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

[Noctem]

My long-term group knows full-well that I do it. No-one in, say, my most recent group has raised it as an issue, or asked me to roll in the open, despite a clear invitation to do so in session zero. Given how strongly you feel about it, I'm certain that any like-minded players in the group would have spoken up.

Good to know that you discuss the subject in session 0

 

[Tony Vargas]

for me, and again, I'm only talking about myself, if the DM feels the need to hide things in order to run an entertaining game, I simply do not want to play at that table. I do not like it. Not that it's wrong or bad or anything like that. It's that it's wrong for me. I don't play that way.

Prior to 4e... and want to pick an earlier edition, but I just can make a case for it ...there was always /something/ that the DM 'needed' to keep secret, even if it was only the layout of the dungeon. Did you spurn D&D all that time?

For me, (and I cannot stress this enough that I'm ONLY talking about myself) fudging like this shows a lack of trust on the DM's part that the players cannot handle certain situations in the game. If the DM truly trusts the players, then there's no need for fudging whatsoever. At least, that's the position I'm working from.

The system and the players both come into it. Players' need to trust the DM, too, especially the more the system Empowers the DM.
If anything, running a game above board is the more carefree way, for the DM. You have rules, you follow them, the players' decisions & the system are all that's responsible for the results. Now that I think about it, that's likely another one of the factors that made 4e so easy to run, something I wondered at, seeing relatively new players transitioning easily to DMing at the time. You don't need to win as much trust, manipulation* isn't such an important part of the play dynamic from both sides of the screen.

[sblock="*cynicism"]OK, I shouldn't have gone there, now I'm going to sound pretty awful for a minute: What I've been talking about with 'taking resolution behind the screen' and 'not sharing all information' and 'placebo rolls' and so forth, even as I've been insisting that 'fudging' and related DM techniques aren't in any way 'dishonest,' has still been about manipulating the players. Hopefully manipulating them to have fun in spite of themselves, but still, manipulation. The same goes in the other direction, the more Empowered the DM, the greater the payoff to the player who can win the 'manipulate the DM' metagame. [/sblock]

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Manipulative--that's a good word, [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]. I consider fudging inherently manipulative, and I don't like being manipulated, even with legitimately "good intentions."

 

[Nytmare]

I think I understand what the main disconnect of this conversation is, and I think that I can illustrate it as an argument that most D&D players will at least recognize, if not agree with.

On the fudging alignment chart, I see choosing to fudge as marking you somewhere on the Lawful to Chaotic axis of the chart.

I feel like the people I'm mostly disagreeing with see it as existing solely on Good to Evil axis.


- Nytmare, the Chaotic Good Fudger

 

[Hussar]

Fudging in secret =/= selfish no matter how often you mischaracterize it as such. According to your reasoning, if I secretly put someone in my will and leave them lots of money, I'm selfish for doing so. It couldn't be for their benefit. That's crazy talk.

OTOH, if you tell someone you are going to leave them lots of money to make them happy, and then secretly change the will to leave the money to your cats, that's closer to how I view fudging.

As was mentioned above, you are manipulating the players. With the best intentions, sure. But, still manipulating the players.

Given that about 40% of them have stated here that they would prefer it if the DM never fudges, I'm thinking that it may be more common than some DM's here seem to think. The reason it doesn't get mentioned is because players are told time and again, "trust your DM" and anything that shows distrust of the DM marks you as a bad player. Telling your DM, "Hey, I know you think fudging is okay, but, I think it's really bad, so don't do it please" would rarely, if ever, go over well. Look at the very strong reactions in this thread alone to people saying they don't like fudging and think fudging is bad.

New player coming into a new group and having a Session 0 is about as likely to sprout wings as to come forward and tell the DM something like this.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Telling your DM, "Hey, I know you think fudging is okay, but, I think it's really bad, so don't do it please" would rarely, if ever, go over well.

"Please don't do it at all" would be overstepping, but making rolls against his character in the open wouldn't hurt.
Anyone else.
Directly.

 

[Hussar]

"Please don't do it at all" would be overstepping, but making rolls against his character in the open wouldn't hurt.
Anyone else.
Directly.

See, that's my point though. Why is it overstepping? The point that was made earlier was that DM's who fudge do so with the tacit approval of the players. Session 0 to ask the players if it's okay, for example. Several on the pro-fudging side have repeatedly stated that their players don't have a problem with it. But, if stepping up and asking the DM not to do it would be considered overstepping, then how reasonable is it to expect players to step up and ask the DM not to do it?

If it's perfectly reasonable for the DM to fudge, why is it not also perfectly reasonable to ask him not to? But, it isn't. Telling the DM, "Hey, I really hate it when DM's fudge die rolls, could you please not do that" is extremely unlikely to happen because players would be worried about offending the DM. Good grief, getting ANY real feedback from players is like pulling teeth most of the time. "How was the game?" "Oh, great game Mr. DM, we really liked it" is about all the feedback DM's get most of the time.

Trying to argue that it's okay that you fudge because your player's don't complain about it doesn't really work for me. Players don't complain about a lot of things because anyone who does complain gets painted as a bad player and most players don't want to be "that guy". So, they put up with it, don't rock the boat and the DM assumes that everything is hunky dory.

I challenge anyone reading this to try the following. The next time you feel the need to adjust a die roll, don't. Just that one time. Don't do it and watch what happens. IMO, you will get a better game because of it.

 

[Nytmare]

I challenge anyone reading this to try the following. The next time you feel the need to adjust a die roll, don't. Just that one time. Don't do it and watch what happens. IMO, you will get a better game because of it.

Do you honestly think that any of the DMs who admit to fudging have never ever once come to the decision point of "Do I want to change this die?" and said to themselves "No, I don't want to change it"?

 

[Tony Vargas]

See, that's my point though. Why is it overstepping?

Because he's speaking for all the players, not just for himself.

"Please make rolls that affect only my character in the open" would be more reasonable. Any problem with that?

The point that was made earlier was that DM's who fudge do so with the tacit approval of the players.

In a sense, all the 5e DM's 'Empowerment' is with the tacit approval of the players. In the sense that they could walk away from the table, for instance.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Nope, I never want my DM to fudge. I’d much prefer to have some fights end in multiple PC deaths or a TPK and supposedly difficult boss fights be cake walks for the party than have the DM fudge rolls in order to make all the encounters more balanced. It’s just a lot more exciting playing that way.

Otherwise it’s like gambling in a casino, but knowing that you’ll never lose your money. It just takes all the excitement of it away.