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

[LordEntrails]

So, that brings up a few questions. Are you seeing it happen and allowing your trust to erode, or engaging the GM in a discussion about it?

Sure. But, as already noted, we owe it to others on the table to address those emotions in a mature manner. Simply allowing trust to be eroded silently isn't great behavior either.

Yep. It's brought up. And sometimes it helps and resolves things. Sometimes it helps keep the game going for a few more sessions or months. Sometimes though, it's like this discussion here; GMs feel that they need to do what they do to "make the game work" or "keep us on track", or...

What about this experience do you want to discuss?

That when you make chocolate souffle, you need to be very aware that it is easy to contaminate it because of the recipe and it can lead to high chances of food poisoning.

Or in this case, that no matter what a GM's intent is for fudging a roll, no matter their good intentions, it is very possible that they might be eroding the health of their game. They probably won't ever see it, and if they don't have a table of mature people who are willing to raise issues bot before and after, that they may never know why their games never reach level 20. Or go on for decades, or...

This, whatever this topic can be summarized as, is extremely difficult to address in a session zero, or to layout in a meaningful way so that all the players understand it and accept it. And that emotions are insidious, and even without intent they can affect us without conscious thought. In my experience, most people are not so self aware that they can always see this at it's earliest occurrence. I doubt I can.

Therefore, imo, it's better to just avoid things like fudging rolls for short term benefits than it is to destroy the long term health of a group. That is, if long term is of importance to a GM.

Clear?

 

[LordEntrails]

A game designed to be over in a few hours feels a lot different to me than one that's designed to go on for weeks and might have built up some attachment to a long term goal or character. (I mean they certainly shouldn't ever storm out, or throw the dice, but having something you've worked on for months crash to a halt because of 1 in 8,000 bad luck feels like kind of an evening ruiner).

As a DM I don't plan out in detail that far in advance. Lots of blogs and advice on how to do that if you're interested. There is very little my players can ruin because my planning is flexible and not detailed until it needs to be.

Besides, rolling 3 nat 1 in a row that cause a calamity sounds like a memorable experience. Probably even more so than 3 nat 20s that lead to the BBEGs quick demise (since you were probably expecting to beat them anyway, just not so quickly).

 

[LordEntrails]

Deceit?

It's deceit like a magician is deceiving his audience. As a DM you're one part showman and entertainer.

You're not just there to randomly generate numbers.

And watching a magician is like playing in a railroad, their is no player agency.

And it's a lot more than random numbers. You are trying to belittle my view by reducing it to something so ridiculous and something I am not saying. What's that called? Gaslighting?

So, two parts for me;
1) GMs do a lot more than roll dice, they setup situations that allow many outcomes and form the setting for a memorable story being created by everyone. But that's me. You get to be your own kind of GM, whatever that is.
2) Don't assume you know how your actions make your players feel. As I've said, I've seen it before, and over time it erodes the game. Maybe it won't for you and your players, but it does for me and many of those I play with.

 

[Umbran]

What's even the point of talking about rules, when we assume that they can be just changed on a whim?

Because there's more than one way to get a job done, and what way you use may depend on several factors, not all of which apply to everyone equally?

For a given rule, some folks may just change it on a whim, and others may need to rewrite the rule permanently - the useful bits are not in figuring out which one is right, but in figuring out why each took that approach, and how it worked out for them.

That said, now I'm thinking Oberoni principle doesn't apply here, but "the rules say [X]" still isn't a valid argument in a discussion about whether the rules should say [X] or not.

Substantiating what the rules say is necessary before talking about what they should say. If interpretations of the rules differ, that ought to be at least recognized.

From there, while I recognize the term "argument" has several meanings, I am becoming more and more of the opinion that it is difficult to make constructive discussion out of arguments.

 

[billd91]

I said that in a game where you roll a lot of dice and that runs of bad luck are therefore inevitable, dealing with such runs of bad luck maturely is important.

Alternatively, some people deal with such runs of bad luck by fudging. That isn't any less mature.

 

[Cadence]

Thinking about it, I wonder about the following - especially from those who really hate fudging:

(1) Lots of times I don't particularly have anything written down as DM and am winging it ("expletive, I wasn't planning on them going there... what will be there"). Obviously in those cases what I decide to put in is related to their health and things. What makes that materially different than fudging by upping/downing the hitpoints of something in a room that they are getting to? Is that much different in effect than fudging?

(2) There are lots of times where it feels like things are a judgement call. Is the monsters morale shaky? Would the monsters be happy capturing them instead of fighting more and ask the party to surrender? Will the monsters chase the party if they decide to retreat? Will the monsters double tap instead of going for a new target? Should the answers to all of those be written down before the combat starts to avoid having to decide on the spur of the moment when influenced by how it is going? Is not doing so much different in effect than fudging?

(3) If the problem is swinginess of dice, is it bad if the DM either has some fixed rule to ameliorate it (will have monsters have possible fumbles but not crits if party is doing bad, and vice versa if good) or have a DM pool of inspiration (one per session? two per session) to balance things out? Is that too fudgey?

 

[Mezuka]

I used to fudge a lot with TSR D&D editions, especially with Basic. Over time it diminished to almost never with 3e. I started rolling in front of the screen with 4e. Never looked back.

 

[TheSword]

And watching a magician is like playing in a railroad, their is no player agency.

It’s not really like watching a magician. As you know the magician is fooling you, you just don’t know how.

Its more like going to buy a packet of biscuits before your friend arrives for coffee and then pretending you’ve always had them in and you haven’t gone to any trouble.

 

[reelo]

Having something you've worked on for months crash to a halt...

As a DM, don't prep plot. As a player, don't get too attached to a character.

 

[FrozenNorth]

A game designed to be over in a few hours feels a lot different to me than one that's designed to go on for weeks and might have built up some attachment to a long term goal or character. (I mean they certainly shouldn't ever storm out, or throw the dice, but having something you've worked on for months crash to a halt because of 1 in 8,000 bad luck feels like kind of an evening ruiner).

There are differences between co-op board games and campaigns, but IMO, they tend to MINIMIZE the effect of bad luck in RPGs compared to co-op games:

• In an RPG, you are never limited to rolling the die to contribute. You can come up with plans, entertain with your character quirks, take actions that don’t depend on rolling, etc.
• In an RPG, a string of poor rolls does not necessarily mean character death. A character can roll poorly all night (and thus miss every single attack), and the party can still save the day. Or fail, but that failure doesn’t result in character death. Or end up captured. Or have the only consequence be that their supposedly charming bard made a fool of themselves at the masked ball.
• In an RPG, even the fact that your character dies does not end the game. You can reroll a new character, the party can cast spells to bring you back, or they can undertake a perilous quest to bring you back, or you can come back as a ghost and annoy them.
• Most co-op games I have played have a higher rate of failure as compared to the rate of character death in RPGs.

Finally, and on this I agree with @loverdrive , if character death (and not just unlucky rolling) is really a concern to the group, just agree on a table rule that character death is off the table.