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

[Zak S]

Lets put it this way: I want my DM to create a fun, challenging and engaging game, and if the GM is fudging, it's less challenging. So it's less fun.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I am definitely of the school that doesn't see the point of rolling dice if they are just going to be ignored. I would rather do freeform diceless roleplaying than to have a bunch of mechanics, systems and subsystems that take a lot of time and energy on everyone's part to study and comprehend and then just fiat over it if those systems don't meet the DM's desired results.

I also far prefer DMing over playing so that may color my perception on this issue, but from what I have seen my players over the years also prefer that approach.

 

[Tallifer]

Why is there no 'I don't care' option?

As long as the game is good, it hardly matters what the DM is doing with the dice.

Forsooth. I voted yes, simply because I do not want to be counted among the "no" camp.

I do like a good story however, and I will accept fudging if that is part of the dungeon master's style. I have been in excellent campaigns with and without fudging; I have been in dreadful games with or without fudging.

 

[Iosue]

Another vote for "I don't care." I play at the pleasure of the DM. If he feels most comfortable playing strictly by the rules, that's fine. If he has the view that the dice are merely tools to help him run the game and feels comfortable ignoring them sometimes, that's fine, too.

 

[S'mon]

I don't want the GM fudging. If they fudged a battle to make it harder then I'm ok with them fudging to walk it back, as long as they're honest about their mistake. I definitely do want the possibility that my PC can die in the first battle, or any battle. I quickly lose interest in fudged games, and that seems true of most players.

I like systems that don't encourage fudging - 4e D&D notably, and 5e is good too. I dislike how 3e/PF's extreme randomness & lethality to melee PCs can encourage fudging.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Voted "No, never." Fudging undermines my ability to make informed choices, and my ability to learn from and adapt around past choices. It may be a challenge to meet those requirements, while also producing a game that will make me happy. I believe that that is part of what the DM signs up for, when taking that mantle. It's part of why I've never taken it myself--I'm not yet convinced I'm up to the task. With Great Power and all that--and, within the microcosm of a D&D campaign, who has more power than the DM?

I wouldn't play 5e with a DM I didn't trust to 'fudge' as needed.

Despite recognizing that this is the 5e forum specifically, I generally tend to take questions like this as applying to any game. Would you say the same of games generally?

And, uh, what exactly does "as needed" mean, anyway? That's not really "yes," "almost never," or "never."

Come to think of it, doesn't agreeing to end an encounter early when the results are assumed constitute fudging?

I will try to provide a simple, concise definition of what *I*, at least, consider fudging:

Did you change a thing directly observed in the world, or a consequence/feature thereof, after the PCs observed it, without giving them a chance to know it changed?

If you answer "yes" to that question, then it's fudging. (The "consequence/feature" clause was added because I include abstract things, like "Diplomacy DC 15 to convince the Duke to help you," as a "thing in the world," even if they can only be observed by rolling something to see if it works.)

Agreeing to end an encounter early thus cannot be fudging, because it requires the consent of the players, and you can't give consent without being aware that you're giving consent. Otherwise it wouldn't be "agreement." It is merely a combat example of giving an automatic success on something that nominally should be a roll, because the player's idea was just that awesome. In this case, it would be automatically granting successful hits (and successful avoidance) for the handful of attack rolls that you want to skip, because the players have "already won"--much like a stirring, impressive speech would already win the hearts of the royal council, making a roll superfluous.

Adding or removing HP from a monster that already "exists in play" (for those who use maps and minis, this would be "when figures/tokens hit the table") is fudging: you are making an invisible-yet-meaningful change to something under more-or-less continuous, direct observation by at least one of the PCs. Changing the DC for a skill roll is a similar, albeit more abstract, change; the world is no longer what it is, once it "exists." Instead, existence itself is fluid and dynamic; choices can no longer be said to be good or bad based on the available information, because "the available information" may be right one second and wrong the next (or vice-versa). Changing who the unknown murderer is, when the party has already gathered good (if imperfect/incomplete) evidence of the "original" murderer's guilt is a wholly numberless form of fudging--but still fudging, because it means that the party's previously informed choices are now invalidated.

Removing, or modifying, a fight before it breaks out is fine. Changing stats before a fight breaks out is fine (because combat itself is an ongoing process of learning the monster's stats--the being(s) therein are constantly under observation). Adding, removing, or modifying whole swathes of the world is fine--as long as the PCs wouldn't, or couldn't, have known differently. With the "tracking a murderer" example: you CAN change your mind about who the murderer is, but the PCs need to be able to learn who the right murderer is. And all of these changes are also perfectly fine if the PCs can find out about it before having to "face" it.

Note the bolded "can." I am NOT saying that they must be directly informed of any such changes. I am only saying that you give them sufficient opportunity to learn about it. This means there needs to be prior knowledge that (a) they can confirm stuff, (b) even very good information may change so confirmation is good, and (c) unless you expressly tell them otherwise, confirming their info won't cause enough delay that their plans would be ruined. These things should be "prior" knowledge because that way you aren't pausing at every remotely-restful moment to say, "Gee, it's sure great you stole that guard duty roster!" or whatever and giving them a huge, "dramatic" wink. The onus is on the players to check, not you to tell them to check, but subtle hints may be in order for particularly "important" changes.

In fact, I really think the "solve a murder" example is the best illustration of what I'm talking about. I see it as deeply unfair to "change" who the perpetrator is once the PCs have got their hands on good (again, not necessarily perfect, but genuinely good) evidence against the DM's original choice--unless there is an opportunity to learn, not about the "change," but about how their previously-good evidence was ACTUALLY faked/unreliable/etc. and that the chase is still on. Otherwise, even if it's "more awesome" to have Suspect Q instead of Suspect R be the real murderer, you've set the players up with mistaken information that they have (rather, had) every reason to think was good. And that's awful.

I like systems that don't encourage fudging - 4e D&D notably, and 5e is good too. I dislike how 3e/PF's extreme randomness & lethality to melee PCs can encourage fudging.

...uh...
*looks back at the quoted bit from Mr. Vargas*
Something is amiss with these two opinions placed next to each other, but I can't quite figure out what...

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't give a rat's ass if the DM, the other players, or I fudge during the game. Roleplaying games aren't board games. There's no winning or losing as far as I'm concerned, so the dice aren't sacrosanct, the story is.

 

[Pickles III]

The most interesting thing about this is how different the results are from the "Do you fudge?" poll.

It can be made to fit my point of view - I fudge a tiny bit & I don't want my DM to fudge but If I don't know he's doing it I don't really care.

 

[Blue]

There's very little difference between not picking an AC, and then just deciding at some point in the fight that it's 16 vs. having the AC be 18, but never let the players know, and just decide that their 16 hits anyway so now the monster's AC is 16.

Did he do that? Numbers that were hits or misses later in the same combat had the opposite result? That you never said.

Though it seems like every time a Fudging thread pops up, eventually people start to pick apart the definition of fudging, and we find out everyone has a different interpretation of it.

I'll just say that for me, Fudging is any time a DM changes an outcome based on their own desires, and not the pre-established mechanics of the game or encounter. Turning a crit into a normal hit because you don't want to kill a PC is the DM's desire, not the outcome of the dice. Increasing the HP of a monster that started at 100 to 200 because you aren't happy with your boss fight being so easy, is DM desire, not mechanics.

Coming up with an on the fly encounter is definitely not fudging. Like you say, reskinning, changing damage amounts and HP or AC is fine. Once the fight begins however, if you decide to change those stats mid-combat, that's definitely fudging.

I'm fine using your definition of fudging.

By what you said before, what they did does not fit the description of fudging. If you are telling us now that he had pre-established stats and chose to change them, that he turned crits into normal hits, and increased HPs mid encounter that's a different story. Sure, if he's changing things mid-fight, with that new information I'll agree with you he was fudging.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

Did he do that? Numbers that were hits or misses later in the same combat had the opposite result? That you never said.

He did not have pre-established numbers. He didn't have AC, attack bonus, damage, HP, special abilities, or anything. He made them up on the fly. I still consider it fudging, as he was determining our roll results based on whim in the moment "Oh he rolled an 18...yeah I guess that should hit". It makes no difference if there was no pre-existing AC determined vs. he changed it at the last second. In the end, our rolls only mattered if he decided they did.

So a very enjoyable story that was fun and felt awesome was spoiled because the DM didn't use exact numbers? You rolled high and did damage. He rolled high and did damage. Low attack no damage. HP appropriate, else you would have noticed.
It may not be my preferred style of play, but your decisions and rolls did matter even more than usual, because they were not spoiled by rolls that miss closely although you rolled high, which could have just frustrated you.
Maybe power gaming was useless in such a game because a little +1 here and ther didn't matter.

I do like how your mind jumped to power gaming because I said my enjoyment of the game was removed after my rolls didn't matter. I made a halfling barbarian that threw hand axes. I definitely wasn't power gaming when I made him. I wanted something fun and original. If it matters, this was in 3.5 edition.

There is no way that my decisions and rolls matter more than usual, when they didn't matter until the DM decided they did. We sat down to play D&D, we created characters, made choices of what to specialize in, etc, etc, all because we were playing D&D. We weren't playing a freeform RPG, or a more story centered game. If we were, then I would have less reason to complain when the DM makes story based decisions like that.