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

[Rhenny]

Here's a tangent that I find pretty interesting.

I've always rolled dice out in the open against players. I've never even used a DM screen for in-person games. I hate how it divides DM from players.

Recently, I've been watching some games where the DM does have hidden die rolls (Critical Role, etc.) so I tried it in one of my mini-campaigns. The players actually liked it. They said that it made each moment seem more tense. Personally, I think it took the emphasis away from the die roll and placed it more squarely on the narration of the action. I didn't fudge any rolls, but for all my players know, I could have.

For people who don't want their DM to fudge, does that mean that they don't want their DM to hide any rolls?

 

[Nagol]

Here's a tangent that I find pretty interesting.

I've always rolled dice out in the open against players. I've never even used a DM screen for in-person games. I hate how it divides DM from players.

Recently, I've been watching some games where the DM does have hidden die rolls (Critical Role, etc.) so I tried it in one of my mini-campaigns. The players actually liked it. They said that it made each moment seem more tense. Personally, I think it took the emphasis away from the die roll and placed it more squarely on the narration of the action. I didn't fudge any rolls, but for all my players know, I could have.

For people who don't want their DM to fudge, does that mean that they don't want their DM to hide any rolls?

I prefer open rolls -- not because I want to confirm what's happened, but because it gives me another data point I can use to narrow down the way the game works so I can make better assessments and choices in the future. If the rolls are hidden I typically just get a pass/fail and it takes a lot more of those to try and build patterns and expectation than learning a '14' worked this time so it looks like at least a 35% chance of success. Maybe it's worth trying again.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I am definitely of the school that doesn't see the point of rolling dice if they are just going to be ignored. I would rather do freeform diceless roleplaying than to have a bunch of mechanics, systems and subsystems that take a lot of time and energy on everyone's part to study and comprehend and then just fiat over it if those systems don't meet the DM's desired results.

I also far prefer DMing over playing so that may color my perception on this issue, but from what I have seen my players over the years also prefer that approach.

This is the general sort of response that a lot of the non-fudgers state. That it ruins the integrity of the game and we might as well not have dice at all. But I don't think fudging a roll every once in a great while does this. I generally prefer to not fudge. The dice matter 99%+ of the time. But I also don't want the players or the game to suffer when I make a bone-headed mistake as a DM. We're all fallible, and if I make a mistake, I'm big enough to admit it and adjust if needed. Most of the time this has happened, nobody knows the difference because I just make the necessary adjustment on the fly silently. But I'll straight out tell them, too, depending on the circumstances. I screwed up, this is what we'll do, and move on.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Nytmare]

Nope, I never want my DM to fudge. I’d much prefer to have some fights end in multiple PC deaths or a TPK and supposedly difficult boss fights be cake walks for the party than have the DM fudge rolls in order to make all the encounters more balanced. It’s just a lot more exciting playing that way.

This is an incorrect assumption. I fudge and have no problems with PC deaths, TPKs, or boss fights that the players turn into cake walks. I do not fudge to make encounters more balanced. I fudge to make playing more exciting.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

This is the general sort of response that a lot of the non-fudgers state. That it ruins the integrity of the game and we might as well not have dice at all. But I don't think fudging a roll every once in a great while does this. I generally prefer to not fudge. The dice matter 99%+ of the time. But I also don't want the players or the game to suffer when I make a bone-headed mistake as a DM. We're all fallible, and if I make a mistake, I'm big enough to admit it and adjust if needed. Most of the time this has happened, nobody knows the difference because I just make the necessary adjustment on the fly silently. But I'll straight out tell them, too, depending on the circumstances. I screwed up, this is what we'll do, and move on.

Ilbranteloth

I think we have all been there as DMs on the "major mistake" end of things. Usually, it is a combination of DM/Player communication more than it is that the players kept rolling 1s and the enemies kept rolling 20s. I would rather use my DM fiat other ways. The Eagles arrive to Mordor at the last minute to save the day. A high priest who has been watching your journeys from afar comes to the site of the massacre and resurrects you, but it comes at a price.... if you are willing to pay it. Even just a "hey guys, I totally screwed the pooch here, I should have told you before that you were awakening The Tarrasque when you did that ritual. Do you wanna go back to the point right before you approached the altar and start play back again from there.?"

A lot of situations can be also averted by having monsters not fight to the death (flee at half hp is pretty standard around here) or having adversaries that have goals other than killing the PCs.

I am not an absolutist though. If fudging works for DMs and their players at their table, why not? I do think that it is generally better if players know that the DM will fudge rolls and prefer it to be done out of the open. But that is my preference and I can see a "fog of war" argument against it for tables that prefer another sort of experience.

 

[Maxperson]

They have many ways to make their discontent clear, ok. But you fudge in secret and don't tell them when you do?

So basically they will never make their discontent clear because they have no way of knowing you fudge results lol... Well done..

If they don't know you fudge, there is no discontent.

 

[Maxperson]

OTOH, if you tell someone you are going to leave them lots of money to make them happy, and then secretly change the will to leave the money to your cats, that's closer to how I view fudging.

If you view fudging as something other than it is, it explains why you dislike it.

As was mentioned above, you are manipulating the players. With the best intentions, sure. But, still manipulating the players.

When you manipulate someone, you are getting them to do something you want. When I fudge, nobody other than me is doing what I want. There is no manipulation going on with fudging.

Given that about 40% of them have stated here that they would prefer it if the DM never fudges, I'm thinking that it may be more common than some DM's here seem to think. The reason it doesn't get mentioned is because players are told time and again, "trust your DM" and anything that shows distrust of the DM marks you as a bad player. Telling your DM, "Hey, I know you think fudging is okay, but, I think it's really bad, so don't do it please" would rarely, if ever, go over well. Look at the very strong reactions in this thread alone to people saying they don't like fudging and think fudging is bad.

Whether they agree with me or not, I give little weight to forum polls. It's too easy to make multiple accounts and vote with them all. It's why I haven't been constantly pointing out how 60% of people are okay with fudging.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Do you honestly think that any of the DMs who admit to fudging have never ever once come to the decision point of "Do I want to change this die?" and said to themselves "No, I don't want to change it"?

I don't think that @Hussar was saying there have never been times when a fudge-ok DM thought about changing a result but decided not to.

I think instead that the idea being gotten at was for the fudge-ok DM to, the next time they are sure that they do want to change a result, still not actually change it and see what happens - and yeah, I honestly think that DMs who admit to fudging have not thought "I definitely want to change this result," and not actually changed it.

Edit because I forgot a seriously important word in my first sentence.

 

[Maxperson]

]yeah, I honestly think that DMs who admit to fudging have not thought "I definitely want to change this result," and not actually changed it.

I have. Sometimes I'd really like to see one result happen and have the thought that I'd like to change the die roll. I don't, however, because I don't fudge for my own desires. I only fudge when extreme bad luck breaks the game and I need to unbreak it.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...I don't fudge for my own desires.

Those are literally the only desires you can fudge for according to your own admission that you are assuming, not confirming, your player's desires.

I only fudge when extreme bad luck breaks the game and I need to unbreak it.

This statement reads as "I never fudge" to me, as bad luck, no matter how extreme, is entirely incapable of breaking the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Those are literally the only desires you can fudge for according to your own admission that you are assuming, not confirming, your player's desires.

Um, wrong. I correct the game when it breaks. Period. I know it makes the players happy because I know them. Two different things.

This statement reads as "I never fudge" to me, as bad luck, no matter how extreme, is entirely incapable of breaking the game.

Again, wrong. It's impossible for the game math to take extreme luck into consideration and at the same time be designed for a specific level of encounter. They are mutually exclusive positions.

What you are saying there is that you don't mind playing the game when it breaks, so you don't bother to fix it.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

No, Max.

 

[ad_hoc]

This is an incorrect assumption. I fudge and have no problems with PC deaths, TPKs, or boss fights that the players turn into cake walks. I do not fudge to make encounters more balanced. I fudge to make playing more exciting.

I am genuinely interested in how fudging can make the game more exciting.

I find myself bored in a lot of action movies because the result is known ahead of time. Of course the good guys will win because story.

In D&D no one knows what will happen. That's great. But with a DM who is fudging rolls, that means there is a writer who is determining the outcome.

 

[Hussar]

Because he's speaking for all the players, not just for himself.

"Please make rolls that affect only my character in the open" would be more reasonable. Any problem with that?


In a sense, all the 5e DM's 'Empowerment' is with the tacit approval of the players. In the sense that they could walk away from the table, for instance.

This has zero to do with DM empowerment. Not a single thing. This is a playstyle issue, pure and simple.
[MENTION=6695652]Nyte[/MENTION]mare - I have no idea either way. My point was the next time you feel compelled to alter results, don't do it. Make a conscious decision that you won't. See what happens. IME, it results in much better games.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For people who don't want their DM to fudge, does that mean that they don't want their DM to hide any rolls?

Since I can only speak for me: I have nothing against rolls being made behind a screen. It doesn't add or remove any tension for me, at least I don't think it does--having had both DMs that did everything "out in the open" and DMs that rolled some things in secret. I usually have more than enough brainspace to hold the story and the numbers, so that's not really a concern either.

So, for me, I am vehemently anti-fudge, but I'm not at all anti-secret. I can even be persuaded to "allow" (that doesn't feel like the right word, but I can't think of a better one) the DM to take a roll behind the screen that would normally happen in the open. A roll like, for example, whether I can detect the presence of mind control affecting an ally, or whether I can tell if someone is lying to me. That sort of information makes sense as a roll that occurs in secret--but I expect that, one way or another, the truth will come out in the end.

For everything else, though, I prefer open rolling.

 

[Nytmare]

I am genuinely interested in how fudging can make the game more exciting.

I find myself bored in a lot of action movies because the result is known ahead of time. Of course the good guys will win because story.

In D&D no one knows what will happen. That's great. But with a DM who is fudging rolls, that means there is a writer who is determining the outcome.

I am honestly flummoxed.

Just because something is determined by some means other than chance doesn't mean that it can be expected.

Just because something is determined by some means other than chance doesn't mean that it doesn't look like it was determined by chance.

All of the times that you HAVE been surprised by a movie, do you think it was because the screenwriters were rolling dice to see what the outcome was?

All of the times that you have been surprised by something that happened in an RPG due to a die roll, if you didn't see the die roll, would you have still been surprised?

 

[steenan]

For people who don't want their DM to fudge, does that mean that they don't want their DM to hide any rolls?

Yes, I don't want the GM to hide any rolls, unless the system itself dictates that some rolls are hidden.

I trust people I play with, so I won't demand rolls in the open if they are technically hard to make (eg. we play in a train, with no table, so the GM uses a roller in her laptop, where she also keeps her notes).
But other than such edge cases, I expect to see all rolls.

 

[Nytmare]

[MENTION=6695652]Nyte[/MENTION]mare - I have no idea either way. My point was the next time you feel compelled to alter results, don't do it. Make a conscious decision that you won't. See what happens. IME, it results in much better games.

What I'm saying is that feeling compelled to alter the results and making a conscious decision not to do it is something that is already happening every time a DM who fudges feels compelled to alter the results and makes a conscious decision not to do it.

That's what each and every one of those decision points is. "Should I change it? What are the consequences? What are the benefits? Is it worth it? No, let's see what happens."

It happens all the time, and for those of us who continue to fudge, our experience is obviously that better games for us are the ones where we have the option to influence, chisel, and shape outcomes by doing it.

 

[Maxperson]

I am genuinely interested in how fudging can make the game more exciting.

I find myself bored in a lot of action movies because the result is known ahead of time. Of course the good guys will win because story.

In D&D no one knows what will happen. That's great. But with a DM who is fudging rolls, that means there is a writer who is determining the outcome.

Fudging =/= determining the final outcome. All it means is altering the die roll. I only fudge when extreme bad luck happens and breaks the game. At that point, the party will TPK through no fault of their own, even though they did everything right. When I fudge, though, it's not to make the party win. I just give the fight a nudge back into the unbroken range of the combat, giving the party a fighting chance. They key word there is "chance." They can still lose, and they can still TPK, but it won't be because extreme bad luck broke the game.

 

[Umbran]

There is no such thing as "a better game" in general. A game that is astounding and amazing for you might be a snorefest for someone else.

In this thread, we see so little respect given, that a GM might actually know what's better for their own players than you do. Never mind that they've played together for hundreds or thousands of hours, and you've never met them.

So much energy trying to get others to think of a practice as badwrongfun.

Sigh.