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

[Nytmare]

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.

On the off chance that there's anyone out there who is interested in my line of thinking: maybe I didn't do my homework and didn't look at the table ahead of time, maybe the party is only second level and is vastly underpowered to handle a fight with a lich, maybe liches don't make sense in this location, maybe liches don't exist in this campaign, maybe there's one lich in the story and he's the BBEG, maybe they just fought five liches in the other room.

Or maybe, as is usually the case with a list, I choose something off the list that makes sense to the story, but instead of starting at one and and reading through every item, I roll and start looking near where I rolled and pick the first thing I like.

 

[Zak S]

On the off chance that there's anyone out there who is interested in my line of thinking: maybe I didn't do my homework and didn't look at the table ahead of time, maybe the party is only second level and is vastly underpowered to handle a fight with a lich, maybe liches don't make sense in this location, maybe liches don't exist in this campaign, maybe there's one lich in the story and he's the BBEG, maybe they just fought five liches in the other room.

Or maybe, as is usually the case with a list, I choose something off the list that makes sense to the story, but instead of starting at one and and reading through every item, I roll and start looking near where I rolled and pick the first thing I like.

Unless the players had some way of knowing (and thus relying on) the encounter table in its entirety, I don't consider this fudging because the encounter table's not a "rule". It's a tool--a thing the GM uses for convenience sake that the players are not really basing decisions about tactics on.

Like: where it says how much a longsword does, that's a rule. The table you use to decide which weapons the monsters are carrying that you made or that the module made is not really a rule--it's just a thing you use to help make decisions.

Rules are things that need to be relatively stable for tactical and strategic conditions to be legible. A lot of random tables just happen the same mechanical bots as rules (ie dice and numbered lists).

If, on the other hand, the players knew there was a lich here and knew they might randomly encounter one at any time, then turning a lich encounter into a non-lich encounter is fudging. Because that was a risk the players chose to take and the consequences of that risk were nullified. Example: Players want to play x legendarily difficult module as written because they want to see if they can beat it.

 

[Hussar]

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.



/snip

And this, right here, is why I'm so vehemently against fudging. The player is 100% right not to trust you. You ARE fudging. But, when asked about it, so that I can make an informed decision about whether or not I find this acceptable and want to play at your table, I get booted from the table.

And this is acceptable?
[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], we talked about this and here is why I question the practicality of the player bringing it up.

 

[Maxperson]

And this, right here, is why I'm so vehemently against fudging. The player is 100% right not to trust you. You ARE fudging. But, when asked about it, so that I can make an informed decision about whether or not I find this acceptable and want to play at your table, I get booted from the table.

There hasn't been a single person yet in any thread that has proven that fudging is wrong or untrustworthy.

 

[Zak S]

There hasn't been a single person yet in any thread that has proven that fudging is wrong or untrustworthy.

It's not wrong or untrustworthy, it simply creates an experience that many people would prefer not to have.

Anyway, can you answer the questions I asked you above?--it would help clarify your position

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

There hasn't been a single person yet in any thread that has proven that fudging is wrong or untrustworthy.

That is likely because no one has tried to prove that fudging is untrustworthy. There are only people that have pointed out the fact that fudging, and not being clear with your players that it is a thing which you do occasionally even/especially if they directly ask you if you do, is untrustworthy.

 

[Maxperson]

That is likely because no one has tried to prove that fudging is untrustworthy. There are only people that have pointed out the fact that fudging, and not being clear with your players that it is a thing which you do occasionally even/especially if they directly ask you if you do, is untrustworthy.

It's really too bad for you that what you just said isn't a fact at all. It's just your opinion.
[MENTION=90370]Zak S[/MENTION]

I'm not ignoring you. I'm trying to formulate a good answer for your second question. It happens so rarely that I really don't track those events, so I don't have anything specific to reference.

 

[Zak S]

This is a thing a person can say and believe and can have a conversation about:

what you just said isn't a fact at all. It's just your opinion.

This is being mean to someone who wants to talk to you about games for no good reason:

It's really too bad for you that what you just said isn't a fact at all. It's just your opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

This is a thing a person can say and believe and can have a conversation about:


This is being mean to someone who wants to talk to you about games for no good reason:

You're right. He's just been acting that way towards me a lot lately and I give what I get.

 

[Zak S]

Well right now we're discussing how to play a game.

And not even a part of it that touches on anybody calling anyone racist, sexist, or a Kickstarter thief, so probably any kind of animosity is uncalled for.

I get that he is implying you're dishonest, Maxperson --which is a serious charge, but in this particular case I think you can address that (and all of is would benefit most from a conversation where you address that, because this is a perennial forum topic on every game forum) without raising the temperature.

 

[Skyscraper]

I'm not sure what you mean - battles include roleplaying since you're making decisions your character might also make. Inspiration is just a reward for making decisions consistent with established characterization (specifically, personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws from backgrounds). For example, if the soldier fighter has a flaw of "My hatred for my enemies is blind and unreasoning," then rushing headlong into a nasty fight without preparation means the player is roleplaying consistent with established characterization - and that's worthy of Inspiration in my view. If that's a thing one wants in the game, then creating an incentive to do it makes sense. If you don't want the DM to sit in judgment of it (or, if you're like me, and don't want to keep track of 12 to 16 background traits), however, then you can leave it to players acting in good faith to award it to themselves.

I'm all for flavorful RP. What I don't like is that there is an incentive of the DM, namely one of the players around the table; and then the PC (a character) receives a reward in the form of a bonus for another action, simply because the RP by another player was consistent with the PC's background. That's metagaming. You can like that it works this way, but to me it's metagaming.

I also don't like that the player will be conditioned to play along predetermined lines of RP because that's what will get him the candy. I prefer to let the players create whatever they wish.

 

[iserith]

I'm all for flavorful RP. What I don't like is that there is an incentive of the DM, namely one of the players around the table; and then the PC (a character) receives a reward in the form of a bonus for another action, simply because the RP by another player was consistent with the PC's background. That's metagaming. You can like that it works this way, but to me it's metagaming.

Are you referring to how Inspiration can be earned by one player and given to another who hasn't earned it? Because I don't advocate that.

I also don't like that the player will be conditioned to play along predetermined lines of RP because that's what will get him the candy. I prefer to let the players create whatever they wish.

How do you like experience points then? Do they not condition players to fight monsters and overcome noncombat challenges? Or, if you're using milestone XP, follow the storyline?

Or is your objection to the example personality traits, ideals, bond, and flaws in the PHB? (Which are just that - examples. Players can make their own and they can even change over time as the character develops.)

 

[Zak S]

I've never seen xp condition anyone to do anything. Players just do whatever.

Once in a while they'll go "Ok, what next?" and someone will go "Well there's gold behind that monster..." but that's about it.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

He's just been acting that way towards me a lot lately and I give what I get.

If anything I've said has read as meanness directed at you, I place the cause of that with you choosing to assume that I am being mean when you could just as easily assume I intended some other tone - since tone doesn't transfer well in text without certain word choices like the "too bad for you" that you chose to include (and even then, I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are just arguing your point, not trying to belittle me).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I've never seen xp condition anyone to do anything. Players just do whatever.

I've seen a few players alter their behavior to match what they perceive gives them the highest number of XP in the shortest amount of time or least amount of effort, though my experience mirrors yours that players mostly just do whatever.

 

[thom_likes_gaming]

Incidentally, I just finished GMing a modulefor our group and asked the players to fill in a survey that, among others, contained just this question. Outcome: 5/5 players voted "No!". So, I'll keep rolling rolls out in the open (except stuff like secret perception checks or whatever)

 

[DEFCON 1]

Okay, so finally one of the three fudging threads has fallen off the first page, so I admire the tenacity of everyone still trying to make this such an issue worthy of continued discussion that two of them are remaining active. But isn't the fact they both seem to have devolved into [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] vs. The World that perhaps it's run it's course? I mean... I dropped out of the convo a while ago since I said my piece on the subject and everyone who was against me just plays the game differently than I do (so none of their reasons to explain why what I did wasn't a good course didn't actually refer to my playstyle). Is there really anything worth it to say on the subject that hasn't already been said (and disagreed with to no avail?)

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, so finally one of the three fudging threads has fallen off the first page, so I admire the tenacity of everyone still trying to make this such an issue worthy of continued discussion that two of them are remaining active. But isn't the fact they both seem to have devolved into [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] vs. The World that perhaps it's run it's course? I mean... I dropped out of the convo a while ago since I said my piece on the subject and everyone who was against me just plays the game differently than I do (so none of their reasons to explain why what I did wasn't a good course didn't actually refer to my playstyle). Is there really anything worth it to say on the subject that hasn't already been said (and disagreed with to no avail?)

Since when are a couple people the world?

 

[Zak S]

Is there really anything worth it to say on the subject that hasn't already been said (and disagreed with to no avail?)

Since we don't yet know the answer to either of these questions:

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?

and

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.

...and the purpose of discussion is to walk away knowing more than you started then, yes, by definition there is some thing worth it to say on the subject that hasn't already been said.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There hasn't been a single person yet in any thread that has proven that fudging is wrong or untrustworthy.

There's no way to 'prove' it as it's a value judgment, it's just a matter of whether you can tolerate or accommodate alternate views.

For instance, when asked, I said that, yes, a player who wasn't comfortable with the idea of 'fudging,' should bring it up, and that I'd be able to meet him at least half-way, by taking rolls that only affected his character out from behind the screen. (I'd note that in that same hypothetical there was no suggestion that other things, like monster stats for example, get the same treatment, the issue seems to be primarily one of comfort with the random element.)

Going much further than that would cross a line between accommodating the preferences one player, and letting one player dictate to the whole table how to play the game.