GMing: How to fudge NOT using the dice.

[nevin]

Over in the "roll in the open" thread a side discussion about GM fudging emerged. This thread isn't really meant to talk about whther fuding is okay. rather, I am interested in talking about ways that GMs can and do "fudge" things OUTSIDE of adjusting the results of the die rolls. In other words, ways that the GM can fudge even if all rolls are made in the open.

Let me just define the term "fudge" as I am using it here, so we are all on the same page: fudging is when the Gm chooses to adjust the success or failure of a PC or NPC in order to achieve some intention in the game. The simplest example is something like ignoring a crit the monster got on a PC in order to keep that PC alive, or ignoring a fialed save by the BBEG in order to keep the fight going/more interesting.

But here, I am talking about things other than those dice results based forms of fudging.

One that comes immediately to mind is the "quantum ogre" scenario, in which the PCs will (or won't, in some instances) meet the next encounter regardless of which path they take. This is usually though of more as illusionism or even railroading most of the time, but I think it moves into the realm of fudging if the GM makes the decision about the quantum ogre based on other factors, such as how well rested the party is, how much real world play time remains, etc.

What are your examples of non-dice based fudging, and do you feel differently about this kind of fudging than you do about dice fudging?

Also, let's try and keep this from descending into an argument about whether fudging is good or bad and leave that to the other thread.

well the legendary mechanics include things like the monster can just "choose" to save. But somehow that's not considered fudging..... LOL

 

[The Sigil]

I feel like I most often fudge in my storytelling... if a player offhandedly mentions a cool idea like "I bet this BBEG was this other BBEG's apprentice" ... even if no prior relationship between the two existed in my head canon, BOOM! there is now a mentor-apprentice relationship. Basically, if my players speculate about something and I think it is logical and/or cool, I'm likely to steal and incorporate it, even if it wasn't in my head canon when I wrote the scenario originally. Players sometimes shape the world more than their characters... just by opening their mouths.

Or if, for example, one of the players suggests "man, that king was a jerk... wouldn't it be funny if the princess we're trying to save doesn't WANT to go back to her kingdom" even if the final outcome in my head was, "princess returns to kingdom, PCs get rewarded with a land grant and become minor nobles" I'm definitely going to be scrambling to change the ending to "princess convinces PCs to let her join the party and now they are outlaws that can never go back to that kingdom" and maybe reward one of the PCs with, say, a unique magic item the princess gives them... or have the princess become a magical mentor or a love interest or whatever ... or maybe be revealed as a Shapechanged Dragon that joined the royal family out of boredom but now wants out of the ratrace instead.

And generally, I'm of the opinion that story-based fudging, especially when the PCs encounter some sort of resolution they had speculated about for weeks but I had originally thought would be something different (or perhaps I based it on their speculation but with a twist) tends to be very satisfying for the players, who feel like the world meets their expectations and so it makes sense. So generally, I consider this to be a good form of "fudging."

 

[Zaukrie]

I feel like I most often fudge in my storytelling... if a player offhandedly mentions a cool idea like "I bet this BBEG was this other BBEG's apprentice" ... even if no prior relationship between the two existed in my head canon, BOOM! there is now a mentor-apprentice relationship. Basically, if my players speculate about something and I think it is logical and/or cool, I'm likely to steal and incorporate it, even if it wasn't in my head canon when I wrote the scenario originally. Players sometimes shape the world more than their characters... just by opening their mouths.

Or if, for example, one of the players suggests "man, that king was a jerk... wouldn't it be funny if the princess we're trying to save doesn't WANT to go back to her kingdom" even if the final outcome in my head was, "princess returns to kingdom, PCs get rewarded with a land grant and become minor nobles" I'm definitely going to be scrambling to change the ending to "princess convinces PCs to let her join the party and now they are outlaws that can never go back to that kingdom" and maybe reward one of the PCs with, say, a unique magic item the princess gives them... or have the princess become a magical mentor or a love interest or whatever ... or maybe be revealed as a Shapechanged Dragon that joined the royal family out of boredom but now wants out of the ratrace instead.

And generally, I'm of the opinion that story-based fudging, especially when the PCs encounter some sort of resolution they had speculated about for weeks but I had originally thought would be something different (or perhaps I based it on their speculation but with a twist) tends to be very satisfying for the players, who feel like the world meets their expectations and so it makes sense. So generally, I consider this to be a good form of "fudging."

great examples

 

[Deset Gled]

What are your examples of non-dice based fudging, and do you feel differently about this kind of fudging than you do about dice fudging?

Tactics is a big area for fudging. The DM always gets to choose how much recon info the enemy has, and how smart they are. Say the DM sets up a battle with a bunch of goblins, but accidentally set their AC just a little too high. Oops. Well, that's a great opportunity for the dumb little goblins to end up in a formation where they are particularly vulnerable to a AoE spell.

Another area that was big on fudging in earlier editions was caches of healing potion. Was that last encounter a bit harder than planned? Just throw a couple extra potions in the treasure pile, and you're good to go. This is less meaningful in 5e, however.

 

[Reynard]

How you even set up an encounter is fudging in the broadest sense.

I don't think it is. Fudging is explicitly changing things as they happen in order to achieve some end in immediate play.

 

[soviet]

Another area that was big on fudging in earlier editions was caches of healing potion. Was that last encounter a bit harder than planned? Just throw a couple extra potions in the treasure pile, and you're good to go. This is less meaningful in 5e, however.

This is actually an underused safety valve IMO. I always try to give players a bunch of one-use healing potions and offensive spell scrolls or equivalent. This lets me play with zero fudging but if I ever misjudge a particular encounter or something really unlucky happens the players already have an in-game get out of jail card they can play.

 

[TwoSix]

This is actually an underused safety valve IMO. I always try to give players a bunch of one-use healing potions and offensive spell scrolls or equivalent. This lets me play with zero fudging but if I ever misjudge a particular encounter or something really unlucky happens the players already have an in-game get out of jail card they can play.

Agreed. Giving your party consumables and then pushing them hard is a great way to get past the "I don't want to waste my scrolls/potions" reluctance a ton of players have.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't think it is. Fudging is explicitly changing things as they happen in order to achieve some end in immediate play.

It isn't always that clear-cut.

Suppose I plan an encounter with the expectation that it should be X difficulty; but either I make a miscalculation or the listed CR for that monster is off (as has been known to happen), and the combat is either way harder or way easier than I intended.

If I see this and adjust the monster's stats on the fly to bring it back to the difficulty I meant the encounter to be in the first place, is that fudging? Is it materially different from if I'd made those same adjustments when planning the encounter?

A purist might argue that I shouldn't be calibrating encounter difficulty to PC power level at all; the monsters are what they are and the PCs have to know when to fight and when to bug out. But once you accept such calibration as a legit thing for a DM to do, it's a lot harder to draw a sharp line.

 

[Reynard]

It isn't always that clear-cut.

Suppose I plan an encounter with the expectation that it should be X difficulty; but either I make a miscalculation or the listed CR for that monster is off (as has been known to happen), and the combat is either way harder or way easier than I intended.

If I see this and adjust the monster's stats on the fly to bring it back to the difficulty I meant the encounter to be in the first place, is that fudging? Is it materially different from if I'd made those same adjustments when planning the encounter?

A purist might argue that I shouldn't be calibrating encounter difficulty to PC power level at all; the monsters are what they are and the PCs have to know when to fight and when to bug out. But once you accept such calibration as a legit thing for a DM to do, it's a lot harder to draw a sharp line.

I don't think there is much to be gained from arguing the definition of fudging here, particularly, "Is prep fudging?"

I think it can be understood that fudging is (must be) done at the table in the moment. That is inherent in the definition.

 

[Li Shenron]

I definitely think that changing on the fly something in the story, map or encounters (compared to what you had originally planned) falls into the fudging category.

An example could be, changing the location of something important because the PCs decided to go in a completely different direction.

Another example is introducing ex-machina (e.g. using an NPC or a sudden finding) the indication of what to do next in a quest, when they missed all the clues.