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

[Blue]

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.

But earlier you said:

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.

Help me understand why this is fudging because your posts seem to say different things. Is it because he didn't have any firm ideas going into each encounter and made it up as the encounter was progressing?

Just thought of something - when you say "roll an 18", do you mean the result of the to-hit roll was 18, or the natural number showing on the die is 18? Because the latter would be ignoring the mechanics altogether and would annoy the snot out of me as well.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Which story? Presumably not the one that emerges in play from the dice rolls!

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

But earlier you said:



Help me understand why this is fudging because your posts seem to say different things. Is it because he didn't have any firm ideas going into each encounter and made it up as the encounter was progressing?

Just thought of something - when you say "roll an 18", do you mean the result of the to-hit roll was 18, or the natural number showing on the die is 18? Because the latter would be ignoring the mechanics altogether and would annoy the snot out of me as well.

When I say come up with an on the fly encounter, that means determining the AC, HP, attack, damage, abilities, etc, of the creatures in that encounter. I do not mean go into an encounter and decide the variables on an as felt basis.

I assume when you said you've come up with on the fly encounters before, you mean you gave your monsters stats. He did not. He just had an idea of how strong or weak he wanted them, and then went with his gut on the rest. That is definitely not the standard procedure for D&D.

As for the last bit, I mean a modified 18, not a natural. But AC's can vary, and when we rolled a 16, it's possible that should have hit, had he bothered to stat the monsters out properly. It means some encounters may have been harder than they should have been, used up more of our resources than they should have. It's hard to feel like you're making good tactical choices, saving your resources, and working as an effective party, when none of that is actually in your control. He robbed us of the possibility our choices could have affected us positively or negatively. He robbed us of true choice.

 

[Maxperson]

No.

When I am playing the game, I want my successes and failures in the game to be there because of the actions my PC takes and the outcomes be based on the probabilities known at the table.

Unfortunately, extreme bad luck with die rolling and/or extreme good luck for the DM has nothing to do with the actions your PC takes. That's the problem.

 

[Maxperson]

Voted "No, never." Fudging undermines my ability to make informed choices, and my ability to learn from and adapt around past choices.

Fudging doesn't always do that, though. The game is designed with a random element and it can handle that random element within certain confines. Unfortunately, as with any bell curve, you will eventually have good luck and/or bad luck happen to an extreme that it falls outside of that range and completely invalidates your choices. That's when fudging should happen. The DM fudging just nudges the situation back into the proper bell curve range and allows your choices to have meaning again. You could still lose, die, win, etc., but it will be because of your decisions and the appropriate amount of randomness, not extreme luck.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

That's untrue. Fudging is just a change. It can make the game more challenging if the DM desires.

 

[Nagol]

Unfortunately, extreme bad luck with die rolling and/or extreme good luck for the DM has nothing to do with the actions your PC takes. That's the problem.

Feature not bug.

1) the game engine has a huge impact on how much fortune (good and bad) a PC can be subject to.

2) Those extremes make the best after-action stories to recount years later.

 

[Maxperson]

Feature not bug.

1) the game engine has a huge impact on how much fortune (good and bad) a PC can be subject to.

2) Those extremes make the best after-action stories to recount years later.

I disagree. I've never heard a group talking about how great it was that everyone died to a random encounter that they should have defeated, despite doing everything right, all because of very bad luck.

All of the great stories that I have personally heard recounted that dealt with extreme luck have been the good kind where the lone PC survived and beat the BBEG against all odds.

 

[Nagol]

I disagree. I've never heard a group talking about how great it was that everyone died to a random encounter that they should have defeated, despite doing everything right, all because of very bad luck.

All of the great stories that I have personally heard recounted that dealt with extreme luck have been the good kind where the lone PC survived and beat the BBEG against all odds.

Let's see there was the time Steve's Aftermath character managed to fall off a horse, compound fracture his arm and come this close to death... while riding at a walk on a good path.
Ronald's character was killed in Morrow Project while armoured and sitting in the pop-up of a personnel carrier -- by a thrown rock.
There was the time my character managed to kill at least half a dozen people as a doctor -- who was a terrifically skilled surgeon.

I can go on. There are so many that get recounted every so often. "Hah! You think THAT was bad luck! It's nothing compared to..."

 

[Maxperson]

Let's see there was the time Steve's Aftermath character managed to fall off a horse, compound fracture his arm and come this close to death... while riding at a walk on a good path.
Ronald's character was killed in Morrow Project while armoured and sitting in the pop-up of a personnel carrier -- by a thrown rock.
There was the time my character managed to kill at least half a dozen people as a doctor -- who was a terrifically skilled surgeon.

I can go on. There are so many that get recounted every so often. "Hah! You think THAT was bad luck! It's nothing compared to..."

See, it's things like that that cause a disconnect for me and are not at all enjoyable. Highly skilled people shouldn't be capable of achieving that level of badness. Most, if not all of those I play with would be similarly upset. I could see someone who has never been on a horse falling off at a walk, though. To each his own.

P.S. The rock death, though. That would have been pretty funny. Sometimes crit happens.