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.