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

[UngeheuerLich]

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.



I do like how your mind jumped to power gaming because I said my enjoyment of the game was removed after my rolls didn't matter. I made a halfling barbarian that threw hand axes. I definitely wasn't power gaming when I made him. I wanted something fun and original. If it matters, this was in 3.5 edition.

There is no way that my decisions and rolls matter more than usual, when they didn't matter until the DM decided they did. We sat down to play D&D, we created characters, made choices of what to specialize in, etc, etc, all because we were playing D&D. We weren't playing a freeform RPG, or a more story centered game. If we were, then I would have less reason to complain when the DM makes story based decisions like that.

Sorry, didn´t want to imply that you are powergaming. Still the DM obviously knew what he was doing. Telling a story. And he must have been really good at math so that you didn´t even notice, something was "wrong".

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

Sorry, didn´t want to imply that you are powergaming. Still the DM obviously knew what he was doing. Telling a story. And he must have been really good at math so that you didn´t even notice, something was "wrong".

Well, his skill at math wasn't so much the key, it was my trust in him. I didn't expect he would ever DM like that. I wasn't paying precise attention to the rolls, I was just in the moment playing with friends. There were a few times I was frustrated on how hard some monsters were to hit, or how much damage they were doing to us, but I figured they were just getting lucky or had good armor.

 

[Lanliss]

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.

I'm sorry, but this sounds like you had a lot of fun. It seems odd to remember it so fondly, and then include a "but, it was not all stat-ed out, so it could not have been REAL fun". He did not rob you of choice, because you controlled your characters. The fact that he just did it all off the cuff does not seem to matter, except in your mind. You still hit sometimes, missed sometimes, and had fun. Sounds like D&D to me.

Also, are you sure he didn't at least have it in his head that "if they get over 16 they hit", and simply had a different number in mind next time you fought that enemy? I change enemy AC by a point or two, up or down, to stop my players from guessing that a Kobold is 15, and assuming that all Kobolds are the same.

 

[aramis erak]

In play, I never want to see ANYONE fudge a die roll.
Or worse, roll simply for the sake of "atmosphere"...

If you're going to both going to the dice, accept the input you've asked for.

 

[Cristian Andreu]

My players are way too lazy to DM, so it's not a dilema I have to face very often.

That said, I'm alright with a bit of fudging if it's used as a last retort. We like playing with hidden rolls, and I have fixed the results a few times in dire situations when, either because of poor planning, lack of foresight or just plain bad luck, a particular result could spell disaster for the campaign (my personal rule is to only fudge in desperate cases, and only in favour of the PCs).

So I have no problems with the DM doing the same, so long as we don't realise it and there is a very good reason for it.

Now, chocolate fudge, I'm alright with the DM doing that as much as he wants. I see no logical reason not to have chocolate fudge available.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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

Of course not. Dice rolls are not story. How we roleplay and speak in character, acting and reacting to what we each come up with creates a story. The dice can change up how our story progresses and gives us new ideas to incorporate, but are in no way necessary, nor a requirement. So if the story is progressing just fine in one direction and an errant die roll would send things careening off in another one... I trust my DM to survey how our story is progressing and determine whether that careen would actually serve the story and our enjoyment of it. Sometimes it might, sometimes it might not. But as I wouldn't see any fudge anyway... I don't care how the story comes out, I'm reacting to it regardless.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

I'm sorry, but this sounds like you had a lot of fun. It seems odd to remember it so fondly, and then include a "but, it was not all stat-ed out, so it could not have been REAL fun". He did not rob you of choice, because you controlled your characters. The fact that he just did it all off the cuff does not seem to matter, except in your mind. You still hit sometimes, missed sometimes, and had fun. Sounds like D&D to me.

Also, are you sure he didn't at least have it in his head that "if they get over 16 they hit", and simply had a different number in mind next time you fought that enemy? I change enemy AC by a point or two, up or down, to stop my players from guessing that a Kobold is 15, and assuming that all Kobolds are the same.

Hm, I had a whole post written out about this but in the end I realized that I don't think I'm going to convince either of you two why I lost my enjoyment of that game. I like tactical and strategical game play, just as much as I like good roleplaying and interesting characters with backstories. I play D&D to enjoy both of these themes. His game had the latter, but eliminated any true way to engage the former. It was only two sessions, so I didn't notice what he was doing. Eventually I would have noticed he kept switching things around and ignoring rules in place, and it would have become a problem.

Does no one else have a problem with a DM that never bothers to use monster stat blocks, and instead just makes up numbers as they feel like it? Are we even really still playing the same D&D at that point?

 

[Lanliss]

Hm, I had a whole post written out about this but in the end I realized that I don't think I'm going to convince either of you two why I lost my enjoyment of that game. I like tactical and strategical game play, just as much as I like good roleplaying and interesting characters with backstories. I play D&D to enjoy both of these themes. His game had the latter, but eliminated any true way to engage the former. It was only two sessions, so I didn't notice what he was doing. Eventually I would have noticed he kept switching things around and ignoring rules in place, and it would have become a problem.

Does no one else have a problem with a DM that never bothers to use monster stat blocks, and instead just makes up numbers as they feel like it? Are we even really still playing the same D&D at that point?

I can understand you enjoying tactical play. I was not arguing with you, more asking for clarity on the subject, as your other posts read, to me, like you had a lot of fun, then retroactively decided it was not so fun, because you learned later about the fudging.

And to answer your question, I do not mind a DM not using stat blocks, as long as it leads to a fun and cohesive story. I guess it is just a difference of play style, as I prefer a less controlled story, wherever it may run. As I said in my previous post, I change the stats every now and then, just to change things up. I do not find anything fun about fighting Orc XXI, with exactly the same stats as the first twenty. Just another difference of play style, and nothing against you for it.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

I can understand you enjoying tactical play. I was not arguing with you, more asking for clarity on the subject, as your other posts read, to me, like you had a lot of fun, then retroactively decided it was not so fun, because you learned later about the fudging.

And to answer your question, I do not mind a DM not using stat blocks, as long as it leads to a fun and cohesive story. I guess it is just a difference of play style, as I prefer a less controlled story, wherever it may run. As I said in my previous post, I change the stats every now and then, just to change things up. I do not find anything fun about fighting Orc XXI, with exactly the same stats as the first twenty. Just another difference of play style, and nothing against you for it.

I suppose that's a topic of debate, whether something can be fun at the time, and then later the enjoyment lost. Perhaps put that way, I can't argue that I did in fact have fun during the game, because it was a good story, yes. However, my memory of the game is forever tarnished by the knowledge of what was going on behind the scenes. I said in the previous thread about Fudging that I believe the most important factor, if you do choose to Fudge, is that your players never ever be aware you did so. Saying that directly ties into my own memories of this zombie apocalypse game.

It's definitely different play styles at work in the long run. For instance, when I DM I am very transparent about monster stats. I allow players to know monster HP via a bar at the top (I use roll20). This lets them know monster state, if not the exact number. I also tell them monster AC when they attack, to help speed up play, and allow them to plan the use of abilities and spells more effectively. I challenge them in ways other than guessing when or if they should use a resource. I don't demand the same in DM's whom I play under, however, as I respect that my style isn't superior or anything. I just like to use it, as do my players.

Still, I roll everything in the open, tell them what abilities I use and their ramifications, and make sure there is understanding across the table. That is to say, I do not Fudge, though I used to.

 

[Arcshot]

If I'm a player, I do not mind the DM fudges his dice as long as no one knows it when he does it. If the rules are generally followed and the people around the table are having good fun, the game is a successful one.