whatsoever when running combats. Fun comes first.

Example 1:
Big Bad that the party has been following 3 sessions comes out and gets flawlessly destroyed round one... no way! He gets up, spits out blood, and challenges the players to try that again! Second health bar time! I know for a fact just describing that my friends would be super pumped and high-fiving each other knowing darn well they actually wrecked him, but stoked their getting a better battle, not to mention double the XP and more treasure!

Example 2:
Spider bites the fighter and she instinctively rolls a Con Save... it's a 1. The player looks worried the poison might kill her. Before I can tell her the spider wasn't poisonous, the Druid blurts out not to worry, she has Protection from Poison ready to go. The other players look relieved and thank her for prepping it and the Druid player looks happy with herself. Am I going ruin this great moment between players? No, of course not! Spider is now poisonous (and again, worth more XP).

I specified 5E, cause I only play this way when running it. I've tried for years to run it "seriously" like I would my OSR games, but I just don't think the ruleset supports it. Challenge Ratings are all over the place, the combat math is just terrible, and players are practically on the same power level as the Avengers by Level 6. So when I want a real "game", I have other systems for that. 5E is time to just let my imagination go wild and have fun.

 

[DND_Reborn]

When playing 5E, I guess I'd be a "fudger"...

I don't limit myself whatsoever when running combats. Fun comes first.

Question: do your players know you do such things?

And are they then (most likely from the sounds of it) okay with it?

Question: do you let your players change the script so the game is more fun for them, too? Turning a miss into a hit because they missed 5 times in a row already?

Big Bad that the party has been following 3 sessions comes out and gets flawlessly destroyed round one... no way! He gets up, spits out blood, and challenges the players to try that again! Second health bar time! I know for a fact just describing that my friends would be super pumped and high-fiving each other knowing darn well they actually wrecked him, but stoked their getting a better battle, not to mention double the XP and more treasure!

This is why I give the bosses maximum hp instead of average. And (if appropriate to the story), minions.

Spider bites the fighter and she instinctively rolls a Con Save... it's a 1. The player looks worried the poison might kill her. Before I can tell her the spider wasn't poisonous, the Druid blurts out not to worry, she has Protection from Poison ready to go. The other players look relieved and thank her for prepping it and the Druid player looks happy with herself. Am I going ruin this great moment between players? No, of course not! Spider is now poisonous (and again, worth more XP).

LOL I wouldn't have bothered, but I would have let it play out anyway that the fighter is freaking out because she thinks the spider was poisonous! The druid, if she has actually cast detect poison (and disease) would have laughed her butt off and told the party the fighter is a hypochondriac. The comic element alone would have kept me from fudging this.

Now, this one is also a gray area when it comes to fudging since for me fudging is about changing the perceived reality for the players once it is established. If the player rolled the CON save without you asking for it, the perceived reality IS the spider is poisonous and telling them it wasn't would break that.

Nice examples, BTW.