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

[Nagol]

What are you going to do? Audit the DM's notes and monster stats? You're on the other side of the screen, and you have no idea what's going on on the DM's side. That's why the DM is the dungeon master, and you only pick someone you trust to run a good game, and whose rulings you're willing to follow. The players do not share dungeon master responsibilities and do not help adjudicate the game.

I' don't know, how about start by asking the prospective DM if he shares my sensibilities? If we're a match, great! Sit down and start playing.

If it turns out he lied, then when I catch him I'll need to decide if I want to continue gaming anyway or start looking for a DM that shares my sensibilities. After all, trust has been eroded by his lie.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I' don't know, how about start by asking the prospective DM if he shares my sensibilities? If we're a match, great! Sit down and start playing.

If it turns out he lied, then when I catch him I'll need to decide if I want to continue gaming anyway or start looking for a DM that shares my sensibilities. After all, trust has been eroded by his lie.

You are taking his remarks out of context. He's not talking about lying about fudging. He's talking about the suggestion that players can better decide when fudging is appropriate than DMs. The context is that fudging could happen, not that the DM has lied and the players are checking up on him. In order for the players to know they'd do better, they'd have to basically audit the DM's notes, as he pointed out (and even then...).

 

[Nagol]

You are taking his remarks out of context. He's not talking about lying about fudging. He's talking about the suggestion that players can better decide when fudging is appropriate than DMs. The context is that fudging could happen, not that the DM has lied and the players are checking up on him. In order for the players to know they'd do better, they'd have to basically audit the DM's notes, as he pointed out (and even then...).

I do know more about when it is appropriate for me than the DM.

As a player, I feel the appropriate time to fudge is... never. If a DM decides to fudge, he is unequivocally acting against my interests in the matter. Could he be acting to further someone else's interest? Sure! And that's why I need to decide if I care sufficiently to walk. Now, I tell my prospective DMs and prospective players this and what few other sensibilities I have as part of a get-to-know-you session 0. I only sit at tables where I feel I am a good match.

As a DM I feel the appropriate time to fudge is... never. I tell all the player this as well as other campaign and style parameters as part of a get-to-know-you session 0. The players that get invited to the table are those I feel are a good match.

 

[DMCF]

I put "almost never" from my own player perspective. In a small group of 4 players I think we can adhere to the rules with minimal disruption.

As a DM my group has at a minimum 6 players and an average of 9 it is very difficult to follow the rules and keep everyone engaged. I'm constantly trying to crush side conversations because the room is already very loud (hobby store w/ roughly ~35 players in 5 games). To do this I have to keep people engaged. I "wing it" with lots of things. This leads to a lot of "fudging" so I can keep the action going.

If I was playing in a big group I wouldn't mind trading strict rules for a theatrical DM maintaining everyone's rapt attention. If a DM wants to keep people engaged he can't bury his nose in a book and duel every rule lawyer saying "this or that". If a player wants to do something I question but I can't think of the rule I'll let it slide if it won't spoil the encounter. Even then I limit myself to looking up 2 things per 4 hour session.

This biggest fudge factor for me is encounters during rest periods. My groups like to think they can rest after every 2-3 spells they cast or every time someone reaches half hit points. They'll also exit dungeons to rest at that point and come back after 8 hours. So...I'll create rock falls and traps that make it harder to get out of the dungeon (with no reward) than it would have been to complete it and get treasure. I'm a jerk. I know.

If you want to go play Elder Scrolls where you can leave half a dungeon dead and come back 3 days later to a half cleared dungeon and nothing changed go play Elder Scrolls. This is D& F-ing D!

*note* I do love Elder Scrolls btw

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'd like you to quote any person ever saying that was the case, frankly.

You are asking me to provide you evidence that your misreading of my statement (I said "seem to be" not "are", and was talking about some unnamed poster(s), not you specifically) is correct, which is impossible for me to provide.

Otherwise you were apparently working on the basis that, because I disagreed with you, I was literally bonkers. Which seems a bit off.

I was working on the basis that when you phrased a statement as a disagreement with my statements that it was because you disagreed with me - I have since discovered that not to be the case, even though you still appear to believe we are in disagreement on the topic of whether or not a DM should actually learn what their players like, rather than insist that because they are the DM and know more about the game (whether that means rules, planned events of the campaign, or otherwise) that means they are as informed about when/how to fudge as they need to be.

 

[Hussar]

I'd like you to quote any person ever saying that was the case, frankly.

Otherwise you were apparently working on the basis that, because I disagreed with you, I was literally bonkers. Which seems a bit off.

Well, we do have [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] saying that any player who asks him if he fudges at the table gets booted out of the table. So, there is that. Makes it pretty hard to have a conversation when asking the first question gets you shown the door.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, we do have [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] saying that any player who asks him if he fudges at the table gets booted out of the table. So, there is that. Makes it pretty hard to have a conversation when asking the first question gets you shown the door.

I've already explained that the door will be shown for lack of trust, not specifically a question about fudging. A discussion about fudging can be had without a lack of trust in the DM.

 

[Zak S]

This is a False Equivalence. When you drive speed and safety are a dichotomy and have a direct relation to one another. One goes up and the other goes down. Story and challenge have no connection whatsoever. Story can go up and challenge can also go up. Story can go down and challenge can go down. Both can go up while the other goes down. They are independent of one another. That means that if I choose grandma as the reason, both story and challenge can go down together and equally. Grandma is the sole reason for my choice and I have not chosen story over challenge or vise versa.

Nope,they're not independent-- fudging ALWAYS risks reducing challenge (if someone finds out, just as you are always risking hitting someone in yr car going faster) and fudging literally always changes the story (nobody would fudge from a miss on a 7 to a miss on an 8, it's only worth fudging to change what happens in the world from x damage to y or a miss to a hit or a fail to a success or a success to a crit, etc).

 

[harshman]

I feel like fudging partially invalids some of what tabletop RPGs stand for. Take away the dice and you have a collaborative story. Dice help make it a game. If you fudge the rolls then it is staged and it tips the scale in the direction of storytelling.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've already explained that the door will be shown for lack of trust, not specifically a question about fudging. A discussion about fudging can be had without a lack of trust in the DM.

...would you be willing to demonstrate an example of how that could happen without any references whatsoever to the fact of whether you fudge or not? Because it seems pretty hard to have a conversation about action X, when asking about action X is an automatic "trust abrogated, no discussion allowed" flag...