D&D 5E Do you want your DM to fudge?

[Skyscraper]

In the Do you Fudge poll on Enworld, 4 out of 5 DMs admit to fudging rolls at least sometimes.

Before you answer the question, please try not to consider how you play as a DM. Just think about you being a player at a gaming table, and about your or a random DM that rolls a die behind that screen, or out in the open, be that an attack roll against your PC or otherwise. And then, he tells you the result.

 

[iserith]

I answered "No, never..." for the same reason I answered the other poll in the same fashion: If my DM is going to engage the game system to help him or her determine an outcome, then I would prefer it if he or she abides by what dice tell him or her. Or else let's just not bring dice into play in the first place.

Want an enemy to hit or miss my character with certainty? Just say that's what happens - leave the dice out of it, please.

 

[Nagol]

No.

When I am playing the game, I want my successes and failures in the game to be there because of the actions my PC takes and the outcomes be based on the probabilities known at the table.

Fudging undercuts two things for me: it provides feedback that is at odds with natural outcomes so my ability to learn the game engine parameters is impaired and it trivialises any success or tension at the table once I work out fudging is occurring (which really doesn't take that long regardless of what my DMs think).

 

[wedgeski]

I'll go with "Almost never", which is about the same amount of time I fudge as a DM, and I would want him/her to do it for the same reasons. I'm not going to crit a first-time player and wipe their PC out in the first combat of their first game. I don't really care how "undercut" the other PC's feel.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I never fudge dice. D&D 5e is easy enough, if my player don't even manage to survive without my help then it's their own fault they die. If the players are lucky and a combat gets too easy. So what? I let my players be happy that they were lucky. Though the main reason I don't fudge dice is because I asked my players if I should and they all said no, they want the full challenge.

As a player it's very important to me that the DM doesn't fudge dice. There shouldn't be hidden rolls in the first place.

 

[Demorgus]

Nope, I'm playing the game in the system. As a player I put my character at risk. Most of the games I've played in, the social contract around the table is the DM isn't trying to actively kill my character. So if during the course of events my character is killed, well that's what happens in this game.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If the game is well-designed, then the DM shouldn't need to fudge.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I wouldn't play 5e with a DM I didn't trust to 'fudge' as needed.

 

[Nagol]

If the game is well-designed, then the DM shouldn't need to fudge.

I'd put it slightly differently: if the game engine potential results match what the DM wants to happen, the DM doesn't need to fudge. The game could be tremendously well-designed to provide a cinematic over-the-top action combat experience, but that isn't helpful when you are trying to run a quiet film-noir murder mystery.

If you find the need to fudge one-hit kills from critical results, as an example, why on Earth are you using a system that offers them?

This is the reason I won't run MERP or its cousin games: I don't fudge and the times I tried the game engine the results were... messy.

 

[Anson]

I'm very fortunate, our DM rolls in the open all the time. It's almost a whole new mini game for our group, watching the dice dance across the table on a do-or-die roll - time almost slows down as we all teeter on the edge of our seats awaiting our fate. Wouldn't want to give up that thrilling feeling!