D&D General How do players feel about DM fudging?

[EzekielRaiden]

This is a sort of a companion thread to the other poll on fudging, which asks DMs, not players. I figure, player responses also matter on this issue. It needs no further description: whatever you consider "fudging" to be, what do you as a player think of DMs doing it?

Word of warning: you cannot change your vote. Pick wisely!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I voted neutral. I don’t think fudging has any necessary or inherent “good” or “bad” nature, either way.

 

[beancounter]

Fudging is acceptable - To keep the game sufficiently challenging and fun.

For me, cakewalks lose their appeal pretty quickly. I like to have a challenge, and if the DM miscalculated, I see no problem them adjusting on the fly.

 

[DeviousQuail]

I voted for Positive. When I'm DMing I want my players to trust that sometimes I'm going to fudge things in an effort to provide a better gaming experience. It's only fair that I offer that same courtesy when I'm on the other side of the screen. I've got a pretty good group so trust is high and we've never had this come up as an issue for anyone that's DMed.

 

[Helldritch]

Fudging is bad. Very bad. I consider it cheating and demeaning to my players. If they are victorious, it will be their victory. They will have earned it in earnest. It won't be because I took pity on them or that I wanted to pursue "my" novel I wanted to write.

 

[aco175]

I agree with @beancounter and @DeviousQuail and can see times when the game does not match the events going on with the table and players that night. The DM should adjust things in the spirit of making the game more fun and exciting for the others. If it is done in the right spirit, then it is ok.

Things are another problem if the DM is rewarding friends or punishing a player for something. Then it is just a poor DM.

 

[J.Quondam]

Neutral. Or more accurately, "it depends" on the game & the players. It's a tool to be used when appropriate.

 

[Maxperson]

Fudging is bad. Very bad. I consider it cheating and demeaning to my players. If they are victorious, it will be their victory. They will have earned it in earnest. It won't be because I took pity on them or that I wanted to pursue "my" novel I wanted to write.

Same here, and I fudge on rare occasions. Yet they still earned every victory and it was never "my" novel.

 

[iserith]

I really dislike a DM fudging when I'm a player. I want to earn my successes and failures. I'd rather a TPK without fudging than a victory with it.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

Fudging is very bad. Your players might never know you did it, but it many cases it robs them of their agency. They make some choices, you have to make some rolls and you just outright decide the outcome. It's very unfair and there's very few players I've DMed for that would have appreciated it being done to them.

The counter-argument is often something along the lines of "I'll fudge a roll to move things in a direction more interesting for the story". I disagree with this. The DM doesn't get to decide what's the story and where it goes. We already have a ton of agency over what happens, when the dices are cast, we must respect the outcome. If we don't, then we only do when it suits us, and then why roll dices at all? In my opinion, TTRPGs are not about crafting a story but discovering a story together. The players bring their characters, possibly some backstory and their decisions. The DM brings some content to explore, a situation and some reactions and what happens between these two things is the emergent things that's precious to these games. Fudging is one of the many ways where you make that spark wane.

The only times I've fudged a roll is when I took a bad call, and as I'm making the roll I'm like (this was a bad idea, it adds nothing). We often make split-decisions. Something that sounds awesome like "I'll make a roll to see if the ancient staircase crumbles under their feets" can quickly turn to "What happens if I fail this roll? Do they have any way of not falling? Do they have any agency? Does it further what's happening? Why am I rolling for this?". In these rare moment I might pull a quick "Oh, how lucky, it holds until you cross" and then spray myself with water for being a bad DM.

But that happens rarely. Once or twice a year, maybe.

 

[LordEntrails]

Makes me feel like I'm on a railroad. Very negative. Don't like it. Why bother rolling if the GM is going to change the results to fit their pre-written story?

 

[Musing Mage]

I hate it. I will leave a game. I HAVE left games. I want a DM to adjudicate the game fairly, the fun will take care of itself.

Roll out in the open* where everyone can see, let the dice land where they will. That's the game part of it. Not completing a scenario because the dice crapped out doesn't make it less fun, but knowing the DM coddled the players by 'helping' them does. Or worse - knowing the DM cheated so they could 'win' is really, really bad.

*where possible, there are legitimately some rolls that should be done hidden away. This is not a license to fudge!

 

[Helldritch]

A few months ago, I had quite a discussion on a French forum about the same topic. One of the "pro fudge side" was whining that without fudging, his stories might end up too early to see the end and all his work would go down the drain.

To which I replied, it is not your story that the players want. It is the story that develops from play, the discovery you will make with your players will be the stuff that you will all rember. If you want to write a novel, write one. Do not force your players to play your "perfect" novel.

I was told to F word up....

But for me fudging is stealing and killing the story that might have been. And that alone, is reason enough to never fudge.

 

[Maxperson]

I hate it. I will leave a game. I HAVE left games. I want a DM to adjudicate the game fairly, the fun will take care of itself.

Roll out in the open* where everyone can see, let the dice land where they will. That's the game part of it. Not completing a scenario because the dice crapped out doesn't make it less fun, but knowing the DM coddled the players by 'helping' them does. Or worse - knowing the DM cheated so they could 'win' is really, really bad.

*where possible, there are legitimately some rolls that should be done hidden away. This is not a license to fudge!

First, the DM can't cheat. He can only abuse his authority. Second, fudging =/= "so they could 'win'." Several people here have mentioned many reasons to fudge that have nothing to do with the DM trying to win or gain advantage.

 

[Maxperson]

A few months ago, I had quite a discussion on a French forum about the same topic. One of the "pro fudge side" was whining that without fudging, his storiesight end up too early to see the end and all his work would go down the drain.

Yeah, THAT'S bad.

 

[bloodtide]

I'm against it as I'm against the whole idea.

The DM has a dragon attack the PCs....and a couple of rolls later, oh no, 25 damage to character Zarok will kill him. But the weak DM does not want Zarok to die as his player Bob will be sad so they fudge and say "oh just 10 damage".

I say: just let the character die. Let Bob be sad, cry in the corner, slam doors and do whatever.

If your the DM, and you did not want Bob's special snowflake character to die....then you should just alter game reality to make it so. Don't waste time EVER having Bob's character in combat, just tell Bob he "won D&D or whatever".

You accept dice rolls, or do NOT make them.

 

[Musing Mage]

A few months ago, I had quite a discussion on a French forum about the same topic. One of the "pro fudge side" was whining that without fudging, his storiesight end up too early to see the end and all his work would go down the drain.

Funny story - my 1e game went online for a bit through January and February, so I had to input 4 dungeon levels into Roll20. The group goes in, gets trounced, retreats and heals. Goes back in, gets trounced... rinse and repeat. Until finally, they decide they can't beat this dungeon, but do find a good bit of loot to warrant their work and retreat for good... only having completed half of the first dungeon level.

Lots of work put in on my part, but I wasn't going to force it - that's not the role of the DM. As DM it's NICE when things play through, but I can't expect it always will be.

First, the DM can't cheat. He can only abuse his authority. Second, fudging =/= "so they could 'win'." Several people here have mentioned many reasons to fudge that have nothing to do with the DM trying to win or gain advantage.

It's really just semantics and the result is the same - whether you call it cheating (I do) or abusing your authority (also true), it destroys trust. I don't want to play with that DM because at the very least I know I can't trust them.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm against it as I'm against the whole idea.

The DM has a dragon attack the PCs....and a couple of rolls later, oh no, 25 damage to character Zarok will kill him. But the weak DM does not want Zarok to die as his player Bob will be sad so they fudge and say "oh just 10 damage".

I say: just let the character die. Let Bob be sad, cry in the corner, slam doors and do whatever.

If your the DM, and you did not want Bob's special snowflake character to die....then you should just alter game reality to make it so. Don't waste time EVER having Bob's character in combat, just tell Bob he "won D&D or whatever".

You accept dice rolls, or do NOT make them.

Have you even read most of the reasons in this thread and the other about why DMs fudge? I don't think you have, because nothing you just said touches in those reasons at all.

 

[Maxperson]

It's really just semantics and the result is the same - whether you call it cheating (I do) or abusing your authority (also true), it destroys trust. I don't want to play with that DM because at the very least I know I can't trust them.

Some kinds of fudging are an abuse of authority. Others are not. I do not fudge to favor either myself or the players. In the extremely unlikely event that A) the players made no bad decisions, B) the players are having extreme(not just plain ole) bad luck, and C) I am having extreme(not play ole) good luck, I will fudge a bit to allow them a fighting chance at survival. A TPK should not happen due to extreme die luck. That's not an abuse of authority. That's just good DMing.

 

[Musing Mage]

I do not fudge to favor either myself or the players.

Based on what I've read of your posts, I never would have assumed that you did... but...

In the extremely unlikely event that A) the players made no bad decisions, B) the players are having extreme(not just plain ole) bad luck, and C) I am having extreme(not play ole) good luck, I will fudge a bit to allow them a fighting chance at survival. A TPK should not happen due to extreme die luck. That's not an abuse of authority. That's just good DMing.

...this is where our philosophies diverge, I will let that TPK happen if that's where the players' choices and the dice have taken things. To me and my players that's simply part of the game. One of my regulars always smiles at the prospect of a new character - "I hate losing my current guy, but I love making new ones... so I'm torn!"

And the cycle continues.