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

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

Agreed. Because in order to arrive at an answer we would have to first determine if every rule in every situation in this game produces the 'correct' result. Or from a different perspective, a 'fair' result.

That is also basically impossible to answer before determining what fair is. What are we trying to accomplish with the rules? The way they are written, most of us would probably agree they are relatively fair most of the time. But using a d20 as the primary design element is more likely to provide 'unfair' results than a pool of dice, for example. It can certainly be more exciting, but a 20th level character that dies because of a failed climbing check doesn't seem inherently 'fair' for example. At least not to a lot of people.

So the best we can do is have a discussion about under what circumstances fudging is acceptable to most people when playing this particular ruleset. There will always be a few that say 'never,' and that's fine.

For me, the purpose of the rules is to provide a bit of impartial randomness to determine the outcome os situations that usually have far more (known and unknown) variables than we can account for. I like the rules to be able to reasonably model what I would expect in a magic-capable fantasy world based on our world.

Some places where this fails for me (which is where I add house rules) are things like injuries, disease, and other maladies that have a significant impact for a longer amount of time than hit points simulate. But that's an actual change to the rules. We are looking solely at whether or not, once the rules are in place, if that die roll, that 'impartial randomness' is sacred and should never be questioned.

I think it should. Occasionally. One example is a mistake or miscalculation made by the DM. One could say that this is just part of the world, 'fate' if you will, but others feel that a mistake made on the part of the DM shouldn't penalize the players or their characters.

Another situation would be the absurd. That 20th level character that rolls a '1' on their climb check, and doesn't have a safety net (like feather fall) to save them. In the current rules, a '1' isn't automatic failure for a skill check, but this is an event that could happen (Strength drained character for example). One could argue that this is a situation where it is again set up by a 'mistake' of the DM. That is, if you aren't willing to accept the consequences of a failed check, then don't make a check. Even if that consequence is that you don't think it's possible for them to fail the check.

Another thread is perhaps helpful here. In that thread, a character is reduced to a '0' Intelligence by an intellect devourer, but isn't killed. There is no mechanism in the rules to regain the Intelligence outside of magic the party doesn't have, and might not have for several sessions. The DM won't allow a second character, since this one hasn't died, so does the player just hang out at the table to several sessions, or do they 'fudge' a solution (assuming that the paladin and cleric in question won't willingly kill the character).

The consensus in that thread is that the player should be provided an option to play, whether that's changing the state of her character, or some other means (like a second character). Many suggest that the situation shouldn't have existed to start, that is a DM mistake. Other than the original post, I don't think anybody advocated that 'them's the rules, so deal with it.' So there is some tolerance to change (fudge) the situation to make it workable.

So the question that most likely applies to most groups is not whether or not fudging of any sort is allowed or not, but to what extent? Should the players know that the fudging occurred? Does it fundamentally change the quality and enjoyment of the game? Why?

There's another way to look at it. Suppose that the table rule is no fudging. Period. Now, you come across a situation that the rule doesn't account for. You follow the rules religiously (no fudging), and then decide after the fact to change the rule. This is the approach generally taken by professional sports. But if the rule is going to change, because the inadequacy of the rule is recognized by the group, why not make that change immediately, or at least 'fudge' things to make it acceptable and work out the details afterwards? It's not a competition, and we aren't trying to maintain the integrity of performance statistics from one decade to the next. Is this really necessary?

For D&D, and more specifically the OD&D, BECMI, 1st, 2nd, 5th and to a large degree the 3rd editions, I'd say no. Why am I pulling out those editions specifically? Because the basic underlying concept of the game includes that of the DM as a referee, to make judgement calls, interpret the rules, and apply them. The DM has the authority to override the results if they determine they do not fit.

Of course, for Original D&D and BE(CMI) this was largely out of necessity. There are just a lot of things that aren't covered in the rules, and the DM has to wing it. As 2nd and 3rd edition added more and more rules, it simultaneously made it more difficult to wing it (because you might contradict a rule, or upset balance), and reduced the acceptance for the DM overriding an existing rule or fudging because it's, well, against the rules.

Another factor that has come into play with the complexity of the rules is that there are a lot more rules for the players now. Through 1st edition in particular, the expectation was that the DM knew the rules, and would handle that side of things. The players needed to know their spells, AC, and hit points. They didn't even have the attack matrices originally. So they just rolled and asked 'did I hit?' Now that the players know more about the rules (in some cases more than the DM), and the rules often require interpretation, there are questions about how those rules are interpreted, and the players and the DM don't always agree.

Mistrust of the DM is more likely to occur when players think the DM is singling them out, that that remarkable string of attacks and hits against their character isn't fair and the DM must be picking on them. Perhaps a DM fudges by adding a few more creatures, or bumping up hit points because they determine that an encounter is way too easy. Not my preference, but I could roll with it. On the other hand, a DM bumping up an attack roll by a monster would be unacceptable, cheating, and a good sign that the DM has a 'me against them' attitude. This is the type of circumstance that makes groups roll all dice in the open. But that approach also takes away some unknowns (was my Perception or Investigation check high enough that I know there is nothing there, or did I just roll poorly?), but it also makes it much harder, although not impossible, for the DM to fudge. He can still change stats, add or remove monsters, etc. but if that creature just scored a critical on the last character standing and the only one who can stabilize and save the rest of the party, there's no changing that if the dice are in the open.

On the other hand, most people would consider 'fudging' by a player to be cheating, so why isn't it cheating for the DM? My answer would be that the DM has to manage an entire world's worth of rules and checks, and that sometimes, whether by DM mistake, poorly written rules, or other situations that aren't taken into account just prior to the roll create a result that is considered unacceptable by the DM.

Ironically enough, most of the actual fudging that I've seen is in the player's favor. So perhaps it's more of a question of whether it's fair between players, rather than fair to the game? To make sure the DM isn't playing favorites?

And I guess I don't really get that, because I've never been in a situation where the group felt that there was even the possibility that I'm singling somebody out or being unfair. Sure, there have been a player or two, as well as a few rulings, but the rest of the group have just said, no, there's no issue, and we're sticking with the way we play (with many of the rolls in secret).

So to me, the fundamental nature of the game requires some leeway on the part of the DM, whether that applies to dice rolls, or modifying encounters on the fly, is very situational. These are much less likely to come up in short casual play, and much more likely to be not only necessary, but important to the campaign for a long-running campaign.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Zak S]

It can certainly be more exciting, but a 20th level character that dies because of a failed climbing check doesn't seem inherently 'fair' for example. At least not to a lot of people.

...and it does to a lot of other people.

Those diverging opinions appeared about 20 seconds after D&D was invented. What's interesting is why opinions differ, not the naked fact that they do.

Also:

There's another way to look at it. Suppose that the table rule is no fudging. Period. Now, you come across a situation that the rule doesn't account for. You follow the rules religiously (no fudging), and then decide after the fact to change the rule. This is the approach generally taken by professional sports. But if the rule is going to change, because the inadequacy of the rule is recognized by the group, why not make that change immediately, or at least 'fudge' things to make it acceptable and work out the details afterwards? It's not a competition, and we aren't trying to maintain the integrity of performance statistics from one decade to the next. Is this really necessary?

If the rules don't cover something, you make a call and then make sure everyone is cool with it and then move on and keep it consistent forever or until everyone in the group is ok with changing it.

This is unrelated to fudging.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

If the rules don't cover something, you make a call and then make sure everyone is cool with it and then move on and keep it consistent forever or until everyone in the group is ok with changing it.

This is unrelated to fudging.

So the circumstance where the DM realizes that there is no rule in 5th ed to handle a character being reduced to 0 Intelligence, so the DM modifies the roll to lose only 2 Intelligence instead of 3, so the player is left with 1 when the intellect devourer is killed isn't related?

I think that the DM recognizing situations like that are exactly where they might choose to fudge rather than deal with the shortcoming in the rules.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Zak S]

So the circumstance where the DM realizes that there is no rule in 5th ed to handle a character being reduced to 0 Intelligence, so the DM modifies the roll to lose only 2 Intelligence instead of 3, so the player is left with 1 when the intellect devourer is killed isn't related?

I think that the DM recognizing situations like that are exactly where they might choose to fudge rather than deal with the shortcoming in the rules.

Ilbranteloth

In the situation you just described, the GM fudges.

I the situation I describe above, the GM "deals with the shortcoming of the rules" by making a new rule and getting it ratified, which isn't fudging.

Those are two different things. If I misinterpreted your original comment I apologize.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Again, I really have to ask, when you do something secretly that you KNOW the people around you don't want you to do, and the reason you keep it secret is to prevent them from having any input into what you are doing, how is that not inherently dishonest?

And, again, we have [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s reaction to being questioned about fudging is to boot me from the table. I'm thinking that that might make me somewhat reluctant to bring it up. My other alternative is to be treated like a pariah at the table, every single session, where the DM has to roll in front of me and only me, but, everything else is done behind the screen. Again, not exactly fostering a healthy table.

Why is "Please let the dice fall where they may" such a horrible thing? I'm "dictating" to the table? Not at all, since the table isn't fudging, only the DM. What if two players say no fudging? Does that matter? Simple majority? What?

AFAIC, if one person at the table says, "Hey, I don't like this, can we not do it" then we don't do it. End of story. No player should be forced to play in a way they don't want. Especially when the issue at hand is something that is so easily fixable.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

In the situation you just described, the GM fudges.

I the situation I describe above, the GM "deals with the shortcoming of the rules" by making a new rule and getting it ratified, which isn't fudging.

Those are two different things. If I misinterpreted your original comment I apologize.

No need to apologize, you were correct as well. There is more than one 'solution' to a given scenario. The question still remains as to whether one is better than the other, and I'm still not sure there is a right answer. Just group preference.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Zak S]

No need to apologize, you were correct as well. There is more than one 'solution' to a given scenario. The question still remains as to whether one is better than the other, and I'm still not sure there is a right answer. Just group preference.

Ilbranteloth

Yeah it's definitely a taste issue, the interesting question is what you gain and lose with each approach.

As far as I can tell you lose things the challenge-oriented player wants by fudging and lose things the drama-oriented player values by not fudging.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Again, I really have to ask, when you do something secretly that you KNOW the people around you don't want you to do, and the reason you keep it secret is to prevent them from having any input into what you are doing, how is that not inherently dishonest?

And, again, we have [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s reaction to being questioned about fudging is to boot me from the table. I'm thinking that that might make me somewhat reluctant to bring it up. My other alternative is to be treated like a pariah at the table, every single session, where the DM has to roll in front of me and only me, but, everything else is done behind the screen. Again, not exactly fostering a healthy table.

Why is "Please let the dice fall where they may" such a horrible thing? I'm "dictating" to the table? Not at all, since the table isn't fudging, only the DM. What if two players say no fudging? Does that matter? Simple majority? What?

I agree, you shouldn't do something secretly that you know others don't want to do.

"Please let the dice fall where they may" is not a horrible thing. It's just a thing. Just like folks who prefer to let the DM have the right to fudge should they feel it's necessary. Neither is inherently right or wrong.

The problem you are describing is one of consensus. First, as a DM, if the question arises I will happily tell them that there are occasions, as rare as they may be, that I might consider fudging the dice. If the players object, then I certainly don't have to do that, and that's fine. I can roll with that. But what if they players don't come to a consensus. I think majority rules in this situation makes sense, but if it's a two for and two against, then at my table it's likely to swing in the favor of fudging, simply because I'm the deciding vote.

AFAIC, if one person at the table says, "Hey, I don't like this, can we not do it" then we don't do it. End of story. No player should be forced to play in a way they don't want. Especially when the issue at hand is something that is so easily fixable.

If the rest of the table doesn't care, sure. But your assumption is that your objection to not allowing it is not met by somebody else's objection to allow it. Now what, you're at a table where one person objects and says that all dice must be rolled in the open, and somebody else who doesn't want to force that. Sure it's only the DM potentially fudging the dice, but that doesn't mean the rest of the table isn't entitled to a vote. Then it's not easily fixable.

What if that objection is by the DM? Why should the say of one player override the DM? Why isn't it "I'm inviting you to come play in my sandbox, and here are the rules"?

I'm not saying I wouldn't choose to accommodate that player, but why should it be the default? Shouldn't the other players have a say? How much time should each person have to make their case before a ruling is made and the game can commence?

Does it apply for every rule? What if the DM doesn't allow optional rules? No feats. No uncommon races. Does that mean that you're entitled to bring a drow ranger, or a variant human with crossbow expertise simply because you're one player who says "Hey, I don't like this"?

Does it apply to every table? If you sat down at Ed Greenwood's, Chris Perkins, Mike Mearls, or Ernie Gygax's table, would you feel entitled to be the deciding vote of one?

I'm happy to agree to not fudge, and if I agree to it, I won't. But I've been playing a long time, and I really feel that for certain types of rolls, the players shouldn't see the results. I much prefer that when you are using a lot of skills, such as investigation, perception, deception, persuasion, etc. that you don't see the roll. So I'm not a big fan of all rolls being in the open.

If that's what the group wants, then fine, I'll go with it. If it's just a single player, then it's a bit tougher. I don't want to single out somebody, but on the other hand, why am I forced to change my well-established game and methods at the behest of one player? Even if the rest of the group is indifferent?

The reality is, if you were to sit at my table, I suspect we might differ in approach in a lot of ways. In which case it might make sense for one or the other to decide that we aren't a good match. I'm always willing to give it a try, but I also think there is no shame in two adults deciding that they are playing two different games and amicably go their own way.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to get a sense as to what you, or others for that matter, consider fair when a choice like this comes up. I certainly don't agree with the "boot you from my table" approach, but I'm not sure a one-player veto is the answer either.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Maxperson]

Again, I really have to ask, when you do something secretly that you KNOW the people around you don't want you to do, and the reason you keep it secret is to prevent them from having any input into what you are doing, how is that not inherently dishonest?

I would not do something secretly that I KNOW the people around me don't want me to do. Fortunately, I don't have to worry about that. Also, if only one person doesn't want it, I can try to keep that in mind and not fudge against that person, but I'm not going to stop completely for just one person.

And, again, we have [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s reaction to being questioned about fudging is to boot me from the table. I'm thinking that that might make me somewhat reluctant to bring it up. My other alternative is to be treated like a pariah at the table, every single session, where the DM has to roll in front of me and only me, but, everything else is done behind the screen. Again, not exactly fostering a healthy table.

It's a matter of approach. If someone says to me, "I was online and a discussion about fudging came up and I agreed with those that didn't like it.", that would be fine. That's just expressing an opinion and not a lack of trust in the DM. Direct questioning about whether I do it or not shows a lack of trust, and I'm not going to have someone in the game that doesn't trust me. That's just asking for game disruption and I won't do that to myself or the rest of the players. The player with the lack of trust should really want to go find another game anyway. Nobody should have to play with a DM they don't trust.

AFAIC, if one person at the table says, "Hey, I don't like this, can we not do it" then we don't do it. End of story. No player should be forced to play in a way they don't want. Especially when the issue at hand is something that is so easily fixable.

No player should also force his way on all of the others, either. If one player wants me to do something one way, and the other three don't, the one player is out of luck. If three want something one way and one doesn't, the one is out of luck. If it's a tie, I break the tie.

The exception is if the other three agree to go along with what the one player wants, even if they don't want it done. I play with a group of close friends, so this is usually, but not always the case.

 

[Nagol]

<snip lots>

There's another way to look at it. Suppose that the table rule is no fudging. Period. Now, you come across a situation that the rule doesn't account for. You follow the rules religiously (no fudging), and then decide after the fact to change the rule. This is the approach generally taken by professional sports. But if the rule is going to change, because the inadequacy of the rule is recognized by the group, why not make that change immediately, or at least 'fudge' things to make it acceptable and work out the details afterwards? It's not a competition, and we aren't trying to maintain the integrity of performance statistics from one decade to the next. Is this really necessary?

<snip more>

For the group to judge acceptability, it needs to know (a) the current expected state and (b) the proposed new state. If there is a problem and the DM informs the group and solicits its input to institute a change, it is not being fudged. If it is being fudged, it is not conforming to what the group thinks is a new appropriate ruling, it is conforming to what the DM alone thinks is appropriate in the heat of the moment. Indeed, it is unlikely the group will ever be informed that such a ruling and expectation change occurred.

Mistrust of the DM is more likely to occur when players think the DM is singling them out, that that remarkable string of attacks and hits against their character isn't fair and the DM must be picking on them. Perhaps a DM fudges by adding a few more creatures, or bumping up hit points because they determine that an encounter is way too easy. Not my preference, but I could roll with it. On the other hand, a DM bumping up an attack roll by a monster would be unacceptable, cheating, and a good sign that the DM has a 'me against them' attitude. This is the type of circumstance that makes groups roll all dice in the open. But that approach also takes away some unknowns (was my Perception or Investigation check high enough that I know there is nothing there, or did I just roll poorly?), but it also makes it much harder, although not impossible, for the DM to fudge. He can still change stats, add or remove monsters, etc. but if that creature just scored a critical on the last character standing and the only one who can stabilize and save the rest of the party, there's no changing that if the dice are in the open.

It is not mistrust. When we agree to the campaign to play, we agreed to the rules that would be used to adjudicate action and consequence. The DM has a lot of latitude as to how to apply those rules. So much, in fact, that alteration of fate as decreed by the dice after the DM has assigned the probabilities and stakes is gilding the lily. Making the alteration covertly and not informing the group about the change starts to place the DM's preferences for result above the group's.

On the other hand, most people would consider 'fudging' by a player to be cheating, so why isn't it cheating for the DM? My answer would be that the DM has to manage an entire world's worth of rules and checks, and that sometimes, whether by DM mistake, poorly written rules, or other situations that aren't taken into account just prior to the roll create a result that is considered unacceptable by the DM.

Ironically enough, most of the actual fudging that I've seen is in the player's favor. So perhaps it's more of a question of whether it's fair between players, rather than fair to the game? To make sure the DM isn't playing favorites?

<snip more>

I don't want to be saved. I'm running my character to the best of my ability. If it fails or falls, so be it. Generally, my group doesn't want to be saved. We are acting through the situations to the best of our abilities and if we fail that simply leads to new situations to explore. If we fall, so be it. There's always the next group or a new campaign.

 

[Nytmare]

How would people react to a house rule that gave a DM an inspiration die any time a character leveled up? Or what about an ability that worked like the halfling's Luck ability?
[MENTION=6673408]Zak[/MENTION]_S would you consider an ability like that to make your decisions worthless?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Again, I really have to ask, when you do something secretly that you KNOW the people around you don't want you to do, and the reason you keep it secret is to prevent them from having any input into what you are doing, how is that not inherently dishonest?

And, again, we have [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s reaction to being questioned about fudging is to boot me from the table. I'm thinking that that might make me somewhat reluctant to bring it up. My other alternative is to be treated like a pariah at the table, every single session, where the DM has to roll in front of me and only me, but, everything else is done behind the screen. Again, not exactly fostering a healthy table.

Why is "Please let the dice fall where they may" such a horrible thing? I'm "dictating" to the table? Not at all, since the table isn't fudging, only the DM. What if two players say no fudging? Does that matter? Simple majority? What?

I agree, you shouldn't do something secretly that you know others don't want to do.

"Please let the dice fall where they may" is not a horrible thing. It's just a thing. Just like folks who prefer to let the DM have the right to fudge should they feel it's necessary. Neither is inherently right or wrong.

The problem you are describing is one of consensus. First, as a DM, if the question arises I will happily tell them that there are occasions, as rare as they may be, that I might consider fudging the dice. If the players object, then I certainly don't have to do that, and that's fine. I can roll with that. But what if they players don't come to a consensus. I think majority rules in this situation makes sense, but if it's a two for and two against, then at my table it's likely to swing in the favor of fudging, simply because I'm the deciding vote.

AFAIC, if one person at the table says, "Hey, I don't like this, can we not do it" then we don't do it. End of story. No player should be forced to play in a way they don't want. Especially when the issue at hand is something that is so easily fixable.

If the rest of the table doesn't care, sure. But your assumption is that your objection to not allowing it is not met by somebody else's objection to allow it. Now what, you're at a table where one person objects and says that all dice must be rolled in the open, and somebody else who doesn't want to force that. Sure it's only the DM potentially fudging the dice, but that doesn't mean the rest of the table isn't entitled to a vote. Then it's not easily fixable.

What if that objection is by the DM? Why should the say of one player override the DM? Why isn't it "I'm inviting you to come play in my sandbox, and here are the rules"?

I'm not saying I wouldn't choose to accommodate that player, but why should it be the default? Shouldn't the other players have a say? How much time should each person have to make their case before a ruling is made and the game can commence?

Does it apply for every rule? What if the DM doesn't allow optional rules? No feats. No uncommon races. Does that mean that you're entitled to bring a drow ranger, or a variant human with crossbow expertise simply because you're one player who says "Hey, I don't like this"?

Does it apply to every table? If you sat down at Ed Greenwood's, Chris Perkins, Mike Mearls, or Ernie Gygax's table, would you feel entitled to be the deciding vote of one?

I'm happy to agree to not fudge, and if I agree to it, I won't. But I've been playing a long time, and I really feel that for certain types of rolls, the players shouldn't see the results. I much prefer that when you are using a lot of skills, such as investigation, perception, deception, persuasion, etc. that you don't see the roll. So I'm not a big fan of all rolls being in the open.

If that's what the group wants, then fine, I'll go with it. If it's just a single player, then it's a bit tougher. I don't want to single out somebody, but on the other hand, why am I forced to change my well-established game and methods at the behest of one player? Even if the rest of the group is indifferent?

The reality is, if you were to sit at my table, I suspect we might differ in approach in a lot of ways. In which case it might make sense for one or the other to decide that we aren't a good match. I'm always willing to give it a try, but I also think there is no shame in two adults deciding that they are playing two different games and amicably go their own way.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to get a sense as to what you, or others for that matter, consider fair when a choice like this comes up. I certainly don't agree with the "boot you from my table" approach, but I'm not sure a one-player veto is the answer either.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah it's definitely a taste issue, the interesting question is what you gain and lose with each approach.

As far as I can tell you lose things the challenge-oriented player wants by fudging and lose things the drama-oriented player values by not fudging.

Speaking only for my game, I only fudge about once every 6 months to a year, and then only to bring the combat back into being at least possible to win. Even then only if it happens due to extreme bad luck. Winning itself is far from guaranteed. That means that the challenges are still there for the challenge oriented player. The extreme rarity of fudging and the light hand with the fudging doesn't impact the game enough to matter.

I've been wracking my brain and I still don't have a clear example for you. The best I can do is to say that if bad luck strikes, say several crits in a short period of time on my end, while the other side isn't doing well with their rolls, it will sometimes put the party in a position where there is no chance of survival, even if they have made all the right choices and used great tactics. If at that point another crit happens against the healer and the crit will put him down with nobody else able to do anything, AND if the shape of the party compared to the monsters shows that there's just no way that they can win if the healer goes down, I will fudge that roll into a miss or a normal hit. I will also only do it for non-important encounters. The party going down fighting against the BBEG is great story, even if due to bad luck. The party going down to a group of ogres they encounter on the way is not. The former the players will appreciate, the latter they will not.

 

[Nagol]

So the circumstance where the DM realizes that there is no rule in 5th ed to handle a character being reduced to 0 Intelligence, so the DM modifies the roll to lose only 2 Intelligence instead of 3, so the player is left with 1 when the intellect devourer is killed isn't related?

I think that the DM recognizing situations like that are exactly where they might choose to fudge rather than deal with the shortcoming in the rules.

Ilbranteloth

I faced that situation in 1E. A thought eater fed on the party's ranger and dropped her Int below the min class requirements. We converted the character to a Fighter in much the same way a Paladin is converted if it no longer meets the class requirements. That character went on for another 5 levels as one of the party's best and most loved fighters before there was a chance to repair the damage. The player declined the repair and used the boon for a goal more important at the time.

Fudging the result might seem like a good case of charity for the player. The setback and support of the other PCs ended up helping bond the player and PC in a way success hadn't.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Agreed. Because in order to arrive at an answer we would have to first determine if every rule in every situation in this game produces the 'correct' result. Or from a different perspective, a 'fair' result.

Doubt *anything*--even that--would do it. For those who like fudging, not just neutrally accept it, its goodness is almost an axiom. "Proving" axioms are not merely special cases but outright wrong is hard enough in an objective thing like math, and downright impossible in something like taste.

So the best we can do is have a discussion about under what circumstances fudging is acceptable to most people when playing this particular ruleset. There will always be a few that say 'never,' and that's fine.

I don't even think that is possible--too many divergent opinions. We can only discuss when individuals find it acceptable or not.

Some places where this fails for me (which is where I add house rules) are things like injuries, disease, and other maladies that have a significant impact for a longer amount of time than hit points simulate. But that's an actual change to the rules. We are looking solely at whether or not, once the rules are in place, if that die roll, that 'impartial randomness' is sacred and should never be questioned.

It's not the "impartial randomness" that is "sacred" (I really hate people ascribing that to the "no fudging ever" position, but it's happened so many times it seems pointless to disagree anymore)--not to me anyway. It's the decision to let the dice make the determination. THAT is what is "sacred" (again: totally inappropriate word in this context). If you *ask* the dice to decide, then you should abide by that decision. If you don't want the dice to decide, don't ask for the dice. Use *something else*--whatever else you prefer.

I think it should. Occasionally. One example is a mistake or miscalculation made by the DM. One could say that this is just part of the world, 'fate' if you will, but others feel that a mistake made on the part of the DM shouldn't penalize the players or their characters.

"Sorry guys, I made a mistake, ignore that" is not, in my view, fudging. It is the DM being honest with her players. Sure, it shows a teeny tiny bit of the sausage-making, but it also shows the DM is both human and, in a certain sense, humble despite the power given her. It also helps a huge^billion amount that the DM is openly saying "Sorry guys, I screwed up, let's fix this" and not secretly monkeying with things to make sure her mistakes are never discovered. If the latter is what you're talking about, I consider it almost worse than most kinds of fudging, because it seems that the only reason to do it that way (rather than admitting the mistake) is to maintain the illusion of being a perfect DM who never makes mistakes, and that seems pretty clearly "selfish."

Another situation would be the absurd. That 20th level character that rolls a '1' on their climb check, and doesn't have a safety net (like feather fall) to save them. In the current rules, a '1' isn't automatic failure for a skill check, but this is an event that could happen (Strength drained character for example). One could argue that this is a situation where it is again set up by a 'mistake' of the DM. That is, if you aren't willing to accept the consequences of a failed check, then don't make a check. Even if that consequence is that you don't think it's possible for them to fail the check.

See above for my agreement with that "one could argue" bit, however there are also (at least) two other options:
1) "Failure" doesn't equate to "falling off." "Failure" could mean "you're barely holding on and have a sudden keen awareness of how far above the ground you are. Next time you can act, you'll be filled with fear. You can either take a short breather to steady yourself and definitely be ready to keep climbing the round after, or you can try to make a Wisdom save or Charisma save at that point and if you succeed you can continue acting then."
2) The roll isn't a pass/fail, but rather a progress estimator. You're still climbing, but it's slow going--you're not finding many handholds, the rock face is more crumbly than you expected or slopes weirdly in the direction you tried to climb, etc. You were always going to succeed--you're a 20th-level character, you just don't fall off while climbing something like this anymore--but a natural 1 signifies minimal progress.

There are probably more ways to go about it.

Another thread is perhaps helpful here. In that thread, a character is reduced to a '0' Intelligence by an intellect devourer, but isn't killed. There is no mechanism in the rules to regain the Intelligence outside of magic the party doesn't have, and might not have for several sessions. The DM won't allow a second character, since this one hasn't died, so does the player just hang out at the table to several sessions, or do they 'fudge' a solution (assuming that the paladin and cleric in question won't willingly kill the character).

The consensus in that thread is that the player should be provided an option to play, whether that's changing the state of her character, or some other means (like a second character). Many suggest that the situation shouldn't have existed to start, that is a DM mistake. Other than the original post, I don't think anybody advocated that 'them's the rules, so deal with it.' So there is some tolerance to change (fudge) the situation to make it workable.

...but that's not fudging. Offering the possibility of a solution outside those present in the standard rules is not "fudging." I've repeatedly and consistently defined it in ways that 100% exclude any kind of thing like that. And while I don't think total transparency prevents fudging, the fact that this hypothetical situation results in a DM-player/DM-group discussion and shoots for a consensus resolution DOES seem to make it something I wouldn't consider "fudging."

There's another way to look at it. Suppose that the table rule is no fudging. Period. Now, you come across a situation that the rule doesn't account for. You follow the rules religiously (no fudging), and then decide after the fact to change the rule. This is the approach generally taken by professional sports. But if the rule is going to change, because the inadequacy of the rule is recognized by the group, why not make that change immediately, or at least 'fudge' things to make it acceptable and work out the details afterwards? It's not a competition, and we aren't trying to maintain the integrity of performance statistics from one decade to the next. Is this really necessary?

You keep using that (bolded) phrase. I disagree that it means what you think it means.

Deciding not to employ the rules in the first place, or deciding to create a new solution by table consent/consensus, is just about the diametric opposite of what I would call "fudging." Others, of course, may agree with you. But every time I have argued against "fudging" it has had exactly nothing, zip zero nada 0%, to do with creatively solving a problem in an open, direct manner--even if that means choosing *not* to employ the rules or dice (again, in the first place).

Mistrust of the DM is more likely to occur when players think the DM is singling them out, that that remarkable string of attacks and hits against their character isn't fair and the DM must be picking on them. Perhaps a DM fudges by adding a few more creatures, or bumping up hit points because they determine that an encounter is way too easy. Not my preference, but I could roll with it. On the other hand, a DM bumping up an attack roll by a monster would be unacceptable, cheating, and a good sign that the DM has a 'me against them' attitude. This is the type of circumstance that makes groups roll all dice in the open. But that approach also takes away some unknowns (was my Perception or Investigation check high enough that I know there is nothing there, or did I just roll poorly?), but it also makes it much harder, although not impossible, for the DM to fudge. He can still change stats, add or remove monsters, etc. but if that creature just scored a critical on the last character standing and the only one who can stabilize and save the rest of the party, there's no changing that if the dice are in the open.

While trust is vital in any relationship, it's not really about trust or "favorites-playing" to me, and rather about (a) players being able to make informed decisions, (b) players learning from their past experiences, (c) both players and DM learning how to manage risk, and (d) DMs learning how to handle unexpected or undesirable results in ways that support the first three things. Secret rolling is fine, a useful tool for certain circumstances, and has no negative effect on any of (a)-(d). Fudging, on the other hand, decouples the in game "reality," so that what was true becomes false and what was correct becomes wrong. This decoupling or "retconning" if you will, should it occur purely in secret, abrogates the connection between the players' choices (and, more importantly, their reasons for those choices) and the results of those choices. Even if the players' choices were only "wrong" because of poor risk management, they were still wrong, and negating those negative results means not learning good risk management (and potentially even encourages bad risk management in the future).

On the other hand, most people would consider 'fudging' by a player to be cheating, so why isn't it cheating for the DM? My answer would be that the DM has to manage an entire world's worth of rules and checks, and that sometimes, whether by DM mistake, poorly written rules, or other situations that aren't taken into account just prior to the roll create a result that is considered unacceptable by the DM.

And as I've said several times: I have yet to see a single example of these situations that cannot be addressed, 100% perfectly satisfactorily, by a DM that refuses to fudge. In other words, I have never seen a single example situation where fudging was absolutely necessary to resolve a problem, whereas every single instance of fudging could be a problem for one or more players. Why do something that has a good chance of offending someone, when there are other alternatives that accomplish the same ends but don't have that risk?

Ironically enough, most of the actual fudging that I've seen is in the player's favor. So perhaps it's more of a question of whether it's fair between players, rather than fair to the game? To make sure the DM isn't playing favorites?

Oooor a question of, as I have said many, many times now, whether doing it is a crutch for the DM and a blinder for the players. Given the way you've structured these questions, TBH, it's a little hard to believe that you are truly taking the "no fudging ever" perspective seriously. Like I said: you've taken it as axiomatic that some fudging must be good--and therefore "no fudging ever" must, axiomatically, be incorrect without investigation or commentary.

So to me, the fundamental nature of the game requires some leeway on the part of the DM, whether that applies to dice rolls, or modifying encounters on the fly, is very situational. These are much less likely to come up in short casual play, and much more likely to be not only necessary, but important to the campaign for a long-running campaign.

Depending on what you mean by "modifying encounters on the fly," I have no problem with that, either, and have thus not been arguing against it in the slightest. I have, in fact, repeatedly stated that I am okay with modifying the long-term consequences of a fight before it is resolved, having monsters take rationally appropriate but non-optimal choices (e.g. monster tries to flee with its 'food' rather than keep fighting, enemies try to revive their allies rather than kill all enemies first, etc.), eliminating/reducing/increasing fights that have not come to pass yet in response to players doing remarkably awful/poorly/well, etc. If, on the other hand, you are including things like "add HP to a monster so that it does not fall to 0 HP," "pretend that a crit or hit is actually a miss," etc. then, as I said above, I have yet to hear of a situation where such actions are the ONLY response, despite having presented numerous alternatives that involve no such DM "manipulation."

The game reality is that when you fudge, there was never a hit to change into a miss. It was always a miss.

And that is a huge part of why it bothers me. Retconning the world in secret. See above. Just wanted to make sure this was clearly called out, since I made reference to it.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I faced that situation in 1E. A thought eater fed on the party's ranger and dropped her Int below the min class requirements. We converted the character to a Fighter in much the same way a Paladin is converted if it no longer meets the class requirements. That character went on for another 5 levels as one of the party's best and most loved fighters before there was a chance to repair the damage. The player declined the repair and used the boon for a goal more important at the time.

Fudging the result might seem like a good case of charity for the player. The setback and support of the other PCs ended up helping bond the player and PC in a way success hadn't.

That's a bit different, but very cool.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Nytmare]

I faced that situation in 1E. A thought eater fed on the party's ranger and dropped her Int below the min class requirements. We converted the character to a Fighter in much the same way a Paladin is converted if it no longer meets the class requirements. That character went on for another 5 levels as one of the party's best and most loved fighters before there was a chance to repair the damage. The player declined the repair and used the boon for a goal more important at the time.

Fudging the result might seem like a good case of charity for the player. The setback and support of the other PCs ended up helping bond the player and PC in a way success hadn't.

You do see how that same story can be attached to a character who had had their intelligence dropped to 1 due to a fudged roll and end up with the same exact ending, just a different moral?

 

[Zak S]

How would people react to a house rule that gave a DM an inspiration die any time a character leveled up? Or what about an ability that worked like the halfling's Luck ability?

[MENTION=6673408]Zak[/MENTION]_S would you consider an ability like that to make your decisions worthless?

If the table agrees to a rule before play, it's never "making my decisions worthless". Theoretically we all are already taking the halfling ability or the DM inspiration into account when making decisions.

It is qualitatively different to introduce odds that are not the odds I signed up for when the game began.

 

[Zak S]

(...at arbitrary times--the 2 abilities you describe are limited)

 

[Nagol]

You do see how that same story can be attached to a character who had had their intelligence dropped to 1 due to a fudged roll and end up with the same exact ending, just a different moral?

Yes, but it probably wouldn't still be brought up in our group as one of the legendary stories. I've noticed campaigns run by known non-fudgers (there are three of us but one rarely ran and probably won't any more) tend to generate stories among the players disproportionately frequently.

I don't know what the moral of the fudged version would be: don't kill PCs, just cripple them as the player may still want to play the character?