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

[iserith]

This isn't a matter of uncertainty vs. certainty. The result of is uncertain, so a roll is called for. Extreme bad luck breaks the game, so it gets fudged. Death is okay, so it's not a matter of different stakes.

This is true. I don't buy into playing the game when it breaks. I insist on fixing the breaks.

Just be aware that the DM decides on uncertainty, not the rules.

And you haven't explained this whole "game breaks" thing despite bringing it up multiple times as a reason to fudge.

 

[Maxperson]

Just be aware that the DM decides on uncertainty, not the rules.

Combat is almost always uncertain.

And you haven't explained this whole "game breaks" thing despite bringing it up multiple times as a reason to fudge.

When you design a game, the math must be bounded in order for there to be balance. A monster intended for a level 4 party has to have an acceptable random range of X, where X is what the math dictates is an acceptable range for a level 4 party. The math range for that encounter will be different if the party is level 3 or 5. If you go outside of X due to luck, the encounter is broken. It doesn't happen often, but it can and does happen.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Or... use the dice, see what the say, and adjudicate the story accordingly because the dice are in no way the most important part of the game.

Yes... for many of you the dice are the Voice of God, telling you exactly what happens and you cannot and dare not go against it. Great! Glad that works for you! For the rest of us... they're just a tool. To be used when necessary but never to be beholden to in every situation. There is no reason why they have to be held to a higher standard than the entire rest of the game.

Luckily for everyone... we don't have to play in each other's games. We're free to play the way we want.

Er...it has nothing to do with the dice being "the Voice of God" or any other such nonsense. I don't at all think that it's wrong or bad to decide, "Y'know what? This isn't a time for the dice to be used. I know better than the dice do what a good story is."

I do think it is incorrect to employ the dice, AND THEN say, "Y'know what? No, I'm NOT going to use the dice." Changing your mind like that--deciding that you actually AREN'T unsure about whether a thing should succeed or not, deciding that you're going to ignore a failing roll AFTER the fact--is what bothers me. Because it means that you are never really serious when you say you're going to use the dice. A DM that fudges never really means that they're leaving it up to the dice when they say they're leaving it up to the dice, because they may at one moment 100% intend to take whatever the dice produce, and then ("magically" ) it turns out that no, they won't take what the dice say.

IF you roll, you should accept what the dice say. You asked for an impartial adjudicator, and you got one. If you never really meant to seek an impartial adjudicator in the first place for this specific action, you shouldn't have rolled the dice for it. It's perfectly fine to decide that a specific action or situation doesn't call for the dice! That's perfectly, 100%, totally and absolutely acceptable--I'm hoping if I add enough adjectives it will come across that I have *NO* problems with deciding that something just succeeds or just fails, no dice needed. My problem comes in when you *first* decide the dice ARE needed (which you decide by rolling), and then after, change your mind and decide they AREN'T needed.

I'm cool with negotiating with the DM to determine success without dice. I'm also cool with the DM saying, "Alright, roll for it [implied: because I don't know if this will work or not]." I'm *not* cool with a DM saying, "Alright, roll for it [implied: because I don't know if this will work or not,]" and then *after,* and *because of,* a roll he doesn't like, him secretly thinking "actually I DO know how this will work out."

Horse pucky. If I fudge 2-4 times over a two year period where the game is played weekly, there's no way it happens enough to cause you to be unable make informed choices.

Sure it does. I cannot trust that my awareness of probability, the effectiveness of my abilities, and the mechanics of the world accurately reflects the situation, because there is no situation to accurately reflect. The world is retconnable. Constantly, eternally retconnable, according to your tastes. That's not information; that's not even processable as information. The best I can do is hope I know your mind well enough to predict when you'll retcon the world.

Why on earth would I not use the dice if the speech was that impressive. Sometimes I just want to know the grade of the success with a random roll.

Bit of goalpost-moving, innit? I was speaking strictly of a binary pass/fail check. If you admit grades of success/failure (as in, frex, Dungeon World) then sure you could still employ the dice to determine the "degree" of the result. But for binary pass/fail--which is the most common and default kind of check in D&D--there are no such degrees. You either succeed, or you don't. If you, as DM, are of the opinion that (say) the lockpicking attempt is going to work(/not work), regardless of what a die might say, why even roll? Just say what happens. Don't waste my time engaging a resolution mechanic you aren't going to use, and don't make me think I need to manage a form of risk I don't actually need to manage.

What if he fudges because he rolled 20s three times already and a fourth time would mean a tpk?I mean, what if he doesn't need to determine an outcome and "drive" his plot in his way?

Firstly, as I've discussed elsewhere at rather great length, the odds of getting that many crits in a single encounter are fantastically low. Even with 30 attacks made by the DM's units (itself a ridiculously large number, if these crits are so bad as to put the party in danger of a TPK), the odds of getting even three(or more) crits is only 6%. For a much more reasonable 15 attacks (assuming 1-3 high-damage enemies over 3-5 rounds), the odds of getting three (or more) crits becomes only 6%. Even if you've already ended up in that highly-unlikely situation, the odds of another crit remain 5%, quite heavily favoring a non-crit. But people have gotten irate at me for throwing numbers into the discussion, so I won't discuss it further than this unless someone specifically asks.

And even if this situation does arise: the DM can do many other things to "fix" it. Enemy units leave the fight for one reason or another (seek more allies, report an intrusion, some other danger is known or appears, etc.); enemies get cocky and start "playing with their food" (literally or figuratively); enemies "waste" turns trying to bring downed allies back up/"stabilize" them; etc. If another crit might mean TPK, don't engage the dice until things have equilibrated. You don't want their random influence, so don't engage them.

Also: I completely disagree about the "do something stupid" thing. It's absolutely, completely possible for ANY creature to "do something stupid" and have it be justified in-world. For a dragon especially, "ARE YOU FULL OF FEAR NOW, PETTY MORTALS?" is a perfect justification for strutting its stuff and posturing. Dragons love glorying over the weak (even good ones, they just do it with pedantic 'kindness'). If a dragon is breaking face and kicking butt, already pushing the party to the brink of a TPK, why WOULDN'T it stop to gloat? And if we're talking about a more mindless or conservative creature (I dunno what specifically, but something big and powerful but incapable of "pride" in this sense), generally those only fight because they need to, not because they want to. It might do the "stupid" thing of trying to take one of your companions, unconscious and injured, as "food"--suddenly, the tone of the situation has changed, as now you need to get the animal to drop your friend before it can escape! I'm sure there are several other options (a "noble" enemy stopping to request surrender, perhaps), I slept very poorly last night so my thinkmeats aren't as thinky as they normally would be.

What if he needs only to let the plot continue? Whatever way it may continue... Dices don't care how smart your plan or decision was. Dices just roll.

If a situation arises where randomness isn't desired, don't use it. That simple. If you decide to engage the random system, I genuinely believe you should stick to it. Even if you don't like the results. Because that's why we use it: to generate situations we don't expect, to give us a chance of results we don't like. Throwing out some of the results because we don't like them invalidates both of those reasons for using it at all.

And yes, this means that I am 100% okay with deciding a pass-fail check simply passes without rolling, while 0% okay with rolling and then deciding it passes despite a fail clearly being shown on the die.

Yes, but if the DM is not consistent with his house rules and just changes them on a dime as you seem to suggest, then the rules serve no purpose and should just be gotten rid of. At that point, just DM fiat the entire thing and don't bother with a rules system.

If I'm going to just throw out the rules every time something I don't feel like being bound by comes along, I might as well not be playing that RPG.

....and ignoring a proper, expected, and requested roll because you don't like the result ISN'T "throwing out the rules every time you don't feel like being bound by something"?

 

[Maxperson]

Sure it does. I cannot trust that my awareness of probability, the effectiveness of my abilities, and the mechanics of the world accurately reflects the situation, because there is no situation to accurately reflect. The world is retconnable. Constantly, eternally retconnable, according to your tastes. That's not information; that's not even processable as information. The best I can do is hope I know your mind well enough to predict when you'll retcon the world.

Um. Since you don't know it happened, it's impossible for it to cause you not to trust your awareness of probability and effectiveness of your abilities.

Bit of goalpost-moving, innit? I was speaking strictly of a binary pass/fail check. If you admit grades of success/failure (as in, frex, Dungeon World) then sure you could still employ the dice to determine the "degree" of the result. But for binary pass/fail--which is the most common and default kind of check in D&D--there are no such degrees. You either succeed, or you don't. If you, as DM, are of the opinion that (say) the lockpicking attempt is going to work(/not work), regardless of what a die might say, why even roll? Just say what happens. Don't waste my time engaging a resolution mechanic you aren't going to use, and don't make me think I need to manage a form of risk I don't actually need to manage.

You claimed that there wasn't any point in having someone roll if I was just going to have it be an auto-success. It's not my fault if you were unclear. This is the second time you were unclear and came at me for responding to what you wrote and not what you meant to write.

....and ignoring a proper, expected, and requested roll because you don't like the result ISN'T "throwing out the rules every time you don't feel like being bound by something"?

No, and it's clear that it is not. First off, it happens 2-4 times on average during a TWO YEAR campaign that is played weekly, so you'll need to show me how 2-4 times out of 100 games (a few weeks get missed) is "every time". Second, I'm entirely consistent with my house rule, so it's not "when I don't feel like being bound."

You royally flubbed that one.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Um. Since you don't know it happened, it's impossible for it to cause you not to trust your awareness of probability and effectiveness of your abilities.

So my abilities will always work the specific way they work, and never work a different way--the way you want them to work--when you don't like what they're doing? How is that possible when you can make them fail to kill something they SHOULD have killed?

You claimed that there wasn't any point in having someone roll if I was just going to have it be an auto-success. It's not my fault if you were unclear. This is the second time you were unclear and came at me for responding to what you wrote and not what you meant to write.

Look. How many times, in these threads, have people made the SPECIFIC example of making a speech that was super awesome, only to "fail by one" or whatever and thus, according to the dice, not succeed? I was tapping that background assumption. Forgive me for expecting you to remember the ongoing conversation.

No, and it's clear that it is not. First off, it happens 2-4 times on average during a TWO YEAR campaign that is played weekly, so you'll need to show me how 2-4 times out of 100 games (a few weeks get missed) is "every time". Second, I'm entirely consistent with my house rule, so it's not "when I don't feel like being bound."

You royally flubbed that one.

So you're saying there are large swathes of the game where you definitely wouldn't, for any reason, fudge a result--even if things go pear-shaped, even if the players kill a creature outright before it can even act? Because that's not consistent with what you've said. You've said you'll do it any time luck goes outside of your "risk bounds" (which haven't been explained beyond a black box of "if I plan for luck 7 and it ends up luck 9, I'll fudge" or something very similar to that). But that can always happen--literally every combat COULD go that way. So it's always there--waiting.

As for the consistency, all you've said is that you'll do it to correct results that are "too extreme" for your taste. Taste. That's the important thing. Taste is fundamentally inconsistent!

 

[Maxperson]

So my abilities will always work the specific way they work, and never work a different way--the way you want them to work--when you don't like what they're doing? How is that possible when you can make them fail to kill something they SHOULD have killed?

You're moving the goal posts. The issue was not if they abilities would always work the way they should. The issue is whether or not you would know it, and you wouldn't.

Look. How many times, in these threads, have people made the SPECIFIC example of making a speech that was super awesome, only to "fail by one" or whatever and thus, according to the dice, not succeed? I was tapping that background assumption. Forgive me for expecting you to remember the ongoing conversation.

5e allows the DM to declare something an auto success or auto failure. That doesn't mean that a roll still cannot be called for by the DM to see how successful it is. I'm effectively setting a DC where failure = lesser success and success = greater success. The ability check section does not specify what failure means. I get to say what failure means and I am fully within RAW to declare that it is a lesser success.

So you're saying there are large swathes of the game where you definitely wouldn't, for any reason, fudge a result--even if things go pear-shaped, even if the players kill a creature outright before it can even act? Because that's not consistent with what you've said. You've said you'll do it any time luck goes outside of your "risk bounds" (which haven't been explained beyond a black box of "if I plan for luck 7 and it ends up luck 9, I'll fudge" or something very similar to that). But that can always happen--literally every combat COULD go that way. So it's always there--waiting.

How is being entirely consistent with what I have been saying not consistent with what I have been saying? Exceeding the bounds happens 2-4 times in a two year period.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I do think it is incorrect to employ the dice, AND THEN say, "Y'know what? No, I'm NOT going to use the dice." Changing your mind like that--deciding that you actually AREN'T unsure about whether a thing should succeed or not, deciding that you're going to ignore a failing roll AFTER the fact--is what bothers me.

Yup. We know. But the rest of us on the other side have no problems with it because we don't think it's "incorrect".

 

[wwanno]

Firstly, as I've discussed elsewhere at rather great length, the odds of getting that many crits in a single encounter are fantastically low. Even with 30 attacks made by the DM's units (itself a ridiculously large number, if these crits are so bad as to put the party in danger of a TPK), the odds of getting even three(or more) crits is only 6%. For a much more reasonable 15 attacks (assuming 1-3 high-damage enemies over 3-5 rounds), the odds of getting three (or more) crits becomes only 6%. Even if you've already ended up in that highly-unlikely situation, the odds of another crit remain 5%, quite heavily favoring a non-crit. But people have gotten irate at me for throwing numbers into the discussion, so I won't discuss it further than this unless someone specifically asks.

And yes, this means that I am 100% okay with deciding a pass-fail check simply passes without rolling, while 0% okay with rolling and then deciding it passes despite a fail clearly being shown on the die.

I agree with you when you say that 3 critical hits in a row are hard to score, but it happens. Just one hour ago a hook horror spore servant (a random encounter in out of the abyss) scored two critical hits with his two hooks for a total damage of 8d6+8. The PC before him scored anther critical hit (so they were 3 20s in a row, the hand that throws the dice is irrelevant when we talk about probability). The hook horror after him scored two critical miss (another odd thing).
Odd things happen all the time.

You say it is okay for you if the DM decides the outcome of an action without rolling dices. That is what I do when I decide that the dragon after 3 critical hits will miss with his fourth attack.
I only avoid to tell my decision to the PCs and I let a dice fall behind the DM's screen in order to keep the pathos high. I am not rolling a dice, I have already decided.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree with you when you say that 3 critical hits in a row are hard to score, but it happens. Just one hour ago a hook horror spore servant (a random encounter in out of the abyss) scored two critical hits with his two hooks for a total damage of 8d6+8. The PC before him scored anther critical hit (so they were 3 20s in a row, the hand that throws the dice is irrelevant when we talk about probability). The hook horror after him scored two critical miss (another odd thing).
Odd things happen all the time.

Sure, in the global sense. Define a probability value for "miracles," and "miracles" become commonplace. But that doesn't make it necessarily wise to plan around them, does it?

You say it is okay for you if the DM decides the outcome of an action without rolling dices. That is what I do when I decide that the dragon after 3 critical hits will miss with his fourth attack.
I only avoid to tell my decision to the PCs and I let a dice fall behind the DM's screen in order to keep the pathos high. I am not rolling a dice, I have already decided.

Then, by the logic I've used elsewhere, that wouldn't be fudging, under my definition--it would be theatrics (I've twice now called it equivalent to "giving NPCs funny accents"). I still don't care for it, but I see nothing really wrong with it either. You're not using the dice for any mechanical thing, only for an aesthetic thing.

 

[Unwise]

After playing a fair bit of Edge of the Empire, I have started to give my PCs little white tokens when I fudge something that screws with them. They can then cash them in as either inspiration or to mildly affect the narrative in some way e.g. "Of course I am carrying 200' of rope". This way, when the PCs fail something due to NPC plot armor, they know it and they get some little reward from the universe.