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

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

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.

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).

I'll start with the end because I think it's spot on. In most cases I'd agree that it's usually a failure on my part. That doesn't mean that I always have to let the players in on that secret. It's rare that I have to fudge, but it's not uncommon to spot a mistake I've made that might have raised that possibility. So I try to learn from those to eliminate that possibility from occurring again. I have also developed house rules specifically from situations like these, so they won't occur again.

As I've said, I provide a booklet with house-rules, indications of which rules I don't use, and I'll make sure that it's clear that I might fudge, but only in extreme circumstances, and if I feel it's necessary it will be in the party's favor. If we're at the table I probably won't spend a whole lot of time going over things like this, it needs to happen before that and not cut into other player's time.

But sometimes it's not a fault of the rules. I have fairly steep house-rules for near-death, because I've removed most of the instant death options. Death from massive damage? You fail your first two death saves. Disintegration? You fail the first two and must make an immediate death save on the spot. But I also make raising from the dead very rare. So the penalties are significant, and last for days (at least 3, depending on how you roll each day).

In the example I gave with the bear attack, it was drawn from real life. But even a single hit from a bear could kill a first level character, and especially a critical. Even without my house rules, with simple death on the table, the RAW don't provide a way to prevent that possibility. The bear surprised the character (great), it made it's attack (by design) and then ran away (as planned). It was designed to show a 1st level character that even a bear could be deadly. But I had no interest in the character actually being killed. There was no mistake on my part, no design flaw in the game, just a scenario that I wanted to use to make a point. The fact that it played out the way it did was a bonus.

I don't see anything wrong with fudging a die roll in the event of a critical, because it was best for the game. Not the story, just because there was no point in having to determine what to do with that player at that point in time. Even within the story, the remaining players had the usual options, return with the body, take the body, etc. But from the gaming standpoint we would have had to figure out what that player would do in the meantime. It just wasn't necessary.

In addition, your list of potential fixes, some easier to implement than others, are also more permanent. A fudged die roll is usually an isolated incident. Something to deal with a very specific situation, for whatever reason. It doesn't need an overarching fix, nor do we need to start trying to have a rule for every possible circumstance as 3.5/Pathfinder/4th edition was seemingly inclined to do. It's just a brief moment in time, whether by mistake or not, to say - no, I don't accept that right now.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Zak S]

The bear surprised the character (great), it made it's attack (by design) and then ran away (as planned). It was designed to show a 1st level character that even a bear could be deadly. But I had no interest in the character actually being killed. There was no mistake on my part, no design flaw in the game, just a scenario that I wanted to use to make a point. /QUOTE]

You are explicitly describing having story beats you wanted to occur and saying that you fudged so those story beats would occur.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

So this is interesting. It implies that when you don't think the DM is fudging (or you know it if all rolls are in the open, although that's not a guarantee that they aren't altering something like hit points behind the screen), you take fewer risks than when you think they are fudging.

I fudge infrequently enough that I don't really think people figure it out, but assuming they do it would be a very risky proposition to test it. My fudge threshold ends when the players are responsible for their own death through poor decisions.

I also don't really get the 'why bother?' attitude. I guess if the DM was fudging so much that it removed risk altogether. But that's really more of an issue of a poor DM altogether, and the excessive use of fudging is perhaps what made it memorable?

But maybe that's just my assessment of when I feel it's appropriate. In the examples I've given, the bear attack was there to make a point and set the level of challenge. So I would have fudged if necessary because it was completely unnecessary to kill a character just for that. But the party's decision to engage the ettins directly, and in their lair? You're on your own there. There was even an NPC that could give them a run-down as to what was going on and give them assistance. Instead they decided that the person across the ravine must be an enemy, or at least competition, and we're taking the ettins out.

Don't get me wrong. By no stretch of the imagination do I think I'm a spectacular DM. I hope I'm pretty good, and the players seem to like it. So that's what I have to go by. But based on what I'm reading here and elsewhere there certainly seem to be some really bad experiences.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The bear surprised the character (great), it made it's attack (by design) and then ran away (as planned). It was designed to show a 1st level character that even a bear could be deadly. But I had no interest in the character actually being killed. There was no mistake on my part, no design flaw in the game, just a scenario that I wanted to use to make a point. /QUOTE]

You are explicitly describing having story beats you wanted to occur and saying that you fudged so those story beats would occur.

Yes, I had a story point to make. But I've said elsewhere that my reason for fudging would have been because I didn't see any point in taking a player out of the game right then. It was entirely metagaming. I have a new table with new players and I'm not going to allow a 5% chance kill a character...yet.

Yes, I put that ahead of the die roll. My willingness to fudge didn't lessen the challenge at all, nor did it impact the player's sense of danger or the challenge at hand. If he had opted to attack the bear, instead of letting it run away, then we see what happens.

So, no, story didn't 'win.' If anything, at this point metagaming, which I generally try to avoid, did.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Zak S]

Yes, I had a story point to make.

So, no, story didn't 'win.'

it totally won.

What could've been a deadly encounter where a player was challenged, died, and came back knowing their DM pulled no punches and bears are ALWAYS deadly and they had to be on the lookout became an encounter where the player learned bears are deadly sometimes but not to the PC unless the DM wants to allow that possibility so sOMETIMES they have to pay attention and SOMETIMES they can just coast. Though it may be hard to tell when.

Essentially you made the player go "oh that was a cut scene, maybe other encounters will be secretly cut scenes".

That is 100% Prioritizing story. Or prioritizing 'making a thing happen that you planned instead of letting the full tactical possibilities play out". Same thing.

 

[Nagol]

So this is interesting. It implies that when you don't think the DM is fudging (or you know it if all rolls are in the open, although that's not a guarantee that they aren't altering something like hit points behind the screen), you take fewer risks than when you think they are fudging.

I fudge infrequently enough that I don't really think people figure it out, but assuming they do it would be a very risky proposition to test it. My fudge threshold ends when the players are responsible for their own death through poor decisions.

It'll still sound like I'm making good decisions -- just not decisions as defensive and risk controlling as I make when I do not believe there is fudging.

I also don't really get the 'why bother?' attitude. I guess if the DM was fudging so much that it removed risk altogether. But that's really more of an issue of a poor DM altogether, and the excessive use of fudging is perhaps what made it memorable?

No. It's happened in a lot of campaigns over the decades. There are a couple of memorable over-the-top fudgers (like the lady that wouldn't let our Paranoia characters die...), but most of the time the fudging came out like you and Maxperson suggest-- limited fudging to "protect" characters from "meaningless" harm, negating "really bad" luck (much of which wasn't that bad from a probability perspective), or to protect the antagonist from our alpha strike until his awesomeness could be displayed.

If I'm going into a "meaningless" encounter, I won't take the precautions I normally would -- I'll be a bit more loose with the odds I'm willing to face. I won't die here! I am destined for greater things!
If the fight is going against us, but I can make a case for out luck being sour, there is little need to flee. It'll turn around any time now!
If I'm going into a BBEG fight, I won't be striving for battlefield dominance. There's a chance it'll be negated to increase the awesome so why put much effort into it?
If I'm going into a character-pivotal scene that is playing out I'll charge right in. After all, I won't die on the doorstep of this moment!

Eventually, I guess wrong and the dice catch up with me. That's OK. At least now I have further data as to the limits of fudging for that DM. And if the character doesn't expire? That's a sign to bail out of the campaign. There really is little point for me to keep playing especially in D&D; other games and genres less so.

Think of it as testing to destruction.

People have tells. The thing about a DM and fudging is the DM is the centre of attention for hours on end. The players are always watching, evaluating, and correlating. It takes a terrific actor to pull off a relatively rare event as if nothing out of the ordinary is happening. Body language changes. Word choice changes. Tone and facial expression changes. It doesn't take much to realise something untoward is occurring. If a player is paying attention, has basic probability understanding, and can count, he has a good chance to pick up on the fudge. Do I notice every occurrence? Almost certainly not. Do I spot many of them? Probably.

 

[JohnLynch]

In the example I gave with the bear attack, it was drawn from real life. But even a single hit from a bear could kill a first level character, and especially a critical. Even without my house rules, with simple death on the table, the RAW don't provide a way to prevent that possibility.

Yes it does. 1) Start your players at a higher level or 2) Do not place a bear or other CR 1/2 creatures in front of your level 1 PCs.

The bear surprised the character (great), it made it's attack (by design) and then ran away (as planned). It was designed to show a 1st level character that even a bear could be deadly. But I had no interest in the character actually being killed. There was no mistake on my part, no design flaw in the game, just a scenario that I wanted to use to make a point. The fact that it played out the way it did was a bonus.

Let's say this did result in death due to bad luck (it didn't, but it could have by RAW) and you then fudged things so that the death didn't occur. It only demonstrates that you will fudge things when you accidentally throw a creature that is too powerful for the situation at the players. That doesn't teach them the game is dangerous, it teaches them the opposite fact.

A quick look at the bear tells us that if he hits twice he'll deal on average 12 damage. If you target the PC wizard with CON 10 this is an automatic death by RAW. Fudging things to remove that death is a failure IMO. Change the rules, not the rolls is a better philosophy than going with "I'll just fudge it whenever something happens that I don't like." IMO

If you want to show your players how dangerous the game is, do so in a scenario where fudging isn't necessary. Homebrew a creature or use one from the book that won't autokill the Wizard if both attacks hit. Or don't target the squishiest PC in the table. A critical hit on both attacks, but using average damage rolls (as RAW allows) will not result in an automatic death on the fighter. Therefore no fudging is even necessary in this scenario. Simply target a PC you know will be able to withstand the attack (a CON 12 fighter can withstand such an attack).

I don't see anything wrong with fudging a die roll in the event of a critical

I don't see anything "wrong" with it as you're being upfront about it, but it is a failure on the part of the DM to correctly gauge the situation and place an appropriate danger in front of the PCs to get the appropriate result. If you're using critical hits in your game, than they must become part of the consideration you use when placing dangers in front of the characters.

In addition, your list of potential fixes, some easier to implement than others, are also more permanent....nor do we need to start trying to have a rule for every possible circumstance as 3.5/Pathfinder/4th edition was seemingly inclined to do.

Saying "use options A, B, C which all exist under the current rules or options X, Y and Z as houserules to get your desired effect" is not introducing a rule for every possibly circumstance. If you don't want a deadly game, use rules that make the game less deadly. That's not a 300 page tome filled with minutiae. It's a pretty simply guideline and the rules that would fulfill this are all fairly simple.

no, I don't accept that right now.

A game where such a philosophy is being used is a game I will not enjoy. Thankfully you as a DM would be honest so there'd be no need for acrimony and I would simply avoid your table from the beginning. I like death being part of the game. I don't want a DM to arbitrarily take death away from me when I deal with the dangers that are presented before me. It takes away my player agency by denying me the opportunity to suffer the consequences of my failure. I'd rather play in a game where houserules are in place to remove the deadliness of the game rather than a game where fudging is employed after a situation has been placed in front of me.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Due to extreme bad luck which breaks the game.

 

[Maxperson]

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

No it doesn't. They can prize both equally, or just not prize challenge to the point of completely ignoring drama.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Yes it does. 1) Start your players at a higher level or 2) Do not place a bear or other CR 1/2 creatures in front of your level 1 PCs.

Let's say this did result in death due to bad luck (it didn't, but it could have by RAW) and you then fudged things so that the death didn't occur. It only demonstrates that you will fudge things when you accidentally throw a creature that is too powerful for the situation at the players. That doesn't teach them the game is dangerous, it teaches them the opposite fact.

A quick look at the bear tells us that if he hits twice he'll deal on average 12 damage. If you target the PC wizard with CON 10 this is an automatic death by RAW. Fudging things to remove that death is a failure IMO. Change the rules, not the rolls is a better philosophy than going with "I'll just fudge it whenever something happens that I don't like." IMO

If you want to show your players how dangerous the game is, do so in a scenario where fudging isn't necessary. Homebrew a creature or use one from the book that won't autokill the Wizard if both attacks hit. Or don't target the squishiest PC in the table. A critical hit on both attacks, but using average damage rolls (as RAW allows) will not result in an automatic death on the fighter. Therefore no fudging is even necessary in this scenario. Simply target a PC you know will be able to withstand the attack (a CON 12 fighter can withstand such an attack).

I don't see anything "wrong" with it as you're being upfront about it, but it is a failure on the part of the DM to correctly gauge the situation and place an appropriate danger in front of the PCs to get the appropriate result. If you're using critical hits in your game, than they must become part of the consideration you use when placing dangers in front of the characters.

A game where such a philosophy is being used is a game I will not enjoy. Thankfully you as a DM would be honest so there'd be no need for acrimony and I would simply avoid your table from the beginning. I like death being part of the game. I don't want a DM to arbitrarily take death away from me when I deal with the dangers that are presented before me. It takes away player agency to suffer the consequences of my failure. I'd rather play in a game where houserules are in place to remove the deadliness of the game rather than a game where fudging is employed after a situation has been placed in front of me.

There are a few assumptions there, but that's because the situation wasn't fully described. The encounter with the bear was designed to be with the first character that separated themselves from the group in the woods. It happened to be a wood elf barbarian. The bear attack was always intended to be a single attack, not using all of it's possibilities, and then it would turn and lope into the woods. So the likelihood that it would result in a character death was slim. I was pretty sure it wouldn't come to that anyway.

The entire thing was based off of a time when I decided to take a walk in the woods, while my daughter was at a class. A helicopter flew overhead, and I heard a snap behind me. I turned to see a bear, not more than 20 feet away, push off from a tree that it had its front paws on, and run off in the opposite direction. I had no clue it was there. At all. We've certainly seen what bear attacks can do, and this type of mundane encounter is often missing in a lot of campaigns. So I figured it was a good enough starting point to set the stage. And it worked very well.

The fudge was pre-prepared in that I had decided it could not score a critical or kill a character. I don't segregate creatures by level. If you're wandering around in the woods, you might come across something too powerful, and you should be prepared to run. That's just the way it is. I figured that the first encounter should make the point (although it could have come later if the situation didn't present itself). I just didn't want to kill a character right out of the gate. "Tough, perhaps too tough, but get used to it."

This was the initial session for a public campaign, with people who had never played with me. I highly doubt that anybody would have suspected that I had rolled a critical even if I had, because the situation was clear that it was not an attack to kill, but an attack by a surprised animal that defended itself so it could get away. I suppose that I didn't consider that some people might jump to the conclusion that 'we can't die' or some lesser variation of that. I don't think that anybody probably would have with the way it played out, but who knows?

Ultimately, I guess I can say I understand that some people dislike that some DM's fudge. I don't quite get why they are so against it, but that's partly due to my indifference to it, combined with the fact that it's always been part of the game that I've known. So I don't think I'll ever see it as an outright failure either.

But the public campaign is a good as place as any for me to try something different. More importantly, for public campaigns, the RAW (even though fudging is one of them) is the standard to start with. I'm still maintaining a number of house-rules, so it's not strictly by the book, but it is as written since I provide those to all the players. Don't know if I'll ever run a AL or at a Con, but it's good to get the chops up to do it. I have no idea if it's the 'standard' approach now, but it's certainly worth being prepared.

I've always told the players that anything is up for discussion. Not during the game, of course. I'll make my ruling, usually in the favor of the PCs if there's any question, and we'll revisit it after the session if needed. I can't guarantee that the result will be the same the next time, but from that point forward they'll be consistent. And I've stated it before in this thread, if the players object to DM Fudging, then I'd take that into account, and try to find something that works for all of us. If that means no fudging, I can live with that.

Ilbranteloth