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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Yeah, [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], you are right. We should all assume that we are the absolute best DM we can possible be for our group and stop sharing ideas and discussing techniques and how/when/why we do or don't use them in order to try and improve our own, and maybe some other folks, gaming experiences - because someone might take comments that maybe something other than what they do would work for them if they tried it as an accusation of badwrongfun.

 

[iserith]

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 the stakes to be clear, the rulings to be consistent, and all rolls to be in the open.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], you are right. We should all assume that we are the absolute best DM we can possible be for our group and stop sharing ideas and discussing techniques and how/when/why we do or don't use them in order to try and improve our own, and maybe some other folks, gaming experiences - because someone might take comments that maybe something other than what they do would work for them if they tried it as an accusation of badwrongfun.

Aaron, thank you so much for misrepresenting my statement. You are helping to prove my point of how polarized the discussion is - when you cannot accept criticism of the discussion, there's a problem.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...and when you cannot accept criticism of your own criticism? (Which, by the way, was itself a misrepresentation of basically this entire thread because almost no one present has accused anyone else of badwrongfun.)

 

[Nytmare]

Yeah, [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], you are right. We should all assume that we are the absolute best DM we can possible be for our group and stop sharing ideas and discussing techniques and how/when/why we do or don't use them in order to try and improve our own, and maybe some other folks, gaming experiences - because someone might take comments that maybe something other than what they do would work for them if they tried it as an accusation of badwrongfun.

I think that the point of this you might be missing is that most of this (and its two sister threads) are not a discussion of techniques, they've devolved into page after page of people defending themselves, their games, their relationships with their friends, their motivations, and their morality from a minority of a minority of people who have laid claim to a moral high horse and are looking to convert them to the one true way of "playing the game correctly."

 

[Noctem]

Yeah, @Umbran, you are right. We should all assume that we are the absolute best DM we can possible be for our group and stop sharing ideas and discussing techniques and how/when/why we do or don't use them in order to try and improve our own, and maybe some other folks, gaming experiences - because someone might take comments that maybe something other than what they do would work for them if they tried it as an accusation of badwrongfun.

+1 And he entered the discussion in such a positive way too!

I think the problem is that Umbran has a personal stake in this discussion at this point and considers himself to have the moral high ground. He's injecting a very negative point of view into this thread and is actually the one attempting to polarize it by creating a good side vs bad side! We're the bad guys here.

And I also agree that he doesn't seem to take criticism very well, as can be seen again here. Maybe if we mention it, he will be able to see the "symmetry", as he once said to me. Or not

***As a notice, this is simply my opinion and criticism of Humbran's posts in this thread. I am not making a personal attack against his person. I am simply commenting on his choice of words used in this thread and how he seems to want to create a caricature of multiple people he doesn't agree and/or create a divide between thread participants. Specifically in regards to his "wrongfunbad" post above. I do believe that his latest posts are in violation of rule 1: Keep it civil of this forum.***

 

[Noctem]

...and when you cannot accept criticism of your own criticism? (Which, by the way, was itself a misrepresentation of basically this entire thread because almost no one present has accused anyone else of badwrongfun.)

I haven't seen anyone here accuse someone of badwrongfun. What I have seen is a discussion about what fudging represents, what it can affect, what it would mean if done in the open, alternatives to fudging, suggestions from multiple people about how and when to fudge and so on. Basically a search for understanding from multiple point of views of other point of views. It was indeed a misrepresentation

 

[rlor]

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?

If something surprised the DM then it is probably more likely to surprise me. As an example: a villain takes a woman hostage to be used as a human shield and she struggles to break free. The DM rolls for her struggle as they describe the situation and then suddenly stops, blinks twice as they look at the result and say "and she grabs his arm, steps back to throw him off balance, then tosses him to the ground". I'm more likely to be surprised by that then if I see the DM focus intently on the roll because they know she's secretly a monk and is likely to succeed. The DM is going to have a different way of delivering the same line, pausing at different places and giving different body language.

Now if the DM is the type that commonly plays the lead in amateur theater performances and brings tears to the eyes of the audience I might not be able to tell the difference. Though their inclinations may make the above more predictable than a random result even with flawless acting.

If I'm the DM and don't want her to succeed for whatever reason then I just describe it as "she struggles in its grasp" without touching the dice. Likewise I could have her successfully toss the villain to the ground without picking up a die. Only if I'm fine with it going either way am I going to roll.

I picked the above example because I've witnessed a DM fudging this situation before so it seemed apt. They needlessly put themselves in this situation and while I personally would have welcomed the surprise (as a DM or player) they clearly didn't because they wanted a hostage scenario.

 

[Noctem]

For me the opportunity created by the unexpected result of the roll, the woman throwing the guy to the ground, allows me to flex my imagination muscle:

So as to narrate the new event in a way that matches the dice. I didn't expect it and I would convey that surprise to the players by narrating how it happened. Gasps from the various witnesses would be heard as a result. The attacker would be on the ground, dazed and confused, looking up at his would-be victim in complete surprise. Then I would ask the party how they react and what they do next.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This has zero to do with DM empowerment. Not a single thing.

You can't see how the DMG pointing out that the DM can change die rolls, rather than, say, advising that all rolls be in the open and their results final, isn't a little more on the side of DM Empowerment.

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.

I've long since done that many times, and learned from the experience. I did it all through the playtest, because you can't test a system by ignoring it, and, out of force of habbit, into the first season of 5e encounters. There are systems that run well in that above-board style and systems that don't. 5e is one of the latter.

"Please make rolls that affect only my character in the open" would be a more reasonable thing for a player who didn't want fudging to ask, than asking that the DM not fudge any rolls at all.
Any problem with that?

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.

This may be overly philosophical, but the world your PC interacts with is the DMs creation. The 'truth' of that world is what the DM ends up narrating, not what he jotted down in notes before hand, not a rule in a book, and not what the natural results of a die roll might have been.

 

[Lanliss]

I can see Umbran's point, that a few seemed to miss so that they could make a shot or two of their own. Here is how I read it, from someone who has no actual investment in the argument.

The thread has devolved into people on either side attacking, not the play style of fudging or not, but the actual people on the other side. While no one has specifically said "badwrongfun" there have been many similar statement thrown around.

I believe that the most level headed statement was made a few pages back, saying that this is NOT an argument between good and evil. Fudging v. Not fudging is simply a matter of Lawful or Chaotic, and should be treated as such. It should be assumed by all that we are of Good alignment, because we all want what is best for everyone at the table, or as many people as is possible, where "best" means the most possible fun. Now we just need to figure out how to reconcile Chaotic and Lawful.

Lastly, before anyone gets defensive on instinct, you do NOT need to defend yourself to me. I am a random guy on the forum, and did nothing to deserve an explanation from you about your play style, or whether or not you fit with what I have said. If you feel you are not included in my statement, assume that I was not talking to you, and was instead talking about everyone else in the thread.

 

[ad_hoc]

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?

So...no answer then? Okay.

 

[Nytmare]

So...no answer then? Okay.

Please refer to the other 25 pages of this thread, plus any of the supporting comments in the other two threads for your answers.

 

[Hussar]

I think that the point of this you might be missing is that most of this (and its two sister threads) are not a discussion of techniques, they've devolved into page after page of people defending themselves, their games, their relationships with their friends, their motivations, and their morality from a minority of a minority of people who have laid claim to a moral high horse and are looking to convert them to the one true way of "playing the game correctly."

I won't speak for anyone else, but, I've been EXTREMELY careful to repeatedly point out that I was talking about myself and no one else. I've repeatedly stated that this was a play style issue. I've seen others do the same. I've seen very little of moral high horsing at all. What I am seeing is a number of posters who feel that because others are saying that they don't like what they are doing, that it constitutes some sort of attack.

Pro-Fudging: I think that fudging helps the game by smoothing over the rougher patches of randomisation.
Anti-Fudging: Fudging negates player agency by over riding the die roll. Additionally, it's somewhat underhanded since you have to actively hide it from your players. If the players knew you were fudging, they would likely object.
Pro-Fudging: Get off your high horse and stop accusing me of badwrongfun.

 

[Hussar]

You can't see how the DMG pointing out that the DM can change die rolls, rather than, say, advising that all rolls be in the open and their results final, isn't a little more on the side of DM Empowerment.

Sure. But, the issue here isn't that I'm somehow against DM Empowerment. Note the exact same section that you're pointing to presents two options - one to fudge and one to not and says that both are equally valid. I may disagree with that assessment, but, not because it grants powers to the DM. I disagree because fudging is inherently dishonest and detracts from my enjoyment of the game.

I've long since done that many times, and learned from the experience. I did it all through the playtest, because you can't test a system by ignoring it, and, out of force of habbit, into the first season of 5e encounters. There are systems that run well in that above-board style and systems that don't. 5e is one of the latter.

Again, I'm going to disagree here. I have zero problems playing 5e above board. None.

"Please make rolls that affect only my character in the open" would be a more reasonable thing for a player who didn't want fudging to ask, than asking that the DM not fudge any rolls at all.
Any problem with that?

Doesn't even have to be in the open. I prefer die rolls in the open, mostly because it's simply pragmatic. The player knows he's been hit and it saves time. And, since I never fudge, there's no reason for me to roll secretly most of the time (again with the usual caveats of things like searching, stealth, etc).

But, this is why player's won't step up. "You can object to fudging, but, only if it applies to your character?" Really? No, that's not reasonable. How would you even begin to do that. The DM rolls on both sides of the screen every round? Oh, that's nice, let's single out the problem player and make sure that everyone at the table knows what a PITA this annoying player is. That's not going to work. Never minding things like Area Attacks which affect this character and others. What do we do? Roll twice?

See, I cannot believe that "Please don't fudge" is a problematic thing to say at all. But, since it is, players won't say it because no one wants to be "that guy".

 

[Noctem]

emotional knee-jerk responses ftw!

 

[Tony Vargas]

I won't speak for anyone else, but, I've been EXTREMELY careful to repeatedly point out that I was talking about myself and no one else.

You have been calling a technique dishonest. That's judging everyone who uses that technique dishonest.

Sure. But, the issue here isn't that I'm somehow against DM Empowerment.

It wasn't that general to start with. But objecting to legitimate DM tools can't help but touch on that. And, it's presumably because 5e is so committed to DM empowerment that it endorses such tools.

Note the exact same section that you're pointing to presents two options - one to fudge and one to not and says that both are equally valid. I may disagree with that assessment, but, not because it grants powers to the DM.

Why doesn't really matter. You begrudge DMs a useful tool and insult them for using it. That's, at the very least, less than polite. At worst it's judgmental OneTrueWayism.

I disagree because fudging is inherently dishonest and detracts from my enjoyment of the game.

There's nothing dishonest about using a DM technique like that. It's no more dishonest than posting using a handle instead of your real name. It's a common convention in that context. Nobody thinks your name is really 'Hussar' for instance. Now, it may well detract from your enjoyment to think that the guy making up everything that's happening in the game world might also be making up the results of the occasional die roll - seems a little inconsistent to me, but emotional reactions often are - if you can't trust him to do the latter, how are you trusting him to do the former?

But, you don't absolutely have to accept that kind of DMing to play the game, you can insist on nothing but unmodified, published adventure with everything above board, for instance, or whatever medium works for you. Strikes me as limiting, but I'm jaded, I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't do it.

You are saying that I'm doing something ethically wrong by running 5e, though. And I don't appreciate that.

Again, I'm going to disagree here. I have zero problems playing 5e above board. None.

I'm sure it's no shock that our experiences are different.

But, this is why player's won't step up. "You can object to fudging, but, only if it applies to your character?" Really? No, that's not reasonable.

Yes, really, because it's not reasonable to dictate to your fellow players.

How would you even begin to do that. The DM rolls on both sides of the screen every round? Oh, that's nice, let's single out the problem player and make sure that everyone at the table knows what a PITA this annoying player is. That's not going to work.

On the contrary, it's perfectly serviceable, and, yes, it does highlight that the player is being PITA, because he is, he's pulling the OneTrueWay routine, insisting everyone play his way. That's what a lot of these issues come down to - is everyone able to show common courtesy to eachother, or is there a basic incompatibility.

See, I cannot believe that "Please don't fudge" is a problematic thing to say at all. But, since it is, players won't say it because no one wants to be "that guy".

If you have to worry about being 'that guy' to get what you want, what you want may not be as reasonable as you think.

 

[Miladoon]

I prefer my DM to not be tethered to dice. I want them to lengthen their stride when it comes to making epic decisions. Yeah, it is cool to keep the dice rolls, but as long as the DM is fudging equally, I haven't a care how he runs the game.

 

[Hussar]

You have been calling a technique dishonest. That's judging everyone who uses that technique dishonest.

What would you call it? When you hide something that you know will bother someone else precisely because you know it will bother them. In what way is that not dishonest? So, yup, I do consider the technique dishonest. That's precisely the reason I don't like it.

So, in what way is it honest? In what way is it transparent? How, exactly, is changing die rolls secretly without the permission or the approval of the players, honest?

It wasn't that general to start with. But objecting to legitimate DM tools can't help but touch on that. And, it's presumably because 5e is so committed to DM empowerment that it endorses such tools. Why doesn't really matter. You begrudge DMs a useful tool and insult them for using it. That's, at the very least, less than polite. At worst it's judgmental OneTrueWayism. There's nothing dishonest about using a DM technique like that. It's no more dishonest than posting using a handle instead of your real name. It's a common convention in that context. Nobody thinks your name is really 'Hussar' for instance. Now, it may well detract from your enjoyment to think that the guy making up everything that's happening in the game world might also be making up the results of the occasional die roll - seems a little inconsistent to me, but emotional reactions often are - if you can't trust him to do the latter, how are you trusting him to do the former?

Except you keep ignoring the fact that using fudging is presented as one of two options. The other option is to not do it. It's not like you absolutely have to fudge to make the game work. Sure, I could use my real name, and not a handle, but, there are a number of very good reasons why I shouldn't - privacy and personal safety concerns are more than enough. And, again, it's perfectly fine to play a game without any prep. Not my cup of tea, but, fine. Again, the DM isn't hiding this. The DM may not advertise the fact, or he might. There's no problem with telling your players that you are winging it tonight.

There is a problem with telling your players that you are fudging die rolls. That's why the advice tells you to keep it a secret.

You are saying that I'm doing something ethically wrong by running 5e, though. And I don't appreciate that.

Buh? Nope. Not even a little. I'm saying that fudging is dishonest. It wouldn't matter what game you are playing. And, again, if fudging was perfectly acceptable, why not tell your players that you are doing it?

On the contrary, it's perfectly serviceable, and, yes, it does highlight that the player is being PITA, because he is, he's pulling the OneTrueWay routine, insisting everyone play his way. That's what a lot of these issues come down to - is everyone able to show common courtesy to eachother, or is there a basic incompatibility.

Bingo. Here's the answer right here. Telling the DM your play preferences is now being a PITA and pulling OneTrueWayism. Now, I'm not even allowed to express a preference at the table? It's perfectly acceptable to tell me that I'm wrong while cramming your play style down my throat? This is why the players don't bring it up. Why does showing "common courtesy" mean that I get singled out at every session just to "prove" that the DM is being fair? Yeah, I'm thinking that this "common courtesy" thing isn't all it cracked up to be.

If you have to worry about being 'that guy' to get what you want, what you want may not be as reasonable as you think.

But it's perfectly reasonable to label me a PITA for actually having a preference and then grandstand at every session to hammer the point home? That's your idea of reasonable? I'm thinking that instead, most players are either going to quietly bow out (which is what I would do) or simply put up and shut up, leaving the DM oblivious.

-----

If I'm doing something that I know someone won't like, and I'm hiding what I'm doing precisely because I know they won't like the fact that I'm doing it, then in all likelihood, in my opinion, I probably shouldn't be doing that thing, whatever it is.

 

[Hussar]

What I also find truly insteresting is that mechanics which allow players to fudge pretty much negate all of my issues with fudging. Things like Bennies or Fate Dice or whatever. That sort of thing. When it's in the hands of the players, it becomes, AFAIC, no problems.

My basic issues with fudging are:

1. Transparency. Obviously DM fudging is meant to be kept secret. But, player fudging is in the open. Everyone knows who is doing it when they do it. It's 100% open and it's 100% acceptable to all players.

2. Objectivity. Typically DM fudging is based on the DM's gut feeling. But, player fudging is almost always dice based - roll X and add it to Y, that sort of thing - or perhaps minor changes to the scenery. There is no patriarchal judgement that the DM knows best. Instead of drawing on one person's judgement, we draw from the entire table.

3. Game play. DM fudging has no part in the mechanics. The DM does it and that's it. Player fudging is almost always some sort of mechanical resource that the players can leverage during the game. It adds to the game, rather than operating in the background.

To me, I'd much rather see D&D adopt a broader use of the Inspiration mechanic and allow that to spackle over runs of bad luck and the sort.