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

[iserith]

"The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery."

"One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee."

"Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."

- Basic Rules, page 2

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Yep, much like the umpire or referee and the players tell a story. Miracle on Ice is one of the greatest sports stories ever told. So is the Jackie Robinson story, which would have been a pretty crappy story if some racist umpire had fudged the rolls and called Jackie out every time he came to bat.

 

[Nytmare]

Yep, much like the umpire or referee and the players tell a story. Miracle on Ice is one of the greatest sports stories ever told. So is the Jackie Robinson story, which would have been a pretty crappy story if some racist umpire had fudged the rolls and called Jackie out every time he came to bat.

It's written right there in the rules. No one is saying you have to like it, or expecting you to play by those rules against your will, but there's little reason to insist that there's malevolent intent behind the people who decide to do it that way, and refusing to acknowledge that their motivations or the end result might not be positive.

- Nytmare, the Chaotic Good Racist Umpire





[EDIT] Any chance of this being a lesser known corollary to Goodwin's Law?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Sorry, that's not an argument. I'm not saying no one can ever fufge either. The point of this thread was to assess how many people fudged and how many people didn't and their reasons for doing so. I'm somehow wrong for posting my thoughts? I haven't accused anyone of "malevolent intent." I'm saying I won't play in a game where an umpire intentionally misses a call or a dm who fudges a roll. And yes, I believe such a game experience is inherently a poorer one. The baseball analogy is a good one. If you are not going to abide by the roll of the dice, why roll the dice at all? Or take the results you don't want out of the equation. I wouldn't want to play in such a game. To continue the baseball analogy, it would be like playing in a game where you would ignore strikes and outs and the home team always wins.

 

[Maxperson]

Except that he has. He has turned an out into a run or a perfect game into a one hitter - nah, that could never happen.

Note that reality has not been changed when he does that. Reality is that he made a bad call and people know it. A similar action by the DM would be as follows.

DM: The knight swings his sword and decapitates your character. He misses!

That doesn't happen, though. The game reality is that when you fudge, there was never a hit to change into a miss. It was always a miss.

 

[Maxperson]

Incorrect. Fudging means something that would have gone against you goes for your or vice versa.

At no point did I claim it must always equal 'you winning.'

"you realize there's no point to thinking as it provides no benefit, and it ceases to be a challenge, just you waiting for the GM to decide to let you win."

You should be more careful with your words then. You did in fact equate fudging with winning.

What I said was it removes challenge--because challenge proceeds from the knowledge that your decisions matter. Fudging changes the degree to which they matter, thus lowering the amount of challenge whether its win or lose or just adding difficulty or reducing difficulty.

So if I fudge a miss into a crit, it got less challenging for you? Also, your decisions do still matter when I fudge a roll. Given that I only fudge rolls when extreme bad luck invalidates your actions, and then only enough to make your actions matter again, your actions would always matter in my game.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

That doesn't happen, though. The game reality is that when you fudge, there was never a hit to change into a miss. It was always a miss.

In other words, there was never an opportunity to decapitate him. So why describe it as such? For instance, if a dm doesn't want a lich to show up on a random encounter check, he should not fudge the result. The lich shouldn't be on the chart in the first place if he's going to ignore it. If it's always a miss, why are dice needed?

 

[Nytmare]

In other words, there was never an opportunity to decapitate him. So why describe it as such? For instance, if a dm doesn't want a lich to show up on a random encounter check, he should not fudge the result. The lich shouldn't be on the chart in the first place if he's going to ignore it.

"Whoa! There's a lich on this random encounter table? That doesn't make sense. Ah look the next thing on the list is 1d4 racist umpires, that makes way more sense since they're at a baseball game. I'll use that instead."

 

[JRRNeiklot]

"Whoa! There's a lich on this random encounter table? That doesn't make sense. Ah look the next thing on the list is 1d4 racist umpires, that makes way more sense since they're at a baseball game. I'll use that instead."

I've played and ran games with a lich on the random encounter table. Explain to me why that could never make sense? There's never a chance for the lich to come home while the pcs are looting his lair?

You know what, nevermind. My ignore list, that's going on 16 years just got it's 2nd entry.

 

[Maxperson]

In other words, there was never an opportunity to decapitate him. So why describe it as such? For instance, if a dm doesn't want a lich to show up on a random encounter check, he should not fudge the result. The lich shouldn't be on the chart in the first place if he's going to ignore it. If it's always a miss, why are dice needed?

I'm not sure why you are saying that. I was just pointing out what the equivalent to the umpire action would be in D&D, not what I describe. Fudging =/= what umpires do when they get calls wrong.

 

[Zak S]

"you realize there's no point to thinking as it provides no benefit, and it ceases to be a challenge, just you waiting for the GM to decide to let you win."

You should be more careful with your words then. You did in fact equate fudging with winning.

Let me amend this so it's clearer to you:

As soon as you are aware the DM will fudge, you know it's less imperative to think, so you think less (the situation is less under your control) and you just wait for the DM to tell you that you won (Or, though this is less common in my experience, lost.)

So if I fudge a miss into a crit, it got less challenging for you?

If I become aware that this is your habit: yes.

I cease to imagine myself in a world where I must think as hard as possible because my actions and my weighing of consequences and become aware I am basically waiting for a GM's presentation to play out in my favor or against it.

Also, your decisions do still matter when I fudge a roll. Given that I only fudge rolls when extreme bad luck invalidates your actions, and then only enough to make your actions matter again, your actions would always matter in my game.

Yes. They would just matter LESS (EDIT:my choice of action, by definition, included weighing the possibility of "extreme bad luck")

This is a gradient: the more impartial the judge, the more the player feels their actions must be carefully thought out.


Not everyone likes things to be that competitive and tense. I do.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

No, it's not equal, but it is analogous to an umpire INTENTIONALLY makes the wrong call. At any rate, I'm just stating my opinion, that fudging is never acceptable, and I will not play in a game where it exists. As always, you are free to disagree, and I wish you well in your gaming. Now, I'm off to slay a racist Schrodinger's umpire lich.

 

[Zak S]

Like, the decision to fight a monster ALWAYS includes the realization the monster might roll a 20 and then max damage. By getting into a fight I have made the choice to risk that.

Taking away the consequences of my extreme bad luck is taking away my choice to engage that situation.

If I don't like that situation, then I would play a game where it was harder for extreme bad luck to hurt me, or make sure before the game started a house rule about that was in place. That way the circumstances surrounding the probabiities of success and failure are:
-known to me
and thus
-can be incorporated into my thinking

 

[iserith]

"Whoa! There's a lich on this random encounter table? That doesn't make sense. Ah look the next thing on the list is 1d4 racist umpires, that makes way more sense since they're at a baseball game. I'll use that instead."

Or consider, "Hmm, a lich. That's interesting. Let me come up with a good reason for this monster to turn up on the fly and present a fun, memorable challenge for my players to overcome.

 

[Maxperson]

Let me amend this so it's clearer to you:

As soon as you are aware the DM will fudge, you know it's less imperative to think, so you think less (the situation is less under your control) and you just wait for the DM to tell you that you won (Or, though this is less common in my experience, lost.)

First, you are assuming that you will every be aware. Second, unless you know HOW the DM fudges, you don't know any such thing. If you were in my game, that would be a very poor and incorrect assumption on your part. If you think less as a result, your character would likely end up dead.

If I become aware that this is your habit: yes.

So now something that I've never done in my life is a habit? What nonsense are you going to tell me next? I can't wait.

Yes. They would just matter LESS (EDIT:my choice of action, by definition, included weighing the possibility of "extreme bad luck")

Extreme bad luck has nothing to do with your actions. Sorry.

 

[Zak S]

First, you are assuming that you will every be aware.

While it is entirely within the realm of possibility that you could hide fudging forever, I have never seen anyone do it. And it would be kind of creepy to be playing every week with someone who lied to you.

Second, unless you know HOW the DM fudges, you don't know any such thing.

Incorrect: any fudging in any direction means my decisions matter less.

So now something that I've never done in my life is a habit? What nonsense are you going to tell me next? I can't wait.

I don't understand. In your example: a fictional GM is fudging (we are using "you" as verbal shorthand for the example). I am telling you the consequences of that. None of this has anything to do with your biography.

Extreme bad luck has nothing to do with your actions. Sorry.

It completely does: choosing to play D&D means choosing to play a game where fights might happen and you might take x damage from y spell and z chance of failing a save etc. The extreme bad luck result is part of the rules of the game.

There ARE games where extreme bad luck cannot result in death. Or house rules that can mitigate it (allowing 1 reroll per game, for instance). If I have chosen not to play one of those games or not to play with said house rules then I have 100% chosen to play in a game where extreme bad luck can kill me (or do all kinds of other things I may or may not want in the sort term). If I didn't want that, I would be playing a different game.

I have chosen, as a player, a level of caution equal to the 1 in 20 chance of a crit (or whatever the chance in the system is).

Taking a monster's Natural 20 away from me is negating my choice to play a risky game.

 

[Maxperson]

While it is entirely within the realm of possibility that you could hide fudging forever, I have never seen anyone do it. And it would be kind of creepy to be playing every week with someone who lied to you.

1) It's not a lie.
2) It's RAW.
3) It's not even remotely every week.

I don't understand. In your example: a fictional GM is fudging (we are using "you" as verbal shorthand for the example). I am telling you the consequences of that. None of this has anything to do with your biography.

Fair enough.

It completely does: choosing to play D&D means choosing to play a game where fights might happen and you might take x damage from y spell and z chance of failing a save etc. The extreme bad luck result is part of the rules of the game.

The game itself doesn't take such extremes into account and breaks when they happen.

There ARE games where extreme bad luck cannot result in death. Or house rules that can mitigate it. If I have chosen not to play one of those games or not to play with said house rules than I have 100% chosen to play in a game where extreme bad luck can kill me (or do all kinds of other things I may or may not want in the sort term). If I didn't want that, I would be playing a different game.

I'm not talking about survivable extremes. I don't fudge situations that aren't extreme and turn out to result in PC death.

Taking a monster's Natural 20 away from me is negating my choice to play a risky game.

And I'm certainly not talking about a simple natural 20.

 

[Zak S]

1) It's not a lie.

Fudging isn't a lie. But if I ask a GM if they fudged and they say they don't, that is a lie.

And I'll ask.

2) It's RAW.

Never relevant.

3) It's not even remotely every week.

If a GM fudges, they might fudge any time we play.

The game itself doesn't take such extremes into account and breaks when they happen.

Please define "breaks" as specifically as you can.

In my experience as GM and player for a very long time, I have never seen this happen.

 

[Maxperson]

Fudging isn't a lie. But if I ask a GM if they fudged and they say they don't, that is a lie.

And I'll ask.

If you did ask, I'd ask you to leave the game. Not because of fudging, but because a player who doesn't trust the DM has no place in a game.

Never relevant.

I disagree.

If a GM fudges, they might fudge any time we play.

I fudge once every 6 months to a year on average.

Please define "breaks" as specifically as you can.

Exceeds the mathematical bounds of the encounter to such a great degree that it is going to kill off the party no matter what they do or have done. The game designs encounters based on level and the math reflects that. Since it does, it's impossible for it to take extremes into account.

In my experience as GM and player for a very long time, I have never seen this happen.

I have

 

[Zak S]

If you did ask, I'd ask you to leave the game. Not because of fudging, but because a player who doesn't trust the DM has no place in a game.

So this is the hypothetical:

You fudge.

I ask "Do you fudge?"

You go "You are out of the game for not trusting me"
(Even though you do actually fudge.)

Is that right?

Exceeds the mathematical bounds of the encounter to such a great degree that it is going to kill off the party no matter what they do or have done. The game designs encounters based on level and the math reflects that. Since it does, it's impossible for it to take extremes into account.

Can you give an example? I can't think of any situation like that which wouldn't require extreme railroading.