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

[Zak S]

No, that's not 100% the case. It's a lot of the time, but it's also often a question as to what's 'fair' or at least seems fair. One way of looking at what's fair is noted in the 1st edition DMG - that is, let the freakish roll stand, because the players will have freakish rolls from time-to-time as well.

But another way of looking at whether that is fair or not is the fact that the players will have far more attack rolls made against them, then they will against any given creature. That is, if going by strict statistics, the players should always die eventually during the course of the game. Is that fair?

The player decides what is fair by deciding to play the game. Deciding to play D&D without fudging is saying "I think this is fair and these are the odds I want to play by".

But now we're once a week for about 3 hours a week, statistics aren't our friend. At least not for the sort of epic story that ties these specific characters closely together.

Then you have (pretty explicitly) just stated that right now you are more interested in the in-game drama then in the challenge.

It's ok to prioritize that, but abolishing some outcomes always means that: you prioritize something else over challenge.

I was not the one that discussed the minor over major encounter.

Yeah, so that comment wouldn't really be relevant to your concerns.

Others state that challenge-oriented players are naturally against fudging. I'd also question that. If they don't know fudging is happening, how would that alter their perception?

I already said it wouldn't above. However:

-They often figure it out. Or otherwise "just get the feeling" this game isn't as hard as their other games
-Many will ask.
-If they ask and you don't tell them you're being dishonest.
-More important than any of this: Know that the reason you're doing it is you're willing to risk sacrificing challenge for some other value.

But the reality is that not fudging is also disallowing a possibility the rules allow, which is, well, fudging.

Incorrect, it's house-ruling.
Fudging is changing a die rule's result mid-game, but not altering the rules forever after (i.e. not taking "20=crit" out of the rules). House ruling is making a change that you tell the players about that is consistent forever or until the players are informed of (and, in a well-run table, ratify) that change.

Totally different thing.

If fudging is against the rules, that's one thing. But it's not. Explicitly so.

We are not discussing what RAW is. Everyone knows that. We are discussing what effects fudging (a thing allowed in the DMG to enable a variety of playstyles that nobody I know uses--like bards) has on the game.

So since they are both allowed by the rules, then the question becomes who gets to make that decision?

Again: outside the scope of the discussion. Hopefully everyone at the table has agreed to every rule or rule change. Including whether the GM will be given discretionary power to fudge at chosen moments.

 

[SailorNash]

Personally, I'm okay with it only in limited amounts, and only if the players NEVER find out. It's anticlimactic to see a beloved character offed by a kobold due to a lucky roll, before his epic quest comes to fruition. But by the same token sometimes bad things happen to good people for no real reason, and it kills any credibility an adventure had if you wade into "danger" knowing youre protected by Plot Armor.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

But it is still 100% true that THE REASON that you are fudging is 100% prioritizing in-game drama over something else. You openly stated that you were trying to go against "extreme bad luck"--a possibility all players could have included in their calcuclations, and one included in the game design.

Even if it were 100% true that the reason you are fudging is prioritizing the drama over something else, is that a problem? If so, why?

The possibility that the DM might fudge can also be included in the player's calculations as well, and is also included in the game design as is extreme bad luck.

Ultimately, it seems that the primary objection that I'm reading is that it's a person that is impacting a random event. The dice are impartial, the person isn't sort of thing.

Which is fine, but to my mind, the world cannot be simulated by straight random dice rolls. There are far too many variables that aren't taken into account, the inherent flaw of the absolute best thing that can happen and the absolute worse thing that can happen having an equal 5% chance, mistakes made by the players, the DM, and the game designers, imperfect dice that are not 100% random, whatever. So to me the dice are a perfect tool the majority of the time. But every once in a long while, they fail to be. A bit of human intelligence (such as it is) to supervise the dice, I guess. As the 'master of my world, adventures and rules' I'm OK with that. And the players in my games are too.

I also wonder about the different concepts of 'fair' that we all seem to have.

I find that people who are used to video games, to some degree 4th Edition (in which 'balance' is extremely important), Magic the Gathering and similar card games, the concept that each and every game follows the exact same rules, probabilities, etc. is extremely important. That sitting down at one table one day, and another next week, you can count on the dice being the final arbiter of all actions, combats, etc. This approach works particularly well for power gamers who want to optimize their skills, although not exclusively. Obviously this is a generalization, but I suspect a large number of the people that prefer no fudging (in addition to no rolls behind the screen) fit this group.

Where the story-telling, fail-forward, character development (in terms of background, personality, and non-stat specific elements) group of people, and often not involved in the activities I've outlined above are more likely to not even question if fudging might take place.

I know that I grow tired of most video games relatively quickly, along with MTG and power gaming because I find it very limiting. There are so many more options when not tied down to a rigid game system that doesn't allow variability outside of those dictated in the rules, and that's part of what has always made D&D and RPGs so much fun. For me it's not just that the world and possibilities are greater, but that the rules are too (I love tweaking and writing rules, house rules, etc., even if we never actually use any of them).

I guess it's almost like I prefer the game precisely because I don't like to follow the rules, so I like the rules to be more open-ended and strong guidelines instead of definitive 'musts' that are never altered. My goal is ultimately to make the game fun for the players, and while it does involve some presumption on my part into what they consider fun, I do the best I can to provide it. If the result of a die roll at a particular time feels 'wrong' then it makes me pause. I don't always change it, and I don't always react to it. But I have always considered the option open, probably because of a combination of learning the game that way, as well as being used to winging it when needed.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Zak S]

Even if it were 100% true that the reason you are fudging is prioritizing the drama over something else, is that a problem? If so, why?

No. I've said that several times in this thread. It's simply good to know the result of the rules you're using and the reason you decide to use them.

The possibility that the DM might fudge can also be included in the player's calculations as well, and is also included in the game design as is extreme bad luck.

Yes and the outcome of that calculation is "I don't have to think quite as hard to survive and get the game going where I want it to as I would if there were no fudging because the GM is occasionally pushing toward his or her own outcomes." That is: less challenge thinking.

Knowing the GM fudges tells the challenge-oriented player that the kind of thinking they like to do will be less rewarded and have less result on the fiction.

That's not the end of the world, but that is the effect.

Ultimately, it seems that the primary objection that I'm reading is that it's a person that is impacting a random event. The dice are impartial, the person isn't sort of thing.

Then you have been reading some other guy, not me.

Which is fine, but to my mind, the world cannot be simulated by straight random dice rolls.

Off topic. We're not talking about whether " a world can be simulated" we're talking about whether fudging leads to players thinking less in challenge-terms.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The player decides what is fair by deciding to play the game. Deciding to play D&D without fudging is saying "I think this is fair and these are the odds I want to play by".

Which is the exact same thing as the player who decides to play D&D with a DM that might fudge is saying "I think this is fair and these are the odds I want to play by."

We are not discussing what RAW is. Everyone knows that. We are discussing what effects fudging (a thing allowed in the DMG to enable a variety of playstyles that nobody I know uses--like bards) has on the game.

OK, but I am discussing "a thing allowed in the DMG to enable a variety of play styles" that virtually everybody I have ever played with personally in 30+ years does use.

Ironically, bards (yes, even including that beast of the 1st edition bard) have generally been the most favored class by players in my campaigns, including me. My main campaign has two rogues, two bards, a ranger, and a druid. One of the bards and one of the rogues have gone (actually, a prior druid also) since they players have other commitments.

You may not be discussing RAW, but I don't recall seeing a rules of this debate that indicate what is, and isn't, within the scope of the discussion. Nor would I ever presume that everyone knows what RAW are, not least because until I actually pulled out some rulebooks I didn't realize that fudging is actually within the RAW. Granted, I may be the only person on the planet that didn't know that, but I doubt it. And apparently I'm not everyone because I didn't know that.

Actually, no, I change that. We are discussing RAW because you and others are specifically saying that you don't like a RAW and that it shouldn't be used. Neither is a house-rule, because neither is changing the RAW, just selecting which rules are acceptable. So I guess I would call them table-rules - that at this table, at this point in time, these are the rules we're choosing to use from within the RAW.

Some in the discussion may be trying to convince others that their position is 'right.'

My personal input is to try to frame it around the fact that both are acceptable as RAW, and learn what objections others have against either position.

My ultimate goal is purely selfish in that I'm always looking for ways to improve my DMing, and so I like to dig deeper into what others think to understand better, and also dig deeper to understand why I do what I do.

The effect of fudging is simple. It alters the probabilities a bit. How much and how often depends on the DM that uses it. But I don't think we're discussing that either. It seems pretty clear that the greater 'we' are largely discussing our personal feelings about whether we like fudging or not, and why. Sure, if you want to define it as 'you risk sacrificing challenge for something else' I'm OK with that. Although sometimes the something else is more challenge, and a more challenging challenge than the original challenge (like, say, death, that's not terribly challenging, just final. At least for a while. Usually. It's not a challenge to role-play, though). But ultimately the question I ask again is, why is that bad?

Regardless of whether that assessment is accurate or not, challenge isn't (always) the defined purpose of the game. If challenge, as defined by the result of dice rolls untainted by DM fudging, is the purpose of the game, then the sessions in my campaign where we don't have a single die roll at all would be even worse, I'd guess.

I don't particularly care is players think, or even know if I fudged. Whether I gave them a bonus or penalty in my head or on paper before or after they made the die roll isn't really important. Sometimes somebody makes a roll and reminds me of a circumstance, or asks me if a certain circumstance matters. If I think it does, I modify the roll. Sometimes I think of it myself, after they make the roll. If that circumstance happens to be that they won't have access to raise dead for at least 20 (in world) days, in which case they'll have to find a cleric that can case resurrection, and it will be at least 3 or 4 sessions before the player can participate and might as well stay home, I might find an alternative. Having a traveling cleric in the middle of a vast abandoned and unknown catacombs suddenly appear and raise them seems more detrimental to me than just ignoring the massive damage critical at the time.

In fact, now that I think about it, it's not unusual for anything that I've fudged to turn into a house-rule that I tell the group about after the fact anyway. It's probably even rarer that I fudge a roll and the players don't know about it when I think about it. But I guess part of the reason they don't care is because if I do fudge, it's to their benefit. But then they aren't concerned about 'the challenge' or really the game itself. They are concerned about the characters and their story.

So sure, regardless of specifics of the fudge, it's mostly about the story. Well, about all of the players at the table to be able to participate in the story and not be dead at an inopportune moment. And that's pretty rare too, because of the nature of my house-rules and the world they populate.

If the purpose of the game was simply challenge, then you don't need a DM, or even a group. You sit down with your dice, your random dungeon tables, random encounter tables, and start rolling dice. A bit extreme and absurd, perhaps, but it's been done. There were several solo adventures published in the 2nd edition (Catacombs books) that allowed you to play a D&D game sans DM.

I don't fudge often, I think, but I have. Just been part of the way I learned to DM. So right now I'm considering should I change? What's the benefit? Perhaps I need to do it less, consider alternatives like fail-forward (or is that also fudging). In the end I don't really care what something is, or what it's called. But I do want to make sure what I do is helping make the games I run more enjoyable for everybody. And that would include not doing something that would offend others, although I can't say I think it's fair for a single voice to have veto power either.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Personally, I'm okay with it only in limited amounts, and only if the players NEVER find out. It's anticlimactic to see a beloved character offed by a kobold due to a lucky roll, before his epic quest comes to fruition. But by the same token sometimes bad things happen to good people for no real reason, and it kills any credibility an adventure had if you wade into "danger" knowing youre protected by Plot Armor.

I can agree to this until "kills any credibility" - have you ever watched a movie with a plot hole? Several? Or read a book like that? The reality is that there are moments in any fiction (just like life) where there's a bump in the suspension of disbelief. Bad things still happen to good people, and sometimes your PCs. The fact that it didn't happen that one time because of a gift from the gods, well look at it as the gift it is. There are plenty of people who have been in situations where they survive and have no explanation for it.

Actually, I guess this is a different way of looking at it. If the DM does fudge, and you do know about it, how does that affect the character? I suppose that's why none of the arguments against have really resonated with me, because when we play it's about what happens to the characters in their world, not what happens with the dice or the rules in our world. Just because you know why the character is in the position they are in, doesn't mean the position is any better or worse. For example, the character still narrowly escaped death, and must react to that 'reality' and how they move forward with it. What combination of rules, dice rolls, etc. that determined that state isn't really relevant. At least when the focus is from the character's perspective.

So I suppose that puts the story ahead of the dice, but not the challenge. There are plenty of ways a fudge can provide additional challenges. But it explains why it's never really something I considered even questioning before this thread. It's never been a problem. I can't definitively say that it wasn't a problem for the players, since I'm not in their head. But they've never been shy about calling out things they don't like.

In my experience, it's a useful tool. That's it. Sometimes the players know sometimes they don't. It's never seemed to have any effect on the credibility of the adventure, the sense of accomplishment (or challenge), etc. If it was protecting you every time you went into combat, it should have been part of the story line.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Zak S]

Which is the exact same thing as the player who decides to play D&D with a DM that might fudge is saying "I think this is fair and these are the odds I want to play by."

That proposition is not in doubt.

I am simply saying this player's #1 priority is not challenge.

OK, but I am discussing "a thing allowed in the DMG to enable a variety of play styles" that virtually everybody I have ever played with personally in 30+ years does use.

This is not a proposition that is in doubt. No need to say this.

So I guess I would call them table-rules - that at this table, at this point in time, these are the rules we're choosing to use from within the RAW.

Either way it's unrelated to the point.

Some in the discussion may be trying to convince others that their position is 'right.'

No position on WHETHER to fudge is "right".

It is 100% true that fudging is an action that works against the player sense of challenge and that is "right". It's also right. As in correct. That is the proposition we are discussing.

If you have some other value higher than challenge, then fudging might be right for your group.

My ultimate goal is purely selfish in that I'm always looking for ways to improve my DMing, and so I like to dig deeper into what others think to understand better, and also dig deeper to understand why I do what I do.

Yes, you said that in a previous comment. This is not a proposition that is in doubt. No need to say this.

Sure, if you want to define it as 'you risk sacrificing challenge for something else' I'm OK with that.

Then you are grasping the point I made.

But ultimately the question I ask again is, why is that bad?

Already addressed this: It's not bad. I've said that several times. For example, just above:

Even if it were 100% true that the reason you are fudging is prioritizing the drama over something else, is that a problem? If so, why?

No. I've said that several times in this thread. It's simply good to know the result of the rules you're using and the reason you decide to use them.

Regardless of whether that assessment is accurate or not, challenge isn't (always) the defined purpose of the game.

This proposition is not in doubt. There is no need to say this.

But then they aren't concerned about 'the challenge' or really the game itself. They are concerned about the characters and their story.

Exactly my point.

If the purpose of the game was simply challenge, then you don't need a DM, or even a group.

Wholly incorrect: The DM can create complex and interesting challenges far beyond what a procedure or machine could.

You have moved from

"I fudge because I don't prioritize challenge"

...which is a statement that makes sense and expresses your personal preference, and then moved into an overreaching statement that is not rational.

So right now I'm considering should I change?

No. You already said you and your group prefer pushing the story in a given direction over challenge.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Off topic. We're not talking about whether " a world can be simulated" we're talking about whether fudging leads to players thinking less in challenge-terms.

OK, fine - we, as in you and I, or you and whomever you are responding to, are talking about whether fudging leads to players thinking less in challenge-terms.

I agree and disagree. Regardless of whether I fudge rolls or not, the players are challenged. They are unsure as to whether the actions they take will succeed or fail, and by how much. Failure can include such horrific things as death. You personally might think that you would encounter less of a challenge in my games than other games that don't use fudging. That I might arbitrarily decide that a specific, isolated dice roll is inappropriate at the time does not diminish the challenges that the PC's face. They have to work, and think, and also hope that the dice gods are kind to them or they suffer significant consequences, up to and including death. They still have the primary impact upon the story, with perhaps a little nudge away from something that I object to. Not towards something, but away from something. Perhaps you have to think harder - am I on my own, or is something helping me?

Frankly, if the players ever got to the point that they thought I was helping them, then it would be too far. Turning an instant death into unconscious, for example, doesn't lessen the situation much. In my campaign you are suffering from at least one level of exhaustion following a near death experience, perhaps other more serious effects, and you still have to deal with the challenges at hand.

Not to mention, a random dice roll does not present a challenge at all. The first encounter in my last session was an attack against a 1st level PC by a bear. He didn't notice the bear, and got clobbered. The entire point of the encounter, since these were new people in my campaign, is that it's a challenging world. I wouldn't expect most people, even armed with a sword, to willingly attack a bear or tiger in melee combat, for example. In D&D they are often viewed as simply weak monsters. There's a monster, I attack it.

If the bear had rolled a critical, I would have ignored it. Why? Because I had no interest in killing a character in the first encounter after those characters had come together and decided upon their course together. It would have been disruptive and entirely unnecessary. On the other hand, the player (who had gone through and witnessed several mock combats with wooden swords immediately prior) didn't expect things to be so deadly or challenging (they had gotten lucky in the initial encounters). That single hit, with a potential fudge or not, was more than enough to set the stage for a challenging, dangerous, and exciting adventure.

OK, so I did it for story. Or because I was too lazy to start a new character. The truth is, the campaign is designed for public play and the expectation that different players will be present each week. So easy drop-in/drop-out, and each player rolled 3 characters. But he wanted to play this one, and I had no reason to start off with a killing blow. The player's perception (as explicitly stated) - this is a much more challenging campaign than the other ones I've played. And that was evident in the care and strategies that the players are using going forward.

The problem with a discussion as narrow as you would like to define it, is that this is then only a discussion about the players' perception, and the only people that can provide an answer are those players at that specific table.

I don't presume to speak for you or anybody else. I can tell you that the players I've DM'd over the years have not complained about whether or not I fudge, and in the vast majority of cases have never even asked. I can tell you that they have asked and complained about many, many other things. I can tell you that they have often thought that my campaigns are much more challenging than others they have played, and they have told me that.

So if this is what we are talking about, then I'd say that we have reached the extent of the discussion. You feel that it is less of a challenge when the DM fudges, presumably even once. I'm sure you know other people who agree with you. I expect that people in my campaigns won't care, past and present. We tend to gravitate toward people who like the same things we do. Despite playing for as long as I have, and with as many people I have, my actual experiences are still very limited in scope.

So all I'm prepared to agree with is that some players will think that playing with a DM is less of a challenge, and others won't.

Discussion complete.

Does that mean the thread is over? I suspect not.

Ilbranteloth

PS - and don't get me wrong, I like your posts and you have good insights. But neither you or I have the power to limit the scope of the discussion, outside of choosing what we respond to. My responses are not always limited to what one person has stated. You like to know that the results of the dice will not be tampered with. I'm OK with that, although I personally prefer a little more leeway, and also grant that leeway to other DM's running games that I participate in as a player (which isn't often).

 

[Zak S]

I agree and disagree. Regardless of whether I fudge rolls or not, the players are challenged.

Yes, but if you fudge and they know--they are challenged LESS.

...and the reason you fudged is you were more interested in some other thing besides challenge.

...which, you have stated above, you are.

You personally might think...

I'm not imagining your game. I am responding to things you wrote on the internet.

Not to mention, a random dice roll does not present a challenge at all.

This is not quite a relevant framing:

If the "random dice roll" is in a rule that the players know about then managing the risk around that rule is part of the players' tactics and thus part of the challenge. Just as a military tactician must account for the weather. Managing risk is a part of challenge.

Because I had no interest in killing a character in the first encounter after those characters had come together and decided upon their course together. It would have been disruptive and entirely unnecessary....OK, so I did it for story.

This is a textbook definition of prioritizing in-world story outcome over challenge. You are allowed to do that.

The problem with a discussion as narrow as you would like to define it, is that this is then only a discussion about the players' perception, and the only people that can provide an answer are those players at that specific table.

I don't see how that's a problem.

I can tell you that the players I've DM'd over the years have not complained about whether or not I fudge, and in the vast majority of cases have never even asked.

GMs should attract players who like their style of GMing.

That you like your style is a defensible proposition you do not need to prove.

That your players like your style is a defensible proposition you do not need to prove.

That MOST players like your style is a defensible proposition that we have no way of proving or disproving.

However:

That ALL potential players in the world like your style is NOT a fact...

...and that those people might not prefer it because they like more challenge is an entirely reasonable explanation for why

You feel that it is less of a challenge when the DM fudges, presumably even once.

No, this isn't about feelings.

I _know for a fact_ two things:

-that if players become aware the GM fudges they feel less challenged
and
-that if a GM fudges it is because they are interested in some other value over challenge.

 

[Hussar]

As a player who does not mind, and who arguably even wants their DM to fudge, the reason I want my DM to hide it, to not acknowledge it, and to never reveal it, is that because in doing so the DM would be ruining the illusion. The illusion that it hasn't happened is part and parcel of the entire process.

I think it's disingenuous to say that fudging without malicious, selfish, or unscrupulous intent is dishonest, and thereby malicious, selfish, and/or unscrupulous unless you are at the same exact time destroying the illusion and thereby robbing the act of its raison d'être.

Dishonest =\= malicious, selfish or unscrupulous.

"No, I really love your meatloaf honey" is none of those things. But it might very well be dishonest.

 

[Nagol]

Even if it were 100% true that the reason you are fudging is prioritizing the drama over something else, is that a problem? If so, why?

The possibility that the DM might fudge can also be included in the player's calculations as well, and is also included in the game design as is extreme bad luck.

<snip>

Yeah, and it gets me killed a lot. Why? Because once I sense fudging I loosen my risk assessments and survival strategies -- after all, why bother? Eventually, I discover the limit the DM is willing to fudge.

This is one reason I roll in the open and make certain the player understand that I won't fudge rolls made privately. Freak luck is freak luck. Sometimes it will save the group (and that's their luck) and sometimes it will threaten the group and they better hope they can turn things around. I won't stop it and if they want a safety net, they better provide it themselves.

 

[Maxperson]

I think if they genuinely don't know that you fudge then, yes, it won't affect how they think and their feeling of challenge.

But it is still 100% true that THE REASON that you are fudging is 100% prioritizing in-game drama over something else. You openly stated that you were trying to go against "extreme bad luck"--a possibility all players could have included in their calcuclations, and one included in the game design.

In other words: you fudged in order to disallow a possibility the rules allow and the stated reason to disallow it was to create a situation where death from what your story considers a "minor" encounter is less likely than death from what your story considers a "major" encounter.

This is what I actually do, though.

I fudge in order to disallow a possibility the rules allow, but which breaks the game, and the stated reason to disallow it was to create a situation where death from what your players considers a "minor" encounter is less likely than death from what your players considers a "major". It is done because they dislike dying to what they consider to be minor encounters and it's not fun for them.

 

[Maxperson]

There is no appropriate time to reveal fudging.

There absolutely is, and the time is dependent on the group and the DM.

The advice in the DMG even specifically calls this out that you are not to inform the players that you are doing this.

Which does nothing to prevent fudging from also being public and semi-secret. Their advice can't change what fudging is.

See, AFAIC, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is focused on the wrong issue. The issue isn't really changing the die rolls - there are loads of ways to do that within the rules as they stand.

There is one, and only ONE way that the DM can change a die after it is rolled within the rules, and that's via fudging.

Good grief, you have Inspiration, the Luck feat, umpteen magical reactions, rogues can "take 10" after the fact on skill checks by a certain level, and I'm sure there are more.

All if this is entirely irrelevant. We aren't discussing the ways that players can alter die rolls. We're discussing the DM altering die rolls and the only way is via fudging.

If it was a good thing, you wouldn't be hiding it.

This is objectively false. Lots of things are hidden and good. Maps, monster stats, fudging, and so on. There is no difference between them in this regard.

 

[Zak S]

This is what I actually do, though.

I fudge in order to disallow a possibility the rules allow, but which breaks the game,

You have already stated but not described this "break the game"--the example you gave was not "breaking the game" it was..

and the stated reason to disallow it was to create a situation where death from what your players considers a "minor" encounter is less likely than death from what your players considers a "major". It is done because they dislike dying to what they consider to be minor encounters and it's not fun for them.

...which is the very DEFINITION of prizing drama over challenge.

That is exactly what that phrase means.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Yes, but if you fudge and they know--they are challenged LESS.

...and the reason you fudged is you were more interested in some other thing besides challenge.

...which, you have stated above, you are.



I'm not imagining your game. I am responding to things you wrote on the internet.




This is not quite a relevant framing:

If the "random dice roll" is in a rule that the players know about then managing the risk around that rule is part of the players' tactics and thus part of the challenge. Just as a military tactician must account for the weather. Managing risk is a part of challenge.




This is a textbook definition of prioritizing in-world story outcome over challenge. You are allowed to do that.



I don't see how that's a problem.


GMs should attract players who like their style of GMing.

That you like your style is a defensible proposition you do not need to prove.

That your players like your style is a defensible proposition you do not need to prove.

That MOST players like your style is a defensible proposition that we have no way of proving or disproving.

However:

That ALL potential players in the world like your style is NOT a fact...

...and that those people might not prefer it because they like more challenge is an entirely reasonable explanation for why


No, this isn't about feelings.

I _know for a fact_ two things:

-that if players become aware the GM fudges they feel less challenged
and
-that if a GM fudges it is because they are interested in some other value over challenge.

"...and that those people might not prefer it because they like more challenge is an entirely reasonable explanation for why"

To which I'd add, there are other possible reasons as well;

And your statement that this is fact:
"-that if players become aware the GM fudges they feel less challenged"

You may feel less challenged, others might feel less challenged, but not all will feel less challenged, therefore it is not a fact. I would be OK with 'it is a fact that some players may feel less challenged if they become aware that the GM fudges. Some may object on account of a perceived fairness or unfairness, often expressed as favoritism, for example.

My real point is that whether or not you fudge the die rolls is only a part of what makes a game feel challenging to the players. Nor do I agree that I feel it's more important than a challenge. And I think my example of the bear was a very straightforward one that showed my entire intent was to demonstrate the challenge of my game, which was entirely successful, even though I was prepared to fudge if I had rolled a critical because that wasn't helpful, necessary, or proved my point any better than what had actually occurred. In fact, I suspect had I rolled a critical and let it fly, I would have been perceived as more punitive than interested in creating a challenge.

Besides, the concept of feeling more or less challenged is a bit of a red herring anyway. Less challenged than what? The only really meaningful comparison would be the exact same encounter, with the exact same DM, presenting things the same way, only one time with fudging in play, and one time with fudging not in play. My house rules probably make my campaigns more challenging than many others. The fact that I tend not to go with recommended challenge ratings, nor do I prevent the PCs from encountering things beyond their capabilities, they must be prepared to find alternative solutions, which frequently includes retreat and running away, because they are very challenged.

One of the following encounters (2nd level party) was with a (fighting) mated pair of ettins. The danger was immediately obvious because an NPC who was trying to stop the PCs from confronting the ettins at that time was killed in one shot. Through creative tactics, and some lucky rolls, they managed to see one ettin killed and the other ran off, and they saved the captives they were after, although they had lost the one that was killed in the battle.

In this particular group, the topic of general style had arisen before the game, and I had said that the idea is to create a fun adventure, and that things will be challenging and deadly, but that I also don't let the dice control things 100%. So they were aware that the possibility of my fudging is there, even though I didn't. And none of them had any feeling other than it was very, very challenging and that they would be lucky to get out alive. They don't know whether I fudged or not, and after the sessions nobody asked. I started this campaign as a personal challenge to run a public campaign at a store to assess and improve my DMing skills.

In fact, in the next encounter, with an unknown number of spiders, and at least one ettercap (which they killed), the thought it was potentially too dangerous to continue, and retreated to go around that portion of the woods.

So I don't think anybody felt less or more challenged. They felt challenged. They felt that they were in serious danger. That's part of the point, it should feel challenging, even if it's not the only point.

Really, my only objection to what you're saying is that there is some sort of implication that I'm saying that:
--Everybody (or even most people) likes this approach (which is not true); and
--It's a fact that everybody will feel less challenged if the DM fudges if they know the DM fudges, (which is also not true).

Ilbranteloth

 

[Zak S]

If your players would be disappointed to die or TPK in a "minor" encounter, that means they prize drama over challenge.

 

[JohnLynch]

It's anticlimactic to see a beloved character offed by a kobold due to a lucky roll, before his epic quest comes to fruition.

If you don't want the possibility of a kobold killing your PCs, then take that possibility off the table. Alternatives are as follows:

• Have your PCs start at level 2 (a kobold cannot kill a Level 2 Wizard, even if that Wizard is on 1 Hit Point and the kobold scores a critical hit and deals maximum damage).
• Have the kobold deal subdual damage.
• Rule that creatures (or just PCs) cannot die from damage alone and only die from failed death saving throws.
• Have a fight on rule that allows characters to avoid death by taking a temporary penalty to their character. The duration of the penalty (and it's in-game narrative) can be determined either at the time by the DM and player or ahead of time (e.g. roll on a maiming chart). This gives control of the narrative to the players as they get to control whether they use the fight on rule or instead die.
• Rule that you cannot be killed by a creature of a CR = Player Level - 4 or lower and that any damage dealt by such a creature is automatically subdual.
• Give players more hit points at first level.

All of the above rules are less subjective than a DM getting to decide when he does and doesn't fudge. Fudging is not necessary to avoid the circumstance you have just described.

If [the players] don't know fudging is happening, how would that alter their perception?

So since they are both allowed by the rules, then the question becomes who gets to make that decision?

The DM doesn't even necessarily need to declare a preference. Fudging is one of the many tools (along with dice) that the DM has at their disposal. And at a given point in time, fudging might be the tool they feel is most appropriate. And RAW - that's fine. No apology or explanation required.

When I come to a table I expect to know the rules that will be employed in the game, including whether or not fudging will occur. I will ask the DM what rules they are using and I will expect an honest answer from that DM. Even if the answer is "here are the rules that I plan to use at this time. This list may change" that's fine. But I would tell the DM to just let me know when he's decided to start using additional rules (or removes some of the rules that he initially declared was in play).

If a DM secretly employed facing rules but didn't tell the group, he simply gave his monsters bonuses and penalties to their attack rolls and AC based on the direction they were facing, that is a DM I would not want to play with and would feel he was being dishonest. A DM that tells me "I will fudge some rolls" will result in me asking the types of situations where they'll fudge. Based on the answer I will determine whether or not I play with that person DMing. Secretly fudging without telling the group is the exact same scenario as a DM using facing rules but failing to tell the players. If the DM does fudge without telling me he may fudge at some point, then I will not play with that person regardless of whether they are a player or a DM as they've broken my trust and I do not wish to play a game with people I do not trust.

the intent of the rule allowing fudging is to ensure that the DM is in control of the game, and not the dice. The dice are tools, and the vast majority of the time are the right tool at the time, and should not be changed. But every once in a while, they aren't. And for those that would argue this point, 5th Ed DMG, pg 237:

"Remember that dice don't run your game-you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time you, can decide that a player's action is automatically successful. you can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll for foiling the character's plans."

At any time includes following a die roll.

I see fudging as a failure on the DM's part. Whether it's fudging dice or fudging the story. Everytime a DM fudges it meant the DM presented a set of choices and included one that they shouldn't have. I've done it. I've had a player uncharacteristically work on a grand speech for two weeks, give that speech and then had them roll a die to determine how good the speech was. One of the choices I initially presented was that the speech was bad. I shouldn't have presented that choice. It was a failure on my part. But I learned from it and have gotten better as a DM. Had I secretly fudged (and I did fudge, but I did it openly) I may not have put as much thought into the outcome that occurred and that would have required me to fudge in more scenarios in the future. Instead I learned how to adjudicate such situations without needing to fudge in the future (in this case the die roll would not allow failure, it would simply determine the degree of success with meaningful results based on the degree of success they had).

 

[Zak S]

My real point is that whether or not you fudge the die rolls is only a part of what makes a game feel challenging to the players.

And whether or not your teeth are rotting is only part of whether you are healthy, but you are objectively
LESS healthy if they are rotting than if they're not.

In fact, I suspect had I rolled a critical and let it fly, I would have been perceived as more punitive than interested in creating a challenge.

If your players view what the dice naturally did as "punitive" then they are not that interested in challenge.

They feel a result that is wholly within the possibilities of the game shouldn't be.

Besides, the concept of feeling more or less challenged is a bit of a red herring anyway.

Incorrect.

The statement I am making is: "Knowledge of fudging makes people feel less challenged. Some people like to feel as challenged as possible." Challenge is in no way a red herring in a statement entirely about being challenged--it is the topic of that statement.

Less challenged than what? The only really meaningful comparison would be the exact same encounter, with the exact same DM, presenting things the same way, only one time with fudging in play, and one time with fudging not in play.

Yes, and the one without awareness of fudging is going to invite more challenge-based thinking because the players have to be more aware to stay alive or at least to get the campaign to go the way they want.

My house rules probably make my campaigns more challenging than many others. The fact that I...

Again: whether your leg is healthy is not relevant to a discussion about whether rotting teeth make you less healthy.

Your campaign may be a BIG BUCKET O' CHALLENGE with a lich and a puzzle around every corner, but fudging is one element that makes it LESS of a challenge than it would be without that fudgery.

Really, my only objection to what you're saying is that there is some sort of implication that I'm saying that:
--Everybody (or even most people) likes this approach (which is not true); and

I never said that, you just made that up. Popularity of different forms of play is not something I'm arguing for or against.

--It's a fact that everybody will feel less challenged if the DM fudges if they know the DM fudges, (which is also not true).

No, only players who know what fudging is and does.

 

[ad_hoc]

If your players would be disappointed to die or TPK in a "minor" encounter, that means they prize drama over challenge.

What do you mean by prizing drama in this situation?

Personally I don't like fudging because it disrupts the story (and the dishonesty part).

Dying in a TPK is pretty dramatic.

 

[Zak S]

What do you mean by prizing drama in this situation?

Personally I don't like fudging because it disrupts the story (and the dishonesty part).

Dying in a TPK is pretty dramatic.

If your stated reason (emphasize that: Maxperson & co's stated reason, they said it out loud) for not wanting to be TPK'd is that you were TPK'd by a random (or "minor" encounter) than the placement of the death in the "story" of the characters is more important to them than being forced to worry about TPK every second of every fight because you've seen it happen before.

So you prize drama (events happening in such a way that makes thematic sense in the in-game story) over challenge (the feeling that every situation requires thinking as hard as you can because it is an attempt to avoid extremely undesirable consequences for not just your PC, but you as a player--usually starting over with a new, unlevelled, unadvanced PC that you are less attached to).

The nice thing about D&D is they very often go together and you don't have to choose one over the other. But fudging is a moment of deciding one is more important than the other