Do you fudge?

[the Jester]

I voted 2.

I only fudge when I really feel that things are too hard due to a misjudgment on my part, or when things are much too easy or much too hard.

Hell, I mostly roll in the open.

 

[Drowbane]

Never

Crit happens. Let the dice fall where they may. I can't understand any desire to coddle the PCs.

 

[Hussar]

I almost never fudge. I think in the past year, I've fudged twice. Once, a PC was knocked to -9 or possibly -10 hp, and I "didn't double check" the math and allowed him to be healed at the last second.

Last week I tweaked an encounter slightly (added about 10 hp) to a creature to give it one last shot at the party. I feel bad about that one though and will likely not do it again. If the party walks over an encounter, so be it.

I also roll 99% of my die rolls in the open as the DM. About the only thing I roll secretly is search checks. Occassionally I roll saving throws without adding in the mods, but, I'm pretty scrupulous about using the right numbers.

 

[Sammael]

I voted 2 as well. Once upon a time, I used to fudge more frequently, but I then realized that it was a deterrent to my fun of the game, even if the players were never aware of it. What if my fudging somehow ruled out a cool idea that one of the players had? Did the fudging make the game not challenging enough? Was suspension of disbelief in danger? So many issues...

So, in the end, I found a near-perfect solution. The PCs can earn Fate Points, which can be used to "cheat the system" in extreme situations. Because I rarely award Fate Points, players tend to only use them in desparate situations. In a sense, I've passed the fudging to the players and made it their responsibility to decide when to "fudge" (by using a Fate Point). As for my NPCs... well, if the story can't be modified to work without a certain NPC, then it wasn't a very good story to begin with.

The ONLY time when I fudge these days is when I somehow manage to grossly overestimate the PCs' abilities and unintentionally create an encounter that is certain to be a TPK. Even so, I am more likely to fudge here by having the creatures use suboptimal tactics than by fudging the dice rolls.

 

[Ibram]

How often do you, as DM, fudge the game to keep PCs/parties alive? What do you fudge: die rolls, NPC/monster actions and reactions, timing?

If you don’t fudge constantly, what prompts you to fudge? What event or potentiality warrants a fudge?

Quasqueton

When I fudge its usualy on attack or damage rolls. Its often done to save a party member if I misjudge an encounters toughness.

 

[Quasqueton]

Compare:

Players: Will you accept fudging?
With 165 votes:
More than 5 = 15.15%
5 “I’ll accept occasional fudging” = 32.73%
Less than 5 = 52.12%

DMs: Do you fudge?
With 147 votes:
More than 5 = 14.28%
5 “I fudge occasionally” = 29.25%
Less than 5 = 56.46%

I was curious how the comparison would work out. It seems that expectations or acceptability is about the same on both sides of the table.

Quasqueton

 

[Garnfellow]

I fudged constantly in 1st/2nd edition to keep combats balanced and challenging. Constantly!

In 3e, it's pretty rare -- usually only when I've got a new or heavily modified monster that isn't performing within expectations (either much too hard or much too easy.) I might try to "balance" some amazingly good or bad luck, but that's extremely rare.

I think fudging is perfectly fine in low-resolution, simple rulsets like OD&D, where DM judgement is the primary arbiter. But in a high-resolution, complex, and highly codified ruleset like 3e? Fudging should be rare -- it's a natural tradeoff.

If you've got a big, complex game where you're fudging all the time, then something is probably wrong -- either with the system or the user.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

I think fudging is perfectly fine in low-resolution, simple rulsets like OD&D, where DM judgement is the primary arbiter. But in a high-resolution, complex, and highly codified ruleset like 3e? Fudging should be rare -- it's a natural tradeoff.

Yeah, it is definitely a trade-off. Having lots of well-defined rules gives consistency and structure, but by the same token, it makes it harder to rationalise a fudge (or "interpret the dice") and I see that as a drawback.

To pick just one example, in earlier editions you could say, "Your attack caught the creature off balance and it tripped and fell!" but in 3e, there are very specific rules for tripping, etc., and the PCs will wonder where the hell that trip result came from. So it's much harder to make "narrative" fudges.

 

[El Ravager]

I fudge occasionally. Sometimes I fudge in favor of a monster that should be challenging but isn't for whatever reason. For instance if the party is beating it pretty easily and isn't in danger, I might give it a few more hitpoints on the fly to make the encounter last another round or two. I might fudge it to hit if it was real close on the roll and I know the PC can take it and isn't going to get ganked by another encounter real soon.

I certainly don't always do this and sometimes the PCs should get to enjoy pwning something that should be tough, especially if they went to the trouble to come up with a great plan.

So I usually fudge if I am reasonably certain the outcome isn't going to be a big deal either as a way to increase the dramatic effect or make an encounter feel like it has more impact. On the otherhand, I will sometimes choose to roll in the open if it is known ahead of time that the die roll will determine life or death or it is otherwise really important. But this doesn't happen everytime someone dies either or every important roll. Neither happens often enough for players to 'catch on' to anysort of pattern to know what is and isn't actually dangerous.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I voted "1." I don't fudge die rolls, only the occasional monster stat, attack, ability, etc.

However, given my almost supernatural ability for rolling natural 20's, I have had to house rule that when I roll a d20 outside of combat, a natural 20 is a good result for the PC's. Otherwise, all the NPC's hated them, picked their pockets easily, and the world was a very harsh place overall.