Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you want your DM to fudge?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6801148" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Voted "No, never." Fudging undermines my ability to make informed choices, and my ability to learn from and adapt around past choices. It may be a challenge to meet those requirements, while also producing a game that will make me happy. I believe that that is part of what the DM signs up for, when taking that mantle. It's part of why I've never taken it myself--I'm not yet convinced I'm up to the task. With Great Power and all that--and, within the microcosm of a D&D campaign, who has more power than the DM?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Despite recognizing that this is the 5e forum specifically, I generally tend to take questions like this as applying to any game. Would you say the same of games generally?</p><p></p><p>And, uh, what exactly does "as needed" mean, anyway? That's not really "yes," "almost never," or "never."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I will try to provide a simple, concise definition of what *I*, at least, consider fudging:</p><p></p><p><em><u>Did you change a thing directly observed in the world, or a consequence/feature thereof, after the PCs observed it, without giving them a chance to know it changed?</u></em></p><p></p><p>If you answer "yes" to that question, then it's fudging. (The "consequence/feature" clause was added because I include abstract things, like "Diplomacy DC 15 to convince the Duke to help you," as a "thing in the world," even if they can only be observed by rolling something to see if it works.)</p><p></p><p>Agreeing to end an encounter early thus cannot be fudging, because it requires the consent of the players, and you can't give consent without being aware that you're giving consent. Otherwise it wouldn't be "agreement." It is merely a combat example of giving an automatic success on something that nominally <em>should</em> be a roll, because the player's idea was <em>just that awesome</em>. In this case, it would be automatically granting successful hits (and successful avoidance) for the handful of attack rolls that you want to skip, because the players have "already won"--much like a stirring, impressive speech would <em>already win</em> the hearts of the royal council, making a roll superfluous.</p><p></p><p>Adding or removing HP from a monster that already "exists in play" (for those who use maps and minis, this would be "when figures/tokens hit the table") is fudging: you are making an invisible-yet-meaningful change to something under more-or-less continuous, direct observation by at least one of the PCs. Changing the DC for a skill roll is a similar, albeit more abstract, change; the world is no longer what it <em>is</em>, once it "exists." Instead, existence itself is fluid and dynamic; choices can no longer be said to be good or bad based on the available information, because "the available information" may be right one second and wrong the next (or vice-versa). Changing who the unknown murderer is, when the party has already gathered good (if imperfect/incomplete) evidence of the "original" murderer's guilt is a wholly numberless form of fudging--but still fudging, because it means that the party's previously informed choices are now invalidated.</p><p></p><p>Removing, or modifying, a fight <em>before it breaks out</em> is fine. Changing stats before a fight breaks out is fine (because combat itself is an ongoing process of learning the monster's stats--the being(s) therein are constantly under observation). Adding, removing, or modifying whole swathes of the world is fine--as long as the PCs wouldn't, or couldn't, have known differently. With the "tracking a murderer" example: you CAN change your mind about who the murderer is, <em>but the PCs need to be able to learn who the right murderer is.</em> And all of these changes are also perfectly fine if the PCs <strong>can</strong> find out about it before having to "face" it. </p><p></p><p>Note the bolded "can." I am NOT saying that they must be directly informed of any such changes. I am only saying that you give them sufficient opportunity to learn about it. This means there needs to be prior knowledge that (a) they <em>can</em> confirm stuff, (b) even very good information <em>may</em> change so confirmation is good, and (c) unless you expressly tell them otherwise, confirming their info won't cause enough delay that their plans would be ruined. These things should be "prior" knowledge because that way you aren't pausing at every remotely-restful moment to say, "Gee, it's <em>sure great</em> you stole that guard duty roster!" or whatever and giving them a huge, "dramatic" wink. The onus is on the players to check, not you to <em>tell</em> them to check, but subtle hints may be in order for particularly "important" changes.</p><p></p><p>In fact, I really think the "solve a murder" example is the best illustration of what I'm talking about. I see it as deeply unfair to "change" who the perpetrator is once the PCs have got their hands on good (again, not necessarily <em>perfect</em>, but <em>genuinely good</em>) evidence against the DM's original choice--unless there is an opportunity to learn, not about the "change," but about how their previously-good evidence was ACTUALLY faked/unreliable/etc. and that the chase is still on. Otherwise, even if it's "more awesome" to have Suspect Q instead of Suspect R be the real murderer, you've set the players up with mistaken information that they have (rather, had) every reason to think was good. And that's awful.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>...uh...</p><p>*looks back at the quoted bit from Mr. Vargas*</p><p>Something is amiss with these two opinions placed next to each other, but I can't quite figure out what... <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6801148, member: 6790260"] Voted "No, never." Fudging undermines my ability to make informed choices, and my ability to learn from and adapt around past choices. It may be a challenge to meet those requirements, while also producing a game that will make me happy. I believe that that is part of what the DM signs up for, when taking that mantle. It's part of why I've never taken it myself--I'm not yet convinced I'm up to the task. With Great Power and all that--and, within the microcosm of a D&D campaign, who has more power than the DM? Despite recognizing that this is the 5e forum specifically, I generally tend to take questions like this as applying to any game. Would you say the same of games generally? And, uh, what exactly does "as needed" mean, anyway? That's not really "yes," "almost never," or "never." I will try to provide a simple, concise definition of what *I*, at least, consider fudging: [I][U]Did you change a thing directly observed in the world, or a consequence/feature thereof, after the PCs observed it, without giving them a chance to know it changed?[/U][/I] If you answer "yes" to that question, then it's fudging. (The "consequence/feature" clause was added because I include abstract things, like "Diplomacy DC 15 to convince the Duke to help you," as a "thing in the world," even if they can only be observed by rolling something to see if it works.) Agreeing to end an encounter early thus cannot be fudging, because it requires the consent of the players, and you can't give consent without being aware that you're giving consent. Otherwise it wouldn't be "agreement." It is merely a combat example of giving an automatic success on something that nominally [I]should[/I] be a roll, because the player's idea was [I]just that awesome[/I]. In this case, it would be automatically granting successful hits (and successful avoidance) for the handful of attack rolls that you want to skip, because the players have "already won"--much like a stirring, impressive speech would [I]already win[/I] the hearts of the royal council, making a roll superfluous. Adding or removing HP from a monster that already "exists in play" (for those who use maps and minis, this would be "when figures/tokens hit the table") is fudging: you are making an invisible-yet-meaningful change to something under more-or-less continuous, direct observation by at least one of the PCs. Changing the DC for a skill roll is a similar, albeit more abstract, change; the world is no longer what it [I]is[/I], once it "exists." Instead, existence itself is fluid and dynamic; choices can no longer be said to be good or bad based on the available information, because "the available information" may be right one second and wrong the next (or vice-versa). Changing who the unknown murderer is, when the party has already gathered good (if imperfect/incomplete) evidence of the "original" murderer's guilt is a wholly numberless form of fudging--but still fudging, because it means that the party's previously informed choices are now invalidated. Removing, or modifying, a fight [I]before it breaks out[/I] is fine. Changing stats before a fight breaks out is fine (because combat itself is an ongoing process of learning the monster's stats--the being(s) therein are constantly under observation). Adding, removing, or modifying whole swathes of the world is fine--as long as the PCs wouldn't, or couldn't, have known differently. With the "tracking a murderer" example: you CAN change your mind about who the murderer is, [I]but the PCs need to be able to learn who the right murderer is.[/I] And all of these changes are also perfectly fine if the PCs [B]can[/B] find out about it before having to "face" it. Note the bolded "can." I am NOT saying that they must be directly informed of any such changes. I am only saying that you give them sufficient opportunity to learn about it. This means there needs to be prior knowledge that (a) they [I]can[/I] confirm stuff, (b) even very good information [I]may[/I] change so confirmation is good, and (c) unless you expressly tell them otherwise, confirming their info won't cause enough delay that their plans would be ruined. These things should be "prior" knowledge because that way you aren't pausing at every remotely-restful moment to say, "Gee, it's [I]sure great[/I] you stole that guard duty roster!" or whatever and giving them a huge, "dramatic" wink. The onus is on the players to check, not you to [I]tell[/I] them to check, but subtle hints may be in order for particularly "important" changes. In fact, I really think the "solve a murder" example is the best illustration of what I'm talking about. I see it as deeply unfair to "change" who the perpetrator is once the PCs have got their hands on good (again, not necessarily [I]perfect[/I], but [I]genuinely good[/I]) evidence against the DM's original choice--unless there is an opportunity to learn, not about the "change," but about how their previously-good evidence was ACTUALLY faked/unreliable/etc. and that the chase is still on. Otherwise, even if it's "more awesome" to have Suspect Q instead of Suspect R be the real murderer, you've set the players up with mistaken information that they have (rather, had) every reason to think was good. And that's awful. ...uh... *looks back at the quoted bit from Mr. Vargas* Something is amiss with these two opinions placed next to each other, but I can't quite figure out what... :P [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you want your DM to fudge?
Top