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

[Hussar]

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.

Well, I think it tends to become circular. DM ignores the advice in the DMG and drops one big encounter per day on the party. Party curb stomps the encounter because they can blow all their resources and go nova on the single encounter. So, the DM ups the difficulty in the next encounter, which the party then curb stomps again. So the DM ups the difficulty again and the PC's win through. So on and so forth, until a balance is reached where the party can win the encounter, but, it costs them most of their resources to do so.

I'm not in any way belittling this play style by the way. It's perfectly valid.

But, what happens is that as you increase difficulty and use bigger and bigger encounters, the math of the game gets more and more swingy. Gritting with a monster that can only do 10% of the PC's normal HP in a single hit doesn't make a huge difference. Gritting with a monster that can do 75% of a PC's HP in a single normal hit results in a dead PC. The farther you get from baseline encounters, the more swingy those encounters become and the more likely the DM has to step in to "correct" for extreme luck.

 

[iserith]

Well, I think it tends to become circular. DM ignores the advice in the DMG and drops one big encounter per day on the party. Party curb stomps the encounter because they can blow all their resources and go nova on the single encounter. So, the DM ups the difficulty in the next encounter, which the party then curb stomps again. So the DM ups the difficulty again and the PC's win through. So on and so forth, until a balance is reached where the party can win the encounter, but, it costs them most of their resources to do so.

I'm not in any way belittling this play style by the way. It's perfectly valid.

But, what happens is that as you increase difficulty and use bigger and bigger encounters, the math of the game gets more and more swingy. Gritting with a monster that can only do 10% of the PC's normal HP in a single hit doesn't make a huge difference. Gritting with a monster that can do 75% of a PC's HP in a single normal hit results in a dead PC. The farther you get from baseline encounters, the more swingy those encounters become and the more likely the DM has to step in to "correct" for extreme luck.

If I were running such a game, I would make the goal of the challenge something other than reducing enemy hit points to zero. (Or for the monsters to achieve their goals by reducing PCs to zero hit points.) In other words, I'd change the stakes.

Or, I'd keep doing what I do now: Request the players make backup characters that we introduce into the ongoing story. I don't care even a little bit when I kill PCs as a result for any (fair) reason.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, I think it tends to become circular. DM ignores the advice in the DMG and drops one big encounter per day on the party. Party curb stomps the encounter because they can blow all their resources and go nova on the single encounter. So, the DM ups the difficulty in the next encounter, which the party then curb stomps again. So the DM ups the difficulty again and the PC's win through. So on and so forth, until a balance is reached where the party can win the encounter, but, it costs them most of their resources to do so.

I'm not in any way belittling this play style by the way. It's perfectly valid.

But, what happens is that as you increase difficulty and use bigger and bigger encounters, the math of the game gets more and more swingy. Gritting with a monster that can only do 10% of the PC's normal HP in a single hit doesn't make a huge difference. Gritting with a monster that can do 75% of a PC's HP in a single normal hit results in a dead PC. The farther you get from baseline encounters, the more swingy those encounters become and the more likely the DM has to step in to "correct" for extreme luck.

Speaking from experience, it's really not as swingy as you are making it out to be. If it was, I'd have to fudge a lot more than 2-4 times in a two year period.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

Not my intention at all. My point is that because of the way that I personally have always played the game, the 'whether the DM should fudge or not' has never crossed my mind. My concern is more of an overall 'am I having fun?' If so, then it's a good DM in my book, and the specifics don't matter to me.

Part of what I was also saying is that the idea that a DM fudging even once prevents somebody from having fun just doesn't make sense to me.

Like I said before, I'm more of a big picture person, although I can get in deep when designing mechanics. So even in a single session, one specific mechanic or use of a rule a DM technique isn't going to do much to alter my view of the game.

I just don't see how it reduces the player's involvement in the game. In my example the players don't know anything is different and they are free to take whatever actions they wish, which includes death.

No offense meant.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Libramarian]

Not my intention at all. My point is that because of the way that I personally have always played the game, the 'whether the DM should fudge or not' has never crossed my mind. My concern is more of an overall 'am I having fun?' If so, then it's a good DM in my book, and the specifics don't matter to me.

Part of what I was also saying is that the idea that a DM fudging even once prevents somebody from having fun just doesn't make sense to me.

Like I said before, I'm more of a big picture person, although I can get in deep when designing mechanics. So even in a single session, one specific mechanic or use of a rule a DM technique isn't going to do much to alter my view of the game.

I just don't see how it reduces the player's involvement in the game. In my example the players don't know anything is different and they are free to take whatever actions they wish, which includes death.

No offense meant.

Ilbranteloth

No worries.

I think when the DM knows that the players know that the DM doesn't know how things will turn out, it makes the game better as a social thing. The DM can do things like high-five a player in good faith. When you fudge, you can't do that. A fudger is like the dark knight of the game who has to hide in the shadows while the players are celebrating, or shaking their fists ruefully, hoping no one notices what they did.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

No worries.

I think when the DM knows that the players know that the DM doesn't know how things will turn out, it makes the game better as a social thing. The DM can do things like high-five a player in good faith. When you fudge, you can't do that. A fudger is like the dark knight of the game who has to hide in the shadows while the players are celebrating, or shaking their fists ruefully, hoping no one notices what they did.

I've never felt that way. Nudging a fight in their favor doesn't mean they didn't have to work for it, nor that there wasn't a serious threat. Just that I decided at a specific point that the dice were too deadly, for example. I've never once felt that I did anything wrong, so no need for me to behave any differently.

If a DM felt the way you describe, then I would say you are right, they shouldn't be fudging.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Maxperson]

No worries.

I think when the DM knows that the players know that the DM doesn't know how things will turn out, it makes the game better as a social thing. The DM can do things like high-five a player in good faith. When you fudge, you can't do that. A fudger is like the dark knight of the game who has to hide in the shadows while the players are celebrating, or shaking their fists ruefully, hoping no one notices what they did.

As Ilbranteloth pointed out, that's simply untrue. I only fudge when the bad luck happens to such an extreme that it breaks the game math and will kill the party. I then fudge only to nudge the party's chances back into the acceptable range of probability. That range still includes the possibility of PC death or TPK, so if they win, they have still earned that high five.

 

[Hussar]

As Ilbranteloth pointed out, that's simply untrue. I only fudge when the bad luck happens to such an extreme that it breaks the game math and will kill the party. I then fudge only to nudge the party's chances back into the acceptable range of probability. That range still includes the possibility of PC death or TPK, so if they win, they have still earned that high five.

A recent event in our current game kinda made me think about this thread. Our 6th level party was facing an enemy group, including a pair of trolls. One of the trolls had disadvantage on attacks and then proceeded to hit the monk three straight times anyway. A very low percentage event. Thing is, even with three hits, all he did was hurt the 6th level monk, nothing too serious. Dropped the monk out of about half of his HP.

This got me to thinking, what if that troll had critted three straight times? Well, other than probably dropping the monk to zero HP, nothing. It would be virtually impossible for the troll to outright kill the monk (barring hitting him after he's down). But, that's a CR 5 troll vs a 6th level PC. He shouldn't be able to outright kill that PC. That's exactly in line with encounter design and CR expectations.

So, a 1 in 8000 event (something that is rare enough that it should qualify for Maxperson's criteria of a fudgeable die roll series) would almost never be fudged because there is no need.

But, let's jack things up a bit - since that's generally what happens in a Very Deadly (or more) encounter - we use monsters whose CR is greater than the PC level. So, let's go with a CR 9 brute of a critter... Lessee... CR 9 Fire Giant. That's a nicely upgraded troll. Big brute critter without a lot of extra magic attacks. Three straight crits from the Fire Giant would outright kill a 6th level monk. Actually, since our Fire Giant only has two attacks, two straight crits still has a pretty good chance of killing the monk. So, a much, much higher chance event than 3 straight crits form the troll, results in a dead PC.

Which, IMO, greatly increases the need to fudge. The point of fudging is to protect the party from the extremes in the die rolls right? Well, part of the reason fudging is necessary is down to play style and encounter design. By jacking up the difficulty by using bigger critters, the pressure to fudge becomes quite a lot greater. In the troll encounter, there would almost certainly be no need to fudge. Even a one in a campaign bit of luck - 3 straight crits on the same target - doesn't need any intervention from the DM.

I wonder if this goes some distance to explaining the different approaches. Those that don't fudge, at a guess, probably hew closer to baseline game expectations, and those that do fudge tend to wander further afield when creating encounters.

 

[Halivar]

FWIW, Hussar, when I beef up an encounter, that's when I'm least likely to fudge. If a PC is going to die, I would rather the player have an epic story to go with it. BUT I also telegraph to the players that they are in a slightly-higher-than-appropriate encounter. In those cases I will even perform life-or-death rolls outside of the GM screen for extra tension. I can't fudge it if they can see it, after all. It's a promise from me that their lives are narratively out of my hands.

I am more likely to fudge when the party spends an hour of play time getting jacked by a stirge swarm (random encounter), and no one rolls above a ten all fight long. I mean, the entire encounter was abso-friggin'-lutely ridiculous. Everyone was out of healing, everyone had been dropped at least once, the healer was making death saves, and every round, like clockwork, 1d4+3 damage because the monsters behind my screen can't roll below a 15. Let's just say the stirges stopped "rolling" so high because I can't think of a more pathetic TPK. I secretly subtracted XP from the encounter to account for my (unspoken) interference. Just awful.

On the plus side, it was a good bonding moment for the PC's, and they still speak of the terrible stirges.

 

[Rhenny]

A recent event in our current game kinda made me think about this thread. Our 6th level party was facing an enemy group, including a pair of trolls. One of the trolls had disadvantage on attacks and then proceeded to hit the monk three straight times anyway. A very low percentage event. Thing is, even with three hits, all he did was hurt the 6th level monk, nothing too serious. Dropped the monk out of about half of his HP.

This got me to thinking, what if that troll had critted three straight times? Well, other than probably dropping the monk to zero HP, nothing. It would be virtually impossible for the troll to outright kill the monk (barring hitting him after he's down). But, that's a CR 5 troll vs a 6th level PC. He shouldn't be able to outright kill that PC. That's exactly in line with encounter design and CR expectations.

So, a 1 in 8000 event (something that is rare enough that it should qualify for Maxperson's criteria of a fudgeable die roll series) would almost never be fudged because there is no need.

But, let's jack things up a bit - since that's generally what happens in a Very Deadly (or more) encounter - we use monsters whose CR is greater than the PC level. So, let's go with a CR 9 brute of a critter... Lessee... CR 9 Fire Giant. That's a nicely upgraded troll. Big brute critter without a lot of extra magic attacks. Three straight crits from the Fire Giant would outright kill a 6th level monk. Actually, since our Fire Giant only has two attacks, two straight crits still has a pretty good chance of killing the monk. So, a much, much higher chance event than 3 straight crits form the troll, results in a dead PC.

Which, IMO, greatly increases the need to fudge. The point of fudging is to protect the party from the extremes in the die rolls right? Well, part of the reason fudging is necessary is down to play style and encounter design. By jacking up the difficulty by using bigger critters, the pressure to fudge becomes quite a lot greater. In the troll encounter, there would almost certainly be no need to fudge. Even a one in a campaign bit of luck - 3 straight crits on the same target - doesn't need any intervention from the DM.

I wonder if this goes some distance to explaining the different approaches. Those that don't fudge, at a guess, probably hew closer to baseline game expectations, and those that do fudge tend to wander further afield when creating encounters.

Interesting observation. Maybe those CR numbers actually do help to build "normal" encounters that won't necessarily lead to the urge to fudge.

There may also be a greater urge to fudge when PCs have extended themselves through the adventuring day and face one more challenge. The condition of PCs at the beginning of an encounter is a huge danger factor. Also, smaller parties may call for more of an urge to fudge since help is not necessarily available as often as in a larger party.