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

[rollingForInit]

I wouldn't mind my DM fudging the rolls on occasion, if something happens that the DM failed to take into consideration, and that that would make the game less enjoyable for us. Let's say that the DM rolls damage for my 1st level character during the first encounter, and it turns out that that damage instantly kills the PC. I would not mind the DM fudging the damage a bit. Possibly, if the DM had looked properly at the HP of my character, the DM might've had the monsters act differently. Knock out instead of do damage, attack somebody else if there were several good options, and so on.

It should always be for the benefit of the players, because what would happen without the fudge would just be really boring and/or pointless for us.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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?

Keeping resolution behind the screen is not a matter of concealing something from someone who would be bothered by it, but keeping something from someone who is entertained by the mystery. It's exactly like a magician setting the stage for his act so that the audience can't see how he does his tricks. The point is the enjoyment of the audience, and it's in now way dishonest.

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?

Not remotely, no. I'm in no way trying to force anyone to use a given technique. I'm perfectly OK with a player being honest about what he wants/needs from a game, and it's only a problem if that player is intent on forcing that preference upon the whole table.

How the DM runs his game is certainly something that's up for discussion, but it's not something that a single player can expect to dictate on behalf of all the players involved. That's where your example player crosses the line. Not in expressing what he wants, but in insisting it apply to others who may not have the same issues with a well-known, common and effective DMing technique.

1. Transparency. Obviously DM fudging is meant to be kept secret. But, player fudging is in the open.

You're not really talking player vs DM but system vs free-form. A DM offering a player a FATE point to compel an Aspect is using a formal system, it's a very flexible system, but it's codified. The player can later use that FATE point to change a roll. The DM can also change rolls in a formal way, like that. All very above-board and spelled out in the system. It might even be fair to call it a more advanced or 'more evolved' system for that reason.

5e relies a great deal more on the DM's judgment, rather than a formal system.

2. Objectivity. Typically DM fudging is based on the DM's gut feeling.

Most resolution in 5e is. The DM decides success, failure, or call for a roll and sets the DC for any declared action. The DM is free to make rulings notwithstanding the rules. That's 5e's DM Empowerment, and it is 'powerful' in the system, sense, as well.

3. Game play. DM fudging has no part in the mechanics.

That's really the only distinction you're drawing, it's not player vs DM, it's formal mechanic vs DM latitude ('Empowerment').

It sounds like you have an easier time trusting a written rule than a live DM. (That's not a dig, it's understandable, and a legitimate preference. It's just not the only one, and your preference doesn't make DMs running systems that don't cater to that preference 'dishonest.')

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.

That'd be cool, and, perhaps ironically, 5e DMs are free to make that sort of modification to their games in a way 3.5 DMs probably weren't, and 4e DMs would at least have been reluctant too.

 

[WilliamCQ]

If a GM is hesitant about killing the PCs at his/her table with a combat that seems reasonable, s/he should remind the players that it's possible that they roll low while their foes roll high, making the combat a lot harder than average, and that they often can flee a combat. Many parties have this thing against fleeing; well don't, but don't complain when there's a TPK.

 

[Maxperson]

That'd be cool, and, perhaps ironically, 5e DMs are free to make that sort of modification to their games in a way 3.5 DMs probably weren't, and 4e DMs would at least have been reluctant too.

3e DMs were indeed free to make that sort of modification to their game. They had the authority to add, remove or alter the rules of the game as they saw fit. D&D has always been a Rulings over Rules kind of game. 5e just made it a saying is all.

Note: I'm assuming that the DM could do that in 4e. I don't know the rules of that system all that well.

 

[Maxperson]

If a GM is hesitant about killing the PCs at his/her table with a combat that seems reasonable, s/he should remind the players that it's possible that they roll low while their foes roll high, making the combat a lot harder than average, and that they often can flee a combat. Many parties have this thing against fleeing; well don't, but don't complain when there's a TPK.

Fleeing has pretty much always been a myth unless the DM used fiat or invented some house rule to enable it. Without some sort of transportation magic, monsters which generally moved just as fast as the party, and often much faster, made fleeing incredibly difficult or impossible.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Fleeing has pretty much always been a myth unless the DM used fiat or invented some house rule to enable it.

BECMI had workable rules for fleeing (in the red box, possibly even earlier). It's one of the many little things where the version of the game implied as being the "light" version was actually more robust than the (in my opinion arrogantly titled) Advanced version of the game.

 

[Skyscraper]

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.

This is a great suggestion and it's very appropriate within the discucssion of this thread.

I don't use inspiration (my players are already inspired enough as it is ), but I'm now thinking about introducing destiny points into my game. I'll fork a thread on this topic. Thanks for this suggestion @Hussar!

I think that [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] makes good points also (about the mystery), it's a question of how you balance this within the game and what type of game each of us wants to play (as often is ).

 

[Tony Vargas]

3e DMs were indeed free to make that sort of modification to their game. They had the authority to add, remove or alter the rules of the game as they saw fit. D&D has always been a Rulings over Rules kind of game. 5e just made it a saying is all.

3e had 'Rule 0,' but the community of the day was not wonderfully accepting of it, and generally saw it, really, something like you seem to still see it: as something that had to be done formally, up-front, and stuck to like a legal precedent. /Very/ different from the more open 'rulings no rules' motto that seems to be winning some acceptance in the 5e era.

Note: I'm assuming that the DM could do that in 4e. I don't know the rules of that system all that well.

Technically, sure, a 4e DM could change the rules all he wanted, had guidelines for adjudicating improvised actions, and could rule one way or another on anything that wasn't that clear (which was surprisingly little, for D&D). In practice, though, the 4e zietgeist was pretty suspicious of house rules. 'The rules actually /work/, why mess with them?' was a common, barely even conscious, attitude.

I don't use inspiration (my players are already inspired enough as it is ), but I'm now thinking about introducing destiny points into my game. I'll fork a thread on this topic.

There are some negative to 'rewarding RP' mechanics like Inspiration, but they're mostly a matter of the DM-player relationship....

good points also (about the mystery), it's a question of how you balance this within the game and what type of game each of us wants to play (as often is ).

These discussions are very much matters of differing styles and attitudes.

 

[Skyscraper]

There are some negative to 'rewarding RP' mechanics like Inspiration, but they're mostly a matter of the DM-player relationship....

I'm curious, [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], what you mean by this. I have an idea of what you might mean, but would you care to expand a bit?

These discussions are very much matters of differing styles and attitudes.

Ya.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm curious, [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], what you mean by this. I have an idea of what you might mean, but would you care to expand a bit?

On condition that we take this as constructive criticism. The trap an RP-rewarding mechanic like Inspiration can fall into is that the DM is the judge of what constitutes 'good RP,' and thus who deserves the reward. It can turn the game into a 'please'/manipulate the DM exercise. Worst case, the players are like trained monkeys dancing for the DM's amusement. It's not a serious problem in 5e, because a DM who can handle 5e's Empowerment can be trusted to use such a system judiciously and to enhance the play experience, rather than 'abusing' it.

 

[Skyscraper]

On condition that we take this as constructive criticism. The trap an RP-rewarding mechanic like Inspiration can fall into is that the DM is the judge of what constitutes 'good RP,' and thus who deserves the reward. It can turn the game into a 'please'/manipulate the DM exercise. Worst case, the players are like trained monkeys dancing for the DM's amusement. It's not a serious problem in 5e, because a DM who can handle 5e's Empowerment can be trusted to use such a system judiciously and to enhance the play experience, rather than 'abusing' it.

Ok. I'm with you I guess. I think that inspiration is not necessary to get players to RP and I don't like rewards being associated to that. That's just me. I agree that the downside can be avoided; I just don't see the upside to it.

 

[iserith]

On condition that we take this as constructive criticism. The trap an RP-rewarding mechanic like Inspiration can fall into is that the DM is the judge of what constitutes 'good RP,' and thus who deserves the reward. It can turn the game into a 'please'/manipulate the DM exercise. Worst case, the players are like trained monkeys dancing for the DM's amusement. It's not a serious problem in 5e, because a DM who can handle 5e's Empowerment can be trusted to use such a system judiciously and to enhance the play experience, rather than 'abusing' it.

Ok. I'm with you I guess. I think that inspiration is not necessary to get players to RP and I don't like rewards being associated to that. That's just me. I agree that the downside can be avoided; I just don't see the upside to it.

In my games, players "claim" Inspiration rather than get it from the DM. If a player invokes an established personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw during a scene, he or she can simply take Inspiration. In order to earn further Inspiration during that game, the player must invoke some different trait, ideal, bond, or flaw.

For example, if the hermit cleric Wanda Curelight takes a chance to rush back into the crumbling observatory to get one last glimpse at the position of the ancient orrery, the player can claim Inspiration since the character's flaw is "I'd risk too much to uncover a lost bit of knowledge." The player would then have to play to the character's trait, ideal, or bond before earning Inspiration on the flaw again.

 

[Lanliss]

On condition that we take this as constructive criticism. The trap an RP-rewarding mechanic like Inspiration can fall into is that the DM is the judge of what constitutes 'good RP,' and thus who deserves the reward. It can turn the game into a 'please'/manipulate the DM exercise. Worst case, the players are like trained monkeys dancing for the DM's amusement. It's not a serious problem in 5e, because a DM who can handle 5e's Empowerment can be trusted to use such a system judiciously and to enhance the play experience, rather than 'abusing' it.

But there are also suggested rules for players awarding inspiration. You could modify them a bit, and make it so that the whole table runs a quick vote, so it essentially becomes "make everyone happy" which is the whole goal of the game anyway.

 

[Maxperson]

3e had 'Rule 0,' but the community of the day was not wonderfully accepting of it, and generally saw it, really, something like you seem to still see it: as something that had to be done formally, up-front, and stuck to like a legal precedent. /Very/ different from the more open 'rulings no rules' motto that seems to be winning some acceptance in the 5e era.

Rule 0 is the same Rulings Over Rules. It just had bad packaging that resulted in the bolded. 5e just packaged it in a way that changed the perception of those playing the game and made them more accepting of it.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

This question is like asking if I want an umpire to intentionally miss a call. After all, calling a runner out at the plate in a tie game allows for a more dramatic game, right?

 

[Maxperson]

This question is like asking if I want an umpire to intentionally miss a call. After all, calling a runner out at the plate in a tie game allows for a more dramatic game, right?

It's not like that at all.

 

[Hussar]

This question is like asking if I want an umpire to intentionally miss a call. After all, calling a runner out at the plate in a tie game allows for a more dramatic game, right?

While you and I rarely see eye to eye on anything, I think this nails it pretty well.

Note, Maxperson and others aren't wrong when they say that fudging is included in DM advice. It is. But, for me it's poor advice.

How do you feel about putting fudging in the player's hands via things like action points or the like. 5e already has some effects like this- reactive spells for instance or Inspiration.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Rule 0 is the same Rulings Over Rules.

Rule 0 was 'feel free to change the rules,' but Rulings no Rules is feel free to overrule the rules on a case-by-case basis. The former lets you play a different version of the game with a little work up front - more different the more rules you change. The latter lets you customize the experience as you go, no up-front changes required.

 

[Maxperson]

Rule 0 was 'feel free to change the rules,' but Rulings no Rules is feel free to overrule the rules on a case-by-case basis. The former lets you play a different version of the game with a little work up front - more different the more rules you change. The latter lets you customize the experience as you go, no up-front changes required.

The 1e DMG tells you to understand the rules and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement. Then it gives an example of ignoring a wandering monster roll that indicates a wandering monster on the fly as it comes up. That's not just changing the rules. That's Rulings Over Rules. 3e in the adjudicating section of the DMG says that the DM can supersede the rules, overturning them. That's not house ruling. That's Rulings Over Rules. 2e was no different.

The only difference between those editions and 5e is the packaging of Rulings Over Rules.

 

[Skyscraper]

In my games, players "claim" Inspiration rather than get it from the DM. If a player invokes an established personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw during a scene, he or she can simply take Inspiration. In order to earn further Inspiration during that game, the player must invoke some different trait, ideal, bond, or flaw.

For example, if the hermit cleric Wanda Curelight takes a chance to rush back into the crumbling observatory to get one last glimpse at the position of the ancient orrery, the player can claim Inspiration since the character's flaw is "I'd risk too much to uncover a lost bit of knowledge." The player would then have to play to the character's trait, ideal, or bond before earning Inspiration on the flaw again.

This is too meta for my taste. I prefer freeform storytelling. There's enough meta in battles already, I'd prefer not to include any in the RP.