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

[billd91]

Or, if you like the crit rules but one character (say the frontline fighter) seems to keep getting REALLY unlucky on that front - well Adamantine armor is a thing for a reason - give the character access to it.

Which fixes the crit issue pretty much permanently for that character. That may be too much of a solution, particularly when you can just turn the 3rd crit in the hot-streak combat into just a normal hit by ignoring that it's a natural 20.

 

[Xetheral]

It just seems like such a tactic of last resort that if I know it's going on--much less if someone fesses up to it later--it feels like an indicator that a whole lot is going wrong behind the scenes. Maybe that it was more of a railroad than we even realized, or that the GM has treasured NPCs they can't bear to part with, that they really were scripting this thing out like a video game level, or that they simply can't improvise, which I think is the hands-down, number one most important skill for a GM to have (or at least develop).

I don't think fudging and improvisation are at all incompatible. It's entirely possible to use fudging as an improvisational tool, and for those who define on-the-fly revision of the DM's notes as fudging, fudging and improvisation are inherently linked.

As an example of the former, consider that rolling dice that you have no intention of using can buy a few seconds to make an on-the-fly decision. As an example of the latter, throwing out the planned identity of a conspirator in favor of an on-the-spot inspiration that the DM thinks is more exciting and better fits the presented evidence is an act of improvisation (and requires good improv skills to pull off smoothly), yet also qualifies as fudging under the broader definitions of the term.

So, for the pro-fudge camp, if you're player, and GM fudging is afoot, are you really as psyched as you are about doing it yourself?

Yes. Especially if the DM is good at making it seemless and unnoticeable, and has good instincts for how to use fudging to make the game more enjoyable.

 

[Mort]

Which fixes the crit issue pretty much permanently for that character. That may be too much of a solution, particularly when you can just turn the 3rd crit in the hot-streak combat into just a normal hit by ignoring that it's a natural 20.

But then you're fudging - which may be ok or may not be - as this thread has certainly demonstrated.

 

[iserith]

I've been thinking about the notion that fudging is okay when the DM has presented a challenge that they miscalculated in some way and it's harder (or perhaps easier) than they intended.

I believe in order to arrive at this conclusion, one has to have a presupposition that challenges in some sense have a static level of predictable difficulty. This has not been my experience in any edition of D&D. I've seen what I thought were easy challenges become hard or deadly for a number of reasons or what I thought were hard challenges become easy or even trivial. Some combination of the decisions of the players, the actions of the antagonists (as determined by the DM or dice), and the dice makes predictions as to difficulty mostly unreliable. To that end, I've long since gotten rid of any presupposition that says I can predict with any degree of accuracy how hard or easy a challenge may be. I might guess it right sometimes. But I'd be wrong enough to just give up the enterprise in its entirety.

So, what I do is simply tell players that not every challenge is carefully calibrated for them to defeat it with certainty and to govern themselves accordingly in play. Gather your intel with rumors, sages, scouting, or divinations. Try to recall lore on the monsters you face. Have a plan B for when plan A isn't viable. Have an escape plan for when things go wrong. In other words, make good choices in the face of many unknowns. Given this understanding, I don't have to care at all if some challenge I present gets too difficult (or too easy). The players will tend to approach them, more or less the same way, and if they don't do that, that's on them. As a result, there's just no reason for me to fudge anything with regard to this issue, nor do I need to have a conversation with the players to say that I "messed up" and offer a mulligan. The challenge is what it is and how do you deal with this? That's on the player to decide.

 

[Xetheral]

I've been thinking about the notion that fudging is okay when the DM has presented a challenge that they miscalculated in some way and it's harder (or perhaps easier) than they intended.

I believe in order to arrive at this conclusion, one has to have a presupposition that challenges in some sense have a static level of predictable difficulty. This has not been my experience in any edition of D&D. I've seen what I thought were easy challenges become hard or deadly for a number of reasons or what I thought were hard challenges become easy or even trivial. Some combination of the decisions of the players, the actions of the antagonists (as determined by the DM or dice), and the dice makes predictions as to difficulty mostly unreliable. To that end, I've long since gotten rid of any presupposition that says I can predict with any degree of accuracy how hard or easy a challenge may be. I might guess it right sometimes. But I'd be wrong enough to just give up the enterprise in its entirety.

So, what I do is simply tell players that not every challenge is carefully calibrated for them to defeat it with certainty and to govern themselves accordingly in play. Gather your intel with rumors, sages, scouting, or divinations. Try to recall lore on the monsters you face. Have a plan B for when plan A isn't viable. Have an escape plan for when things go wrong. In other words, make good choices in the face of many unknowns. Given this understanding, I don't have to care at all if some challenge I present gets too difficult (or too easy). The players will tend to approach them, more or less the same way, and if they don't do that, that's on them. As a result, there's just no reason for me to fudge anything with regard to this issue, nor do I need to have a conversation with the players to say that I "messed up" and offer a mulligan. The challenge is what it is and how do you deal with this? That's on the player to decide.

(Emphasis added.) Similarly to you I don't balance encounters against the party's capabilities. But to make that work I think it's essential that the characters' intel-gathering efforts that you mention have meaningful results. If the PCs are basing their decisions on intel I intended to be accurate, but (whether due to a mistake on my part or OOC misscomunication) isn't accurate, I have a choice to make between: (1) honoring my notes, effectively retroactively making the PC's information bad intel; (2) honoring the accuracy of the intel and revising my notes to match that intel; (3) openly explaining the error and retconning the actions made in reliance on the erroneous intel. (There may be other options, but I think most options fall broadly into these categories.)

The intel has already been introduced into play, while my notes haven't been introduced yet. That makes it straightforward for me to prioritize honoring the intel over honoring my as-yet-unintroduced notes, even though revising my notes would qualify as fudging under the broader definitions of the term. Option 3 would also work, but I personally prefer to avoid retconning whenever possible, making the fudging in Option 2 my preferred solution.

In other words, it's not that I feel any need to correct an encounter than is too strong or too weak according to an abstract scale. But I do feel the need to correct an encounter that the PCs approached in reliance on intel they successfully earned that turns out to have been wrong or misleading.

 

[LordEntrails]

That said don’t think it’s good or bad, it’s just a necessary corrective tool. A means to an end. A safety net.

But it's not a necessary tool. It is a tool, but one of many that can be used. As I've pointed out repeatedly, there are many other tools that can be used. And since fudging is so controversial, why use it?

Extreme bad luck is a detriment to the game. I've played with anyone happy to lose a PC because they did everything right, but couldn't roll higher than single digits for an entire encounter.

It doesn't have to be. As I've pointed out many times, extreme bad luck can make some of the best memories. Besides, the player may have done everything right to play the character as they envisions them, but that does not mean they have done everything, and the DM has done everything except fudge, to keep the player from dying. That is unless the DM allows a huge string of mistakes to happen, including their own.
Besides, is it heroic to adventure if the risk of death or failure is zero? Not much thrill there for me.

Players can't fudge. They can only cheat. The DM cannot cheat, because 1) the rules serve him, not the other way around, and 2) fudging is an officially endorsed table rule in the DMG.

You keep coming back to this. Regardless if this is true or not, fudging is perceived by a large percentage of players as being bad and undesirable. So, you can chose to keep using this "tool" that you know now is divisive and disruptive, or you can chose to avoid using a tool that is likely to be viewed negatively by some at te average table. You're choice.

Would you, as a player, think less of a GM who you know is fudging dice rolls?

Yes. As I've said, I've seen fudging die rolls lead directly to the end of at least 2 campaigns (after months/years of play). And it was not me who complained about the fudging or eroded the campaign due to it.

Again, those DMs who think they do it so well, or that it doesn't matter, or is a tool that is necessary, are simple fooling themselves. This poll along with the experiences shared by myself and so many other DMs indicate otherwise.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

This is from a player's perspective, right?

As a player, I don't want a DM to fudge Dice. I want to be rewarded or punished for the risks I choose because I chose them. It really takes away my excitement and enjoyment in a game when I realize that the DM might fudge a dice to avoid character death, tpk, or - just as importantly - a failed goal or skill check.

The fallout of a failed goal or check is sometimes more fun than the intended success. I like to try to squirm my way out of the consequences of my actions if they go badly.

Most importantly: even if I get upset when something bad happens, it makes victory sweeter when it happens. I feel like I earned it instead of having it given to me. I'm not playing for participation ribbons.

Alternately, I don't mind if a DM fudges an encounter - within reason. Having a second wave of enemies show up or, conversely, choosing to have the second wave not show up. Eyeing encounter balance is difficult. That said, sometimes a party bites off more than it can chew. That goes back to player decisions. If we knew a tough fight was coming but chose to risk it anyways, I'm happy to pay the consequences of those actions.

 

[Mort]

There are 10 pages of replies after the above post, sorry if my late to the party reply is no longer relevant!

So I decide to run a Pathfinder 1e game and I have brought in a new player in and this will be his first time playing a TTRPG. Creating a new character in Pathfinder can take some time, even more so for a first timer. He's really excited, gets his character done, even spends the time creating a fairly detailed backstory, and is looking forward to playing his first character. Do I risk turning him off and deflating his enthusiasm because during the first night of gaming the dice worked against him and his character should have died or do I fudge so that the killing blow does less damage and he survives to be healed later? This poor guy just put in a bunch of time and effort into his first character and it all quickly goes to waste if I let the dice results stand. I see no harm done here if I fudge. Honestly, there seems to me to be more upside than down in this scenario.

For me, character development is done in play, not by some short story the player presents to me beforehand. I limit backstory to 1 paragraph or less (plus whatever the system calls for, in 5e the ideals, bonds and flaws for example).

As for the rest: Have a conversation with the player about expectations! Low (especially 1st) level characters can be fragile, make sure he understands that dying at 1st is a possibility (or even a probability depending on campaign!). If you fudge to avoid death early - that sets the expectation that you will be doing so later to. Do you REALLY want to set that as precedent for the new player?

The thing is, we can all create scenarios where fudging seems reasonable and where it isn't. GMs make judgement calls all of the time, some you will agree with and some you won't. If the GM isn't someone that you are willing to trust to make the right call then maybe there is a bigger problem.

Yes, trust is key and goes a long way, sure.

 

[Maxperson]

It doesn't have to be. As I've pointed out many times, extreme bad luck can make some of the best memories. Besides, the player may have done everything right to play the character as they envisions them, but that does not mean they have done everything, and the DM has done everything except fudge, to keep the player from dying. That is unless the DM allows a huge string of mistakes to happen, including their own.
Besides, is it heroic to adventure if the risk of death or failure is zero? Not much thrill there for me.

The bolded portion is a pretty big Strawman as I have never argued for zero chance of death or failure, and in fact have said it happens and is on the table. Fudging extreme bad luck =/= death or failure risk is zero.

In my last campaign in Ravenloft there were 3 PC deaths. In my current campaign there has only been 1, but it's not over yet.

You keep coming back to this. Regardless if this is true or not, fudging is perceived by a large percentage of players as being bad and undesirable. So, you can chose to keep using this "tool" that you know now is divisive and disruptive, or you can chose to avoid using a tool that is likely to be viewed negatively by some at te average table. You're choice.

Sure, and if these threads are any indication, many of those people misperceive fudging as a bunch of stuff that it isn't. If you aren't viewing something correctly, your opinion that it is bad isn't really an indicator of it actually being bad.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So, for the pro-fudge camp, if you're player, and GM fudging is afoot, are you really as psyched as you are about doing it yourself?

I 100% do not care if the GM fudges. Because while the board game is fun and all... it is so low down on my totem pole of reasons I play D&D that I could just be handed a card by the DM that said "You guys won the fight" and I'd say "Great! Now we'll get back to the roleplaying!"

I also am of the opinion that one of the most overrated things that many of the folks here think is the end-all-and-be-all of D&D is "player agency". That someone's actions and PC are so sacrosanct that they and they alone must decide everything and anything about their character-- who it is, what they do, how they feel-- that anything that steps on that "agency" even the tiniest bit destroys any vestige of the reason to play the game and makes the entire exercise pointless.

To me, that just seems so completely overblown that I just have to shrug my shoulders when people say that's one of the most important parts of playing. I literally can't grasp clinging that tightly to ANYTHING in D&D that would bring about those feelings. I have no doubt that it happens, and I do not discount others feelings of this in any way, shape, or form... but I just do not have any of those same types of feeling for this silly game for it to matter that much. So for instance if the DM tells me how I (or more to the point my PC) feels when some big monster shows up... like the creature is so alien and C'Thulu-like that it's meant to drive almost everyone insane who looks at it... then I'll go with it. I'll go with the description! And not get bothered in the least that the DM nudged me in that direction by suggesting my PC is scared. If the scene is meant to invoke a certain type of drama... then I lean into it as far as I can. Because for me THAT'S the juice of playing, all of us building drama and story together as a group-- not the idea that I figured out the proper way to move my miniature around the grid and use all my special game mechanic powers to knock the enemy miniature out without getting knocked out myself. That I "solved" and "won" this puzzle by using my agency and player choices.