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

[Tony Vargas]

Claiming that a die being heard rolling around behind the screen doesn't say to the player "that die roll meant something" is another lie.

To reply to what you were presumably trying to say: no, concealing information from the players - such as whether a die roll made behind the screen was relevant to the resolution at hand, or what role it played in that resolution, is not lying. The DM has lots of information the players don't, it's part and parcel of a game like 5e.

If a player asks a direct question about something he has no business knowing, the DM might 'lie' to him by giving him false information rather than reminding him that his character doesn't know or that it's not something he needs to know. Depends on the DM and the player.

"Reeeally? What did you roll on that?"
"Natural 23."

Yes, exactly - and since finding out that you are being lied to by someone and being left to wonder what else they say to you is a lie isn't fun, I don't get why anyone would choose to incorporate risk of that event occurring in their attempts to have fun.

Again, that's mis-characterizing the inequality of information between DM and player as a 'lie.'

No system is perfect, and it's entirely possible that 'seeing the wires' that the DM is using to keep things playable can mar the experience for some - again, very often the ones most in need of such wires to keep the experience fun.

If you actually think that is how a person that doesn't fudge has to run their game, you are mistaken to a shocking degree.

You're assuming this is some kind of us/them dichotomy, and that DMs either always run way or another. You may always run your games a certain way, and more power to you for being consistent. I've run campaigns where everything is 'above board,' and others where lots of it is behind the screen. I know perfectly well the advantages and pitfalls of each.

A potentially interesting thought exercise: If classic D&D didn't include the DM advice that dice are only rolled for the sound they make, if D&D rulebooks had never addressed fudging dice rolls (not in a positive light as they do, nor a negative light), would it be popular opinion that rolling a die when the result of that die has no bearing at all is a sensible thing to do?

There are a lot of things in D&D, both in print in 5e specifically, and in the slowly-fluctuating zietgeist of the community in general, that are only there because they were in classic D&D.

In this case, I think the scope, mechanics, balance, and other qualities of classic D&D (and 5e, today) would still lead many DMs to taking portions of the resolution process behind the screen. It's certainly the way I prefer to run 5e, very fluid and improvisational and with a screen (and all that implies), thankyouverymuch. Other eds and systems I've found work seamlessly run more 'above board,' but even with those, I've come back to having a little old school fun with 'em after running 5e for a while.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

To reply to what you were presumably trying to say: no, concealing information from the players - such as whether a die roll made behind the screen was relevant to the resolution at hand, or what role it played in that resolution, is not lying. The DM has lots of information the players don't, it's part and parcel of a game like 5e.

Firstly, don't presume that I was trying to say something - I said exactly what I meant with the words I chose.

You are falsely equating all information concealed by the DM, that is evidently why you are having trouble understanding what I've been saying.

If a player asks a direct question about something he has no business knowing, the DM might 'lie' to him by giving him false information rather than reminding him that his character doesn't know or that it's not something he needs to know. Depends on the DM and the player.

This statement has nothing to do with the topic as far as I can tell.

Again, you are willfully and knowingly mis-characterizing the inequality of information between DM and player as a 'lie.'

I am not. I am, I thought clearly, considering inequality of information and outright lies as separate things.

For example, rolling a die and the player having no idea what the die was being rolled for (maybe it's a stealth check for a monster, maybe it's a random chance of a certain event, maybe it's the DM flipping a coin to decide between two equally interesting things, etc.) is inequality of information - the DM knows what the die meant, while the player only knows that the die roll meant something. While rolling a die that doesn't mean anything, it's just being rolled for the sound it makes, and letting the player believe that the die roll meant something is a different thing entirely because it is a lie - not just inequality of information, but the presentation of information for the purpose of deception.

No system is perfect, and it's entirely possible that 'seeing the wires' that the DM is using to keep things playable can mar the experience for some - again, very often the ones most in need of such wires to keep the experience fun.

"Seeing the wires" is, in my experience, less marring to the experience, and for less people, than realizing that your DM lied about X and thus might be lying about anything/everything else.

You're assuming this is some kind of us/them dichotomy, and that DMs either always run way or another.

No, I'm not.

In this case, I think the scope, mechanics, balance, and other qualities of classic D&D (and 5e, today) would still lead many DMs to taking portions of the resolution process behind the screen. It's certainly the way I prefer to run 5e, very fluid and improvisational and with a screen (and all that implies), thankyouverymuch. Other eds and systems I've found work seamlessly run more 'above board,' but even with those, I've come back to having a little old school fun with 'em after running 5e for a while.

Again, I'm not talking about taking some resolution behind the screen - I'm specifically talking about pretending you are using one sort of resolution, dice, when you aren't.

Also, a screen does not imply everything you think it implies - I use a screen for the majority of games systems I run, and all it inherently implies is this: I like having commonly used reference stuff easily accessible during the session.

I would still like to see your (and anyone else's) answer to the question I ask in my thought exercise.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

It's funny you'd choose the word 'bounded,' when Bounded Accuracy is one of the factors making 5e encounter guidelines a little less dependable and consistent than they might be. The same effect (the d20 being able to 'overwhelm' the bounded bonuses) that's behind the perks BA delivers is also what makes the outnumbered multiplier in the encounter guidelines necessary, and as you note, makes those guidelines less dependable.

I guess it's a tad ironic, but on balance, BA is still a notably popular aspect of 5e.

 

[Lehrbuch]

A potentially interesting thought exercise: If classic D&D didn't include the DM advice that dice are only rolled for the sound they make, if D&D rulebooks had never addressed fudging dice rolls (not in a positive light as they do, nor a negative light), would it be popular opinion that rolling a die when the result of that die has no bearing at all is a sensible thing to do?

I think it wouldn't be considered a sensible option then (although, I don't consider that a sensible thing to do in this world either).

However, even in that world, I would think it perfectly acceptable for the DM to roll the dice, but then choose to ignore the result, if she thinks that the rolled result would be "un-fun". In practice, that is something that I do only very rarely, and only if a statistically unlikely rolled result would severely disadvantage the PCs (accidentally cause a boring TPK or similar).

Generally, I find that as DM even if I roll a result that is terrible for the PCs it turns out to be more fun to let it happen, but then not be unduly obstructive of the PCs desperate attempts to recover. Indeed, many of my most memorable and exciting in-play moments are related to the party cleverly recovering from disaster.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

However, even in that world, I would think it perfectly acceptable for the DM to roll the dice, but then choose to ignore the result, if she thinks that the rolled result would be "un-fun".

...but why would the DM not remove the potential results that would be "un-fun" before making a roll?

Why choose a random chance that you'll ignore the result because you find it unacceptable over a guarantee that all possible results are acceptable?

 

[Lehrbuch]

...but why would the DM not remove the potential results that would be "un-fun" before making a roll?

Why choose a random chance that you'll ignore the result because you find it unacceptable over a guarantee that all possible results are acceptable?

In my experience, as DM, because the DM is an idiot and he didn't think things through.

The usual time it comes up, for me, is "rolling a large number of dice damage and getting an unexpectedly high total".

As I said, though, it's actually usually a lot of fun to just let unexpected disasters happen and then sit back and watch how the PCs cleverly recover. It just requires the DM to not panic and have some faith in the resourcefulness of the players/PCs.

 

[Maxperson]

Claiming that a die being heard rolling around behind the screen doesn't say to the player "that die roll meant something" is another lie.

No it isn't. It's just a technique.

 

[Maxperson]

I am not. I am, I thought clearly, considering inequality of information and outright lies as separate things.

There is no lie. If a roll and decide a hit was a miss and announce it as a miss, that is what happened. I didn't lie to the player. It was a miss and I said it was a miss. My not accepting the result of a die roll is not a lie to anyone.

 

[Nytmare]

Forgive me for a completely anecdotal tangent:

If asked independently and individually, my old stable of 3rd Ed players would easily have pointed to a single night's adventure as the "best session" of our 4 or 5 year Scarred Lands/Bane Warrens campaign. After months and months of playing, they finally got the upper hand over their enemies, and tracked them and the current MacGuffin to their secret base. They planned and plotted a stealthy assault and crawled, combat round to combat round, into and through the rotting and abandoned lighthouse their enemies were hiding in. Stealth checking, lock picking, flanking and outmaneuvering, accompanied by me mapping and rolling, checking my notes. Asking for perception rolls, rolling dice, looking at NPC character sheets, grabbing miniatures, double checking the stealth rules, noting exactly where light sources illuminated to.

And the place was completely empty.

I don't give a crap if I was outright lying to them, and after they found out that I was, neither did they. It thrilled them, and if that makes me a bad DM, so be it.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

No it isn't. It's just a technique.

A technique for deception.

There is no lie. If a roll and decide a hit was a miss and announce it as a miss, that is what happened. I didn't lie to the player. It was a miss and I said it was a miss. My not accepting the result of a die roll is not a lie to anyone.

Now you are lying to yourself, Max.