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

[Hussar]

I also wonder if there might be some correlation between fudging (or the apparent need of it) and adventure design. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] talks about how he designs encounters that are on the bleeding edge of survivability. Which means that vagaries of dice would have a much more exaggerated effect. In the bear example, if the party wasn't 1st level, the bear could hit every attack and even crit once or twice (assuming a 2nd or 3rd level party) and likely no one would die. They might be in dire need of a long rest afterwards, but, they likely survive.

OTOH, if you are regularly using encounters that are 5 or more levels above the party, typically done in groups that have only one or two encounters per long rest, then those same die rolls would be catastrophic. You'd mop the floor with the PC's because the encounter is much more swingy. This was a particular issue in 3e where you had x3 crit weapons and monsters that did a LOT of damage relative to the expected level of the PC. It wasn't that hard to off a PC in combat in 3e, even with creatures that were par level. When even a stock 3e Ogre can do 46 points of damage on a crit, that's going to turn a 3rd level 3e PC into a fine red mist. Granted the odds of doing so are long, but, not that long. Give the ogre a Great Axe and it gets that much worse.

I'd hazard a guess, and this is only a guess, that there is a direct relationship to the swinging of the game (and by game I mean game system + DM style) and the apparent need to fudge.

 

[Imaculata]

Fudging removes challenge by modifying the accepted stakes - that is, what is gained by winning or lost by losing. If the DM fudges to my benefit, rather than succeed or fail due to my skill and luck, I succeeded because I basically couldn't lose. My skill and luck mattered less or not at all. Without challenge, the game is missing a critical component. I cannot have fun and thus fail to achieve the goals of play, even if we managed to create an exciting, memorable story in the doing.

I agree entirely. When the DM hands a victory to his players, when they should have died, then it feels like the victory wasn't really earned. It sucks a lot of the suspense and the feeling of reward from the game.

That is not to say that a DM can't sometimes feel the need to adjust an encounter on the fly, when he realizes he made a mistake. But there are ways to do that that are more subtle, and don't require outright ignoring what was rolled.

I understand that I may have done so in the past, and I can see what kind of a dramatic effect it can have on the perceived suspense of my players. So what I do these days, is roll a lot of things out in the open, and tell them what the stakes are.

For example, in a recent encounter an Ocularon grappled one of the players, and unless he escaped, then his eyes would be stolen in the next round. So I described to the player how the creature was lining up its sharp tentacles in front of his eyes, ready to pluck them out. All of the grapple checks that followed I rolled out in the open. I wanted my players to see that all of it was fair, and I outright told them the stakes. I told them "unless you escape, then on the next round this creature will attempt to pluck out your eyes". You could feel the tension at the table, and I knew that one of my players could be permanently blinded after this encounter. To my surprise however, the player came up with a brilliant plan to escape the jaws of defeat, and used his Ring of the Ram to launch the creature that was grappling him through a dimensional portal. I did not consider this an option, but was happy to be surprised by the resourcefulness of my players.

My players are level 11 right now, and I consider that high level (by 3rd edition standards at least). So that's the level where you should no longer be pulling punches. That is the level when players face really powerful opponents with very deadly abilities, such as Beholders, Mindflayers, Krakens, Demons, etc. So there should be a chance of dying at this point. Further more, they were in The Eternal Depths (a realm of the dead for people who died at sea) when it happened, and it was my goal as a DM to make them afraid of this high level area. If I fudged at this point, it would have totally undermined both the suspense of the entire campaign, and their fear of this important area of the game.

 

[Libramarian]

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.

I think we should keep fudging defined as secretly changing the results of dice rolls, in which case most of those would not be fudging. But if we're talking about good gamist GMing more generally, the only acceptable way to go would be to set an objective DC consistent with similar situations, and preferably announce it before the player rolls. The basic rule for gamist GMing is to 1) set up challenging situations, but then 2) play them out in a consistent way without bias.

If you declare it works without a roll, presumably this is a one-time thing because you're not going to let PCs automatically intimidate monsters all the time. That would be poor GMing in this case, but if it's done openly the group can call that encounter a mulligan and play on. Fudging undermines a challenge-based game more severely because, as it's done secretly, the effect on each particular situation is unclear.

I would say that it plays into expectations. A creature is expected to act in a certain way. If the creature:

1. acts in an unusual way,
2. to the benefit of the PCs
3. without a compensating reason

then that is fudging.

As mentioned above, I don't want to call this fudging, but I would agree that it's poor GMing. Different DMs and groups will interpret usual and unusual monster behavior a bit differently, but that's OK as long as each DM is consistent within their own game.

It's interesting to note that AD&D has rules for randomly determining which opponents will be targeted in melee, and when a dragon will use its breath weapon.

 

[Libramarian]

A great story and a great time playing is what the game is all about to me.

Totally understand that others don't feel the same way, but as a player it doesn't matter to me. The memory of the game and the time with friends does.

I have a great time making memories and spending time with friends too, and I find your attitude somewhat pretentious and condescending. I don't think there's even a tradeoff to be made here. I guess reducing the players' engagement with the game as a challenge might shift their focus towards a passive appreciation of the story. For my group that would be a less enjoyable time.

 

[Zak S]

Going " I guess I just like to have FUN that's all that matters to me" is always a cop out.

Everybody likes fun. Different people think different things are fun--the reasons why they like those things (a much more interesting conversation) is what we're talking about.

It just slowwwwws every conversation down to ever say "Well I just like FUN".

 

[iserith]

Well, a common one that I've seen people mention is just too powerful of a monster. Or too powerful if played with solid tactics by the DM.

But more often is not a mistake as just freak dice rolling, like two or three criticals in a row.

I don't think it could ever be a mistake to put a particular monster before the PCs. Cautious PCs are choosy about what they fight and have ways to assess difficulty. That is a player skill.

As for dice, players should be taking into consideration the fickleness of a d20 when deciding what to do - another player skill.

Which is fair, and I'm fine with that too. But I think that this, like many statements, over-estimates the effect of fudging. In my bear attack example, the only fudge would be on a critical hit. Is not that you couldn't lose, but that you couldn't lose on a surprise first shot.

If a DM fudged only every once in a while, it's really having a minimum impact of the challenge of the game as a whole. I seriously doubt that in a dozen sessions of play, that preventing a single critical hit against you would deprive you entirely of fun.

Plus, the fudge to eliminate a critical on that first attack does nothing about the challenge for the remaining combat, it just means that you have one extra round to work with. You still have to react to what you are given.

Really, the only difference is that the DM instead of the dice at that very moment decided (in part) your fate. The fact that the DM did it doesn't inherently remove challenge, although it may modify it.

The DM has a significant influence on the challenge by their selection of opponents (if not entirely random), tactics, etc., They set DCs, and other situational modifiers, although with the advantage/disadvantage system is more streamlined and less susceptible to a change from +1 to +2 for example. The only difference is that the modification of after the die roll.

In this particular example - and I addressed it upthread - is that the DM is reducing difficulty instead of removing challenge. (Challenge and difficulty aren't the same thing.) That is, if the DM leaves the failure conditions as a possibility. But one wonders why the DM should care at all if a PC goes down in Round 1 to a critical hit. It still sounds like the DM is not bought into the stakes. If you go down in one of my games in round 1, boo-flumphing-hoo, get your backup character out and play on.

I don't find this any different than real life. There are many times you think you know the stakes, only to find out they are different after the fact. Sometimes you don't ever find out, you just go with it and move on. Your skill isn't affected, just your preventing odds.

I'm not interested in "real life" comparisons as we're talking about a game. I'm interested in fairness and challenge being present in the game I'm playing (or running). Being clear about the stakes and bringing them into play when an outcome is fairly produced is a good thing in my view. This is what happens if you win. This is what happens if you lose. Now go forth and try to win and let's all have fun and tell a good story in the doing.

 

[iserith]

I also wonder if there might be some correlation between fudging (or the apparent need of it) and adventure design. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] talks about how he designs encounters that are on the bleeding edge of survivability. Which means that vagaries of dice would have a much more exaggerated effect. In the bear example, if the party wasn't 1st level, the bear could hit every attack and even crit once or twice (assuming a 2nd or 3rd level party) and likely no one would die. They might be in dire need of a long rest afterwards, but, they likely survive.

OTOH, if you are regularly using encounters that are 5 or more levels above the party, typically done in groups that have only one or two encounters per long rest, then those same die rolls would be catastrophic. You'd mop the floor with the PC's because the encounter is much more swingy. This was a particular issue in 3e where you had x3 crit weapons and monsters that did a LOT of damage relative to the expected level of the PC. It wasn't that hard to off a PC in combat in 3e, even with creatures that were par level. When even a stock 3e Ogre can do 46 points of damage on a crit, that's going to turn a 3rd level 3e PC into a fine red mist. Granted the odds of doing so are long, but, not that long. Give the ogre a Great Axe and it gets that much worse.

I'd hazard a guess, and this is only a guess, that there is a direct relationship to the swinging of the game (and by game I mean game system + DM style) and the apparent need to fudge.

If a DM is known to use very difficulty encounters by the numbers, then it's on the players to apply their skill in reducing the difficulty. That is part and parcel to challenge - winning or losing on their own merits.

 

[Maxperson]

Technically speaking, you said "almost always" rather than "usually." The latter implies a lot more room for exceptions than the former. I might be mincing words with that, but I certainly got a different sense from your original statement than from this one.

That's true. For instance, since dragons are typically centuries old and very smart, you aren't likely to be able to just taunt one into attacking you. They've seen just about every move your PC can think of. The player is going to have to come up with something really good, not just "I taunt it." to even get a roll. Otherwise the outcome is not uncertain. It's just going to fail on the dragon. The possibility is there, though.

 

[Maxperson]

I also wonder if there might be some correlation between fudging (or the apparent need of it) and adventure design. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] talks about how he designs encounters that are on the bleeding edge of survivability. Which means that vagaries of dice would have a much more exaggerated effect. In the bear example, if the party wasn't 1st level, the bear could hit every attack and even crit once or twice (assuming a 2nd or 3rd level party) and likely no one would die. They might be in dire need of a long rest afterwards, but, they likely survive.

First, that's a slight exaggeration of what I said. I said that I provide challenging encounters that often push the envelope, but that envelope is not the bleeding edge of survivability. Were they that hard, there would be a lot more TPKs or else a lot more fudging. They're just designed to force the group to go all out in order to beat it. Second, I already said that it likely contributes to my having to fudge 2-4 times over a two year period, rather than probably 0-2 times.

My group isn't into having multiple encounters on a daily basis just because the rules say so. They prefer one big fight, so that's what I give them. That doesn't mean that weaker encounters don't happen, or that multiple encounter don't happen. It just means that for multiple encounters to happen, there has to be an in game reason for so many monsters to be in the area.

 

[Halivar]

Going " I guess I just like to have FUN that's all that matters to me" is always a cop out.

Everybody likes fun. Different people think different things are fun--the reasons why they like those things (a much more interesting conversation) is what we're talking about.

It just slowwwwws every conversation down to ever say "Well I just like FUN".

Speak for yourself. I personally hate the stuff. Can't stand it. Can't even stand the silly fricative at the beginning of the word.

Ffffffffun. Blech.