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

[Hussar]

You're way overthinking things. The best tactic is the one the DM feels is the best for the situation, and that will not be a deliberately stupid one when it come to a dragon.

But that's my point. What is deliberately stupid and what is simply a mistake?

 

[Imaculata]

You're way overthinking things. The best tactic is the one the DM feels is the best for the situation, and that will not be a deliberately stupid one when it come to a dragon.

I disagree. Suppose I do play the dragon to its strengths. I have him fly out of range of the players, and focus fire on the one player who is the biggest threat. So very quickly this one player is hurting bad, and near death, because the dragon focuses all its attacks on him. But in an attempt to have the dragon switch targets, one of the other players tries to intimidate the dragon to draw its fire, there by sparing their party member so he has time to find shelter and/or heal up.

Now if I were to play this dragon entirely to its strengths, it would laugh at the intimidate attempt, and simply finish the job. However, as a DM I recognize that part of what makes D&D fun, is the ability for the players to act and try and affect the outcome. If I just flat out deny them any opportunity to save their friend, I'm not doing a very good job as a DM in my opinion.

So there are two things I can do here. I can simply have the dragon change targets, which would be fudging a little, since I'm definitely having the dragon fall for something stupid. I'm not changing the outcome of a dice roll, but I would be having the dragon act in a way that is beneficial to the players and bad for the dragon. On the other hand, what I could also do is make a dice roll decide if it's a success. The player might have to succeed at an intimidate check first, for which I as a DM decide the DC. I could pull a number out of thin air, or I could base the DC on the intelligence score of the dragon, which makes a little more sense.

 

[Maxperson]

But that's my point. What is deliberately stupid and what is simply a mistake?

Deliberately stupid is intentionally being wrong and a mistake accidentally being wrong. I would think that would be fairly obvious.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree. Suppose I do play the dragon to its strengths. I have him fly out of range of the players, and focus fire on the one player who is the biggest threat. So very quickly this one player is hurting bad, and near death, because the dragon focuses all its attacks on him. But in an attempt to have the dragon switch targets, one of the other players tries to intimidate the dragon to draw its fire, there by sparing their party member so he has time to find shelter and/or heal up.

Now if I were to play this dragon entirely to its strengths, it would laugh at the intimidate attempt, and simply finish the job. However, as a DM I recognize that part of what makes D&D fun, is the ability for the players to act and try and affect the outcome. If I just flat out deny them any opportunity to save their friend, I'm not doing a very good job as a DM in my opinion.

So there are two things I can do here. I can simply have the dragon change targets, which would be fudging a little, since I'm definitely having the dragon fall for something stupid. I'm not changing the outcome of a dice roll, but I would be having the dragon act in a way that is beneficial to the players and bad for the dragon. On the other hand, what I could also do is make a dice roll decide if it's a success. The player might have to succeed at an intimidate check first, for which I as a DM decide the DC. I could pull a number out of thin air, or I could base the DC on the intelligence score of the dragon, which makes a little more sense.

I think you missed my earlier post where I said that the dragon will usually be smart in its attacks. I used that word for a reason. Yes, there will be exceptions, but those exceptions will not involve the DM being deliberately stupid with attacks. A dragon reacting to a successful intimidate check isn't the DM just being deliberately stupid with dragon attacks.

 

[Halivar]

One time ten to twelve years ago, I pulled Tucker's Kobolds on my players. They were level 8, the kobolds were CR 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever they were in the MM. Everything was by the rules: trap DC's, etc. Everything was in line with (or even below) acceptable parameters for the party's level. I fudged no rolls, and I was ruthlessly canny with the kobold's tactics. It wasn't a TPK, but it was heading in that direction when one of my players gave me a novel suggestion for what I could do with my campaign and what dark holes I could shove it in. The game (and the campaign) ended early, no one had any fun, nothing but frustration, and to this day one of my friends will not play in a fantasy game I run.

So no, I don't play my monsters as smart as they could be; I play them as smart as they need to be to challenge the players to overcome them. I fudge inasmuch as the encounter is difficult but not depressingly frustrating. My players' characters will always face death, but never on terms such that they are helpless in the face of it. That's more important to me (and, clearly, to my players; though they would never couch it as such, and may not even be aware of their own preference; rather, it is clear from their greater enjoyment) than respecting someone's wish for how I may or may not be running the game behind the screen.

 

[Maxperson]

One time ten to twelve years ago, I pulled Tucker's Kobolds on my players. They were level 8, the kobolds were CR 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever they were in the MM. Everything was by the rules: trap DC's, etc. Everything was in line with (or even below) acceptable parameters for the party's level. I fudged no rolls, and I was ruthlessly canny with the kobold's tactics. It wasn't a TPK, but it was heading in that direction when one of my players gave me a novel suggestion for what I could do with my campaign and what dark holes I could shove it in. The game (and the campaign) ended early, no one had any fun, nothing but frustration, and to this day one of my friends will not play in a fantasy game I run.

So no, I don't play my monsters as smart as they could be; I play them as smart as they need to be to challenge the players to overcome them. I fudge inasmuch as the encounter is difficult but not depressingly frustrating. My players' characters will always face death, but never on terms such that they are helpless in the face of it. That's more important to me (and, clearly, to my players; though they would never couch it as such, and may not even be aware of their own preference; rather, it is clear from their greater enjoyment) than respecting someone's wish for how I may or may not be running the game behind the screen.

Dragon Mountain was a level 10-15 2e module that involved mostly kobolds and traps.

 

[billd91]

Not by how most people have been defining fudging. For most, fudging is just changing or disregarding die rolls that have already been made.

Unfortunately, there are some players who are so sensitive that if a DM purposefully pulls punches, they feel cheated.

This is one of the reasons I consider any distinction pointless. I'm the GM - I edit things on my end of the game. It may be a monster's stats, it may be my die roll, it may be a tactic I choose the NPC/monster to take, or it may even be a rule. I consider all of these things, on my side of the screen, mine to adjust to produce a better and more enjoyable campaign. None of these, whether published or generated during play, are sacred.

 

[MostlyDm]

I disagree. Suppose I do play the dragon to its strengths. I have him fly out of range of the players, and focus fire on the one player who is the biggest threat. So very quickly this one player is hurting bad, and near death, because the dragon focuses all its attacks on him. But in an attempt to have the dragon switch targets, one of the other players tries to intimidate the dragon to draw its fire, there by sparing their party member so he has time to find shelter and/or heal up.

Now if I were to play this dragon entirely to its strengths, it would laugh at the intimidate attempt, and simply finish the job. However, as a DM I recognize that part of what makes D&D fun, is the ability for the players to act and try and affect the outcome. If I just flat out deny them any opportunity to save their friend, I'm not doing a very good job as a DM in my opinion.

So there are two things I can do here. I can simply have the dragon change targets, which would be fudging a little, since I'm definitely having the dragon fall for something stupid. I'm not changing the outcome of a dice roll, but I would be having the dragon act in a way that is beneficial to the players and bad for the dragon. On the other hand, what I could also do is make a dice roll decide if it's a success. The player might have to succeed at an intimidate check first, for which I as a DM decide the DC. I could pull a number out of thin air, or I could base the DC on the intelligence score of the dragon, which makes a little more sense.

Here's the fun thing: which of those is fudging?

I don't think Iserith or Aaron or any of the strongly anti-fudging group would say that allowing the player a chance to change the dragon's behavior is fudging at all.

And if you set the DC based on something semi objective, say 8 or 10 + dragon's intelligence bonus, again I don't think anyone would raise an eyebrow.

But is it fudging to simply have it work, no die roll? (Again, guessing Iserith would say no, unequivocally)

Is it fudging to set the DC fairly low, say, 10?

What if you set the DC to "X+the player's bonus to intimidate checks" with X being 5 or 10 or 15 or whatever you want the roll to have to be? Fudging or no?

What if you don't set a DC at all, and just have them roll and then estimate gradual success based on how good of a roll it was? Fudging?

Or is it only fudging if, after you set a DC and have them roll, you secretly change the DC to force success/failure?

What if you set a DC, and then as they roll the player also shouts, in character, some additional insult beyond the ones that prompted the roll? Something absolutely perfect and intimidating? Do you change the DC now? Declare auto success? They already rolled. You can't unsee it. Is that fudging?

I have my own opinions about all of these, but I don't think they're all obvious answers. Curious what people think.

 

[iserith]

Here's the fun thing: which of those is fudging?

I don't think Iserith or Aaron or any of the strongly anti-fudging group would say that allowing the player a chance to change the dragon's behavior is fudging at all.

For my part, that is correct.

But is it fudging to simply have it work, no die roll? (Again, guessing Iserith would say no, unequivocally)

Right.

Is it fudging to set the DC fairly low, say, 10?

Not in my view.

What if you set the DC to "X+the player's bonus to intimidate checks" with X being 5 or 10 or 15 or whatever you want the roll to have to be? Fudging or no?

I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean to set the DC below the lowest a player could roll? If so, I wonder why the DM decided the outcome was uncertain in the first place. Otherwise it sounds just like setting a DC normally - pick a difficulty based on assessing the situation. (I may not be reading this right. I've been over it several times and it isn't clicking.)

What if you don't set a DC at all, and just have them roll and then estimate gradual success based on how good of a roll it was? Fudging?

I'd stop short of calling it fudging, but I don't play this way. I set success and failure conditions and roll to decide between the two.

Or is it only fudging if, after you set a DC and have them roll, you secretly change the DC to force success/failure?

That's definitely fudging in my view.

What if you set a DC, and then as they roll the player also shouts, in character, some additional insult beyond the ones that prompted the roll? Something absolutely perfect and intimidating? Do you change the DC now? Declare auto success? They already rolled. You can't unsee it. Is that fudging?

It might just be another action that is is undertaken an adjudicated, but the success or failure conditions of the first ability check should definitely come into play as it has already been resolved in my view. I don't see this sort of thing in play though. Once goal and approach is clear, I announce stakes, then the player rolls and I narrate results. No reversies, no backsies.

My definition of fudging is pretty clear in general - choose to engage the rules/dice to get a result, then change/ignore the result. But in the case of the DM knowing going soft tactically to prevent a particular outcome, this dips a toe into fudging in my view because ultimately it goes back to the DM not being okay with the stakes. This is the underlying issue with any kind of fudging and why I have mentioned several times that thinking about and learning how to set the stakes at the outset of a challenge is a great skill to have (for more reasons than just avoiding the need to fudge).

 

[MostlyDm]

I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean to set the DC below the lowest a player could roll? If so, I wonder why the DM decided the outcome was uncertain in the first place. Otherwise it sounds just like setting a DC normally - pick a difficulty based on assessing the situation. (I may not be reading this right. I've been over it several times and it isn't clicking.)

I could have phrased it better. I mean essentially that the DM is specifically setting the DC based on the bonus of the person rolling. So what matters is the die roll, not the modifiers.

So in effect deciding "if joe rolls an 11 or better on the die, he passes" rather than setting a DC based on some attempt at objectivity about the setting, and letting Joe be better or worse at passing the check based on how much he has invested in the skill.

It's a peculiar form of quasi-fudging, but I ran into it a few times 10-15 years ago when I played public games with unknown DMs.

The place it really falls apart is when multiple people attempt the same thing, and you sometimes see someone with a lower overall result surpass someone with a higher result, because they rolled higher on the die with a smaller bonus. That's also when a suspicion that the DM is running things this way can be confirmed.

Typing hastily on my phone, hope it is a little clearer this time.