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

[Ilbranteloth]

And yet you still decided to fudge. Despite the fact that there was no actual reason to do so. All you had to do, to avoid fudging, was have the bear attack the first person who separated themselves from the group that wasn't a skinny little fellow who looks like a stiff breeze would knock them over. OR you could have had the bear deal subdual damage. After all, the bear wasn't trying to kill them, it was simply trying to get them to leave it's territory.

Why isn't deciding ahead of time that the bear cannot score a critical any different than deciding the bear deals subdued damage? I don't use subdual damage, and even if I did I wouldn't expect a wild animal to 'pull their punches' and not deal actual damage.

How is having the bear not attack the first player that wasn't weak not taking away player agency? How is that not worse than deciding that a single blow cannot cause a critical, then see where things go from there?

You are responsible for deciding what challenges the players are placed with and you are responsible for the possible outcomes that are on the table as a result.

Giving them a black bear with 13 strength would have also resulted in no player dying in the first encounter.

The world is full of dangerous things. Some known and placed by me, and some unknown and random. If I were to prevent them from wandering into the territory of a monster too dangerous for them, it would be railroading. If I were to make random encounter tables by level, and they were to travel the same area for a period of time and they'd encounter increasingly dangerous creatures as they did, it would be inconsistent and unrealistic.

Again, how is altering the structure of the world to protect the characters better than changing a single blow?

You have a whole suite of tools available to you that doesn't require you to fudge the dice. IMO fudging is a result of failing to present the players with an appropriate challenge (an appropriate challenge being one where all potential outcomes have a desired effect to the game). Failing to present an appropriate challenge or requiring that the challenge become appropriate by fudging is a failure on the part of the DM IMO. The exact same challenge could have easily been presented with the players being none-the-wiser. All that you required was to have this bear be slightly below average strength than the average bear. This is within purview of the DM to determine the strength of any given creature. Fudging was not necessary and a better DM would have found a way to have the exact same scenario play out without being requiring to potentially fudge anything.

According to the rules, my suite of tools includes fudging. And as others have pointed out, once the dice are rolled, it's the only tool that doesn't break immersion in the game and keep things moving forward, if it's done properly.

All of the suggestions you have presented occur prior to the event, and that's exactly what I did by determining before we started that the bear could not score a critical on the initial hit.

Your reliance on ignorance of your players part does not make a persuasive argument for having a fudging DM. Either you tell the players "I may fudge some of my rolls" and they then choose whether they want to play with you, or you do not inform your players and rely on deceit to keep them at the table. If you aren't relying on deception (and you've stated several times that you tell your players you will fudge), then they know any given roll could be one that is fudged.

I don't hide that I may fudge. I have already stated that I will not fudge if the players have expressed their dislike of it, and that I would be more clear that it is a tool that I have/may use with new players. Although that will still be dependent upon what they table decides, not one person. I have no problem not fudging for a single person, even in the event that the rest of the table has approved it. Although I probably wouldn't fudge regardless, because that presents other potential problems.

I also don't consider this deception any different than the periodic dummy roll so they players are on their toes, and don't really know whether they just didn't perceive a threat hiding nearby, or that there really isn't anybody there. Deception is one of the DM's tools in many ways, fudging just extends that deception to an occasional die roll. The fact that the players don't always know the modifiers or the DC to a roll means that their rolls may not be as good as they think, although again, I would not consider extending fudging to modify a player's roll.

As a DM one of your jobs is to present players with challenges for them to interact with and then by their own action choose an outcome from a list of possible outcomes (this list need not be predefined or exhaustive). By fudging the dice rolls you are removing player agency by removing the impact their actions had on the sequence of events. You are presenting them with false choices and then forcing them to go onto a smaller subset of choices you deem acceptable. Nothing should be presented before the players if the players cannot choose it. Doing so and then taking it away from the player without them having any control over it is a failure on the DM's part IMO as it removes player agency.

Actually, since I think fudging is really something to be reserved for those situations when the consequences of the dice are, for lack of a better term, 'unfair' I don't think this is true.

The players are never given a false choice, or removing the impact their actions have. It is reducing the risk, not the challenge or options, and that reduction is momentary and doesn't remove the risk from future events, even immediately following. It is extremely rare that characters choose death, and were it evident that a character was specifically choosing death (sacrificing themselves) then I would not fudge. They know that I might fudge, but they'll never know that I rolled a 20 instead of 19.

In the example with the bear, the challenge (and potential choice) was to detect that the bear was there (failed), and then to avoid being attacked by/kill the bear among others. As it turned out, the didn't detect the bear, the bear made its surprise attack (which I had determined could not be critical), and ran away. Any actions taken by the players after that were entirely in play. They could ignore it, chase it, fire missile weapons at it, spells, etc. If that put them in position where one of them would potentially die, so be it.

The fact that the players didn't know that I had removed the option of a critical (or that the bear had a 13 or less Strength, or dealt only subdual damage, or whatever other decision I decided ahead of time as acceptable) is irrelevant from the perspective of the characters, and the players if they've already indicated it's OK to fudge.

The only real difference is that my choice was a contingency plan. I will opt not to allow a critical if the bear rolls a natural 20. Your suggestions, such as a smaller/weaker bear, or subdual damage, changes the challenge of the encounter, and fundamentally changes the encounter itself.

I chose a course of action that would come into play only 5% of the time in that particular encounter. Your options modified the encounter 100% of the time. That's a calculated risk on my part. That I might actually roll a 20, in which case I'd have to side-step the critical hit rules.

Here's a classic example: DM tells the players that they're going to start a new game and to make new characters, including buying equipment. The DM then, in the opening scene, removes all of the player's equipment, leaving them with no recourse to ever get that equipment back. This sort of thing will result in a lot of players being unhappy (not all, but I expect a decent percentage would be), especially if they've spent hours selecting the best equipment. Why are the players upset? Because you've removed the consequences of the choices they made. This is what fudging does. It presents the players with a possible option, and then takes it away from them if they choose an option the DM didn't want them to. A better DM will simply not present them with the option in the first place.

LOL. My current home campaign started this way, although I do instruct my players that we'll purchase equipment, etc. in game. The players thought it was one of the best starts to a campaign that they'd had.

Although your two statements are quite different. The scenario is player agnostic. It has nothing to do with the players/characters doing something that the DM doesn't want them to. It's unfortunate that the players didn't know the situation before hand, but that's different than the DM taking away a choice if the players choose something the DM doesn't want.

More importantly. My example, and my use of fudging, is entirely based on a slim chance that a consequence greater than what I consider appropriate happens. Sure I could modify things in many different ways to prevent the possibility from even being there, but that ultimately reduces the risk and the challenge for the players, and I think is more detrimental than changing one roll. In the event that I had to change that roll, my description of the hit would be quite different too. They would know that they 'narrowly escaped' a near deadly blow, and they would know that they just took a large amount of damage as well. They are able to assess the situation clearly and honestly knowing that another blow like that could be deadly, and that it could happen in the next few seconds.

I am not removing any choices from the players, and if they continue with the same course of action, then the consequences are not altered either. More importantly, it is not altering the scenario as a whole. Before the encounter started there was a possibility that they could suffer damage if they engaged in combat (by direct choice or otherwise), and that the combat could turn deadly. That hasn't changed. The only thing that changed was a single potentially killing blow, and that won't be prevented again should they continue.

Even if the attack had been reduced to nothing - "As you leaned into the woods to get a better look, you hear a snap and feel a powerful glancing blow that might have been deadly had it connected. You turn and find yourself face-to-fur with the back of a large bear that is turning and running into the forest"

None of this materially changes the encounter, nor reduces the choices of the players, nor takes away player agency, and it doesn't really even change their view of the world or what's dangerous. I suppose I could have done that without even rolling an attack, but I think that would bother people more, because it would remove 100% of the uncertainty instead of just 5%.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Wasn't this thread intended to give a player-side perspective on fudging?

It seems that it now repeats the same discussion that was in "To fudge or not to fudge" thread, with GMs arguing for and against fudging for pages after pages.

I'd really be interested on more arguments from players - being a GM myself I want to know how players outside of my group see fudging and why.

I'm a big picture kind of guy. So I don't particularly care if the DM fudges a roll to keep from killing us every once and a while for whatever reason. It's really a question of degree - if it's what they are doing all of the time vs rarely, and more importantly how that fits in the overall DM style and the game that we enjoy as a result.

Ideologically I think I'm a 'rarely' type, but the reality is that I really don't care as long as the game is good. I can't remember any game that I've played as a player (30+ years) that the thought about whether the DM fudged something or not occurred. Ever.

I've known that they have, usually after the fact because I just love discussing the game, rules, etc. as much as I enjoy playing it. Even when I learn of it after the fact it has never impacted my enjoyment of the game, nor of the story. During the game, however, I don't like to dwell on the rules. The less time we spend with the rules, including interacting with them, the more time we spend playing. My role is to play my character to the best of my ability. The DM presents the world and the actions and reactions of those in it. How they accomplish this is up to them.

In terms of the dice, I expect that a higher roll is better, and that specific circumstances can alter the results. I'd prefer not to die, and act accordingly, but adventuring is a dangerous business. If it happens, it happens.

The why is simple. We're there to enjoy the game. Immerse ourselves in our character and the DM's world. The rules are a tool to help ensure that we have a general understanding of the world and how it works. It provides inherent fun with the randomness of the dice (yes, it's still exciting to roll a critical), but the dice are just one part of the game and the rules that make it work. There have been many times where we'll have an entire session, sometimes several, without any die rolls at all. No combats, and we use die rolls in interactions only when necessary to cover the fact that player skill and character skill are two different things, as well as the DM's ability to role-play an NPC (which I'm not that great at). A lot of the time, it's not even interactions with NPCs. Many times it's interaction within the party itself.

So, if I had to guess, since I've always enjoyed an immersive style of game, the dice are less important to me, and sometimes get in the way. I don't like the 'game' to intrude upon the game so to speak. For example, we don't use initiative. Largely because I can't stand that stark differentiation between the story and 'roll initiative' - oh, must be a combat now. Combat doesn't start until somebody or something actually attacks. Otherwise it might be a hostile confrontation, but that's it.

So whether that ogre hit me with a killing blow, or a near killing blow is still exciting. I still don't know whether I will escape with my life, or that of my companions. If I was spared for whatever reason, I'm not sticking around to find out why, and really don't care why. Retreat, regroup, and go back in to take care of the ogre.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Maxperson]

Destroying the party (during any fight whatsoever) isn't necessarily "breaking the game". TPKs are part of the game.

Yes, TPKs are part of the game, but only when the party has a reasonable chance to win like the math requires. When extreme luck drives the fight out of that range and the party has literally no chance of survival due solely to that bad luck, the game has broken. It's not designed to handle situations like that.

i.e. They think death should only happen at certain times in the story. That's a story value.

I've never said the party can't die to a random encounter like the ogres.

 

[Maxperson]

Ilbranteloth could not want that PC to die because his grandmother said she'd kill herself if that PC died, the fact is he still anticipated fudging would prevent/cause a given in-story event and did it because that prevented/caused in-story event (no matter what its ultimate point) was more important to Ilbranteloth than the advantages gained by never fudging.

No. No. And no. Intent determines everything here. If he is keeping them alive because of his grandmother, then story has absolutely nothing to do with it. Does it have a secondary effect of altering the in game story? Sure. That's not relevant, though. If the reason behind what he is doing is not that very story, then he is not choosing story over anything.

At the moment of that choice, and for the length of that choice, making a STORY thing happen or not was placed OVER making a challenge thing happen or not.

No. Grandmother was placed over both story and challenge equally. He wasn't concerned with either story or challenge when he made his decision. Both story and challenge suffered by being altered from the normal course of events had he not stepped in.

 

[Maxperson]

I think we're talking past each other. The ONLY kind of fudging i am arguing against is secret fudging. If the fudging is done in the open, or, preferably, through modifications of die rolls using mechanics, then I have absolutely no problem with die rolls being changed.

Maps, and monster stats are only hidden insofar as they are there to be discovered by the players. The POINT of hiding the map is of the players to explore it. At no point is secret fudging meant to be brought to light.

We might be talking past each other. I thought you said a few pages back that fudging had to be secret in order to be fudging. It doesn't.

I disagree that hidden things are meant to be discovered. Some portions of them can be discovered, but that's about it. When I have hidden monster stats, the vast majority of those stats will never be discovered. If the players figure out AC due to hits and misses they will discover it, otherwise they won't. The won't know exact hit points. They won't know all of its abilities if they are not used, and perhaps not even if they are used, depending on the ability. The can't even be assured that they will discover what the monster is. I don't name monsters that the PC's haven't figured out in game. I just describe them. The same goes for the map. They often don't explore or discover everything on the map. If they miss a secret door, it will be secret forever. I'm not going to tell them later what they missed.

 

[Zak S]

YWhen extreme luck drives the fight out of that range and the party has literally no chance of survival due solely to that bad luck, the game has broken. It's not designed to handle situations like that.

It is for LOTS of people who aren't playing by your values. So that's just like saying "I don't like brussels sprouts so if they appear, food is BROKEN!"

The word "broken" is not actually a synonym for "not Maxperson's preference".

If he is keeping them alive because of his grandmother, then story has absolutely nothing to do with it. Does it have a secondary effect of altering the in game story? Sure. That's not relevant, though. If the reason behind what he is doing is not that very story, then he is not choosing story over anything.

At the moment of that choice, and for the length of that choice, making a STORY thing happen or not was placed OVER making a challenge thing happen or not.
No. Grandmother was placed over both story and challenge equally. He wasn't concerned with either story or challenge when he made his decision. Both story and challenge suffered by being altered from the normal course of events had he not stepped in.

Nope, because the point is the instrument the DM chooses to keep granny alive is making a given a story even happen.

So, abstractly, keeping granny alive may be more important than "story" but:

in the moment of that decision

the DM decided making a given story thing happen was more important than increasing the feeling of challenge by not fudging.

The use of "Story" as the instrument to exert the GM's will may have been incidental, but it was still what happened in that moment.

 

[darjr]

Its possible to not be interested in one challenge but be interested in another.

 

[Zak S]

Its possible to not be interested in one challenge but be interested in another.

Yes. But we're talking about a specific incident of fudging and what that entails for that moment--not what a group's preference as a whole is.

If you run a red light on the way to work, you might be valuing speed over safety in that moment. It doesn't mean you always will forever.

 

[JohnLynch]

[MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION]

Re: Different rules vs fudging

They're different because they're engaging in different rules. You gave your players plot armour by deciding ahead of time to fudge in the event of a critical hit. I'm not a fan of this. There is a difference because different rules are coming into play.

The bear ignoring a non threat is the bear reacting in response to the world around it and the player's choice to play a character that looks weaker than others. Their decisions have directly impacted the situation. There is greater player agency than there is with fudging because they're experiencing the consequences of their decisions.

Re: Wandering tables by level

I never advocated a world that levels up with the PCs so this is a non-argument in response to what I said. If you decide there is a danger and the players decide to undertake actions that would engage that danger, what you do in response to this will determine whether their agency has been lessened. If you use plot armor to ensure the PCs never engage in that threat until they reach level X then yes, their agency is being lessened. Just as if you decide to roll a d20 but ignore the roll if it doesn't match what you wanted.

Re: Dummy rolls

I tell my players as I'm rolling that this could be a dummy roll. So there is a difference.

Re: Rules for fudging

Yes, you are allowed to fudge by the rules. Doesn't mean your required to though. The name of the thread is "do you want your DM to fudge" and the answer for me is no, and I've listed a whole bunch of options available to the DM other than fudging.

Conclusion: You will not catch me saying fudging is bad. I do not like it and I choose to use other rules in place of it. I like my character to suffer the full repercussions of their actions rather than have a DM fudge those repercussions.

 

[Hussar]

We might be talking past each other. I thought you said a few pages back that fudging had to be secret in order to be fudging. It doesn't.

I disagree that hidden things are meant to be discovered. Some portions of them can be discovered, but that's about it. When I have hidden monster stats, the vast majority of those stats will never be discovered. If the players figure out AC due to hits and misses they will discover it, otherwise they won't. The won't know exact hit points. They won't know all of its abilities if they are not used, and perhaps not even if they are used, depending on the ability. The can't even be assured that they will discover what the monster is. I don't name monsters that the PC's haven't figured out in game. I just describe them. The same goes for the map. They often don't explore or discover everything on the map. If they miss a secret door, it will be secret forever. I'm not going to tell them later what they missed.

The point you're missing though is that the players do have the chance of discovering all of the things you mentioned. They are there to be discovered, if the players want to. IOW, actual discovery isn't really the issue. it's the opportunity to discover.

In secret fudging, there is no chance to discover that it was done, and that's the entire point of keeping it secret - to ensure that the players never see the strings being pulled. And, again, the only reason that it's being kept secret is because if it is discovered, the players won't be happy about it. OTOH, if I discover that secret door, I'm pretty happy. If I uncover the monster's AC, I'm pretty ok with that. Presuming the monster has a name and a kind, I can leverage all sorts of character resources (skill checks, magic, class abilities) to discover that. If I'm a 7th level battle master, I can discover at least two things about the monster's stat block simply by observing it.

Keeping things behind the screen and unknown to the players but available to be discovered is not the same as keeping something secret and actively doing everything in your power to prevent the players from discovery.

/edited to add:

Yes, I am changing my original point. You're right, fudging need not be secret, if you define fudging as simply changing die rolls. Like I said earlier, 5e has a plethora of means for changing die rolls, on both sides of the screen. My issue is solely with what I'm going to term "secret fudging" and I define that as changing a roll without the table being aware that you are doing so, and specifically keeping that information from the table.

It is interesting to note that games which include fudging mechanics - Savage World's Bennies, Fate's Fate Points, I'm sure there are many others, don't include advice for fudging. They place fudging completely in the open and it would actually be pretty counter to the mechanics for the DM to secretly fudge. IMO, since 5e has numerous ways for the players to mitigate luck and change die rolls, I really don't think 5e needs secret fudging. I'd actually go some ways further and say that the advice included in the DMG is more a sop to older players who haven't quite wrapped their heads around the fact that 5e isn't AD&D and doesn't need secret fudging.

Although, that being said, if you were playing Basic 5e rules, where so many of those character mechanics for changing die rolls don't exist, then I could see the need for the DM to step in and adjust things more often.