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

[Swarmkeeper]

But in situations where a die is normally supposed to be rolled, choosing not to is the same as fudging, because you're deciding on the outcome as DM rather than letting the dice decide.

Is one “normally suppose to” roll for a random encounter?

Do you also believe it to be fudging when a DM grants auto-success or auto-failure because the DM is “deciding on the outcome”?

 

[JAMUMU]

I only ever fudged once, in a game where wearing plate armour made you more likely to die in melee combat. The players asked to play again, but when I told them of the rules fudging I'd had to employ, they lost interest.

Apparently the new version of the game, Green Ronin's Sword Chronicle, has fixed the maths that caused exploding knights, so I might give it another try at some point.

 

[Helldritch]

Is one “normally suppose to” roll for a random encounter?

Do you also believe it to be fudging when a DM grants auto-success or auto-failure because the DM is “deciding on the outcome”?

DC of 5.... is anyone really asking a player with a +4 to roll the check? A DC 10, does anyone really ask à player with +9 on the check to roll for it? Heck even a DC 15 would not warrant a roll with such a skill. And no one will consider fudging.

 

[Ovinomancer]

DC of 5.... is anyone really asking a player with a +4 to roll the check? A DC 10, does anyone really ask à player with +9 on the check to roll for it? Heck even a DC 15 would not warrant a roll with such a skill. And no one will consider fudging.

I don't pay attention to what the PC's bonuses are. I set a DC and ask for a roll. The player tells me if they autopass because of bonus. I have my own stuff to keep track of, and PC math ain't it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My first DM (in 1986ish I guess?) tried to enforce it. It didn't work.

I've mentioned before I have chronically played with groups that had a very high density of GMs over the years. I'm not sure I've played with a one that most of the players wouldn't have (whether publically or not) went "Pfeh. Yeah, right." and done what they damned well wanted. (With me, it'd probably have been public.)

 

[Hussar]

I was going to respond to the numerous red herrings above, but this last part, the bit I've bolded, makes my argument. If you say that there's no difference between fudging and mechanics like rerolls or legendary resistance then why are you saying that moving away from fudging to these makes for a better game?

Because I, personally, don't think fudging is a good idea?

I know it's sometimes hard to get nuance, but, what gave you the idea that I was promoting fudging? It makes for a better game because the game has less rough edges that require the DM to step in, it adds a fun element to the game, and it makes players happier.

That doesn't make fudging bad, evil, something to flip the table over. It just means that codifying fudging is probably a better idea.

 

[Hussar]

Is one “normally suppose to” roll for a random encounter?

Do you also believe it to be fudging when a DM grants auto-success or auto-failure because the DM is “deciding on the outcome”?

In Basic/Expert D&D? Absolutely. The random encounter roll is fundamental to play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because I, personally, don't think fudging is a good idea?

I know it's sometimes hard to get nuance, but, what gave you the idea that I was promoting fudging? It makes for a better game because the game has less rough edges that require the DM to step in, it adds a fun element to the game, and it makes players happier.

That doesn't make fudging bad, evil, something to flip the table over. It just means that codifying fudging is probably a better idea.

I don't think my point has anything to do with you promoting or not promoting fudging. You've repeatedly made the case that fudging is no different from a reroll mechanic. I've challenged that, repeatedly, you've stuck to those guns. Yet you're not presenting an argument that relies on there being a difference, because you like one and dislike (apparently) the other. What is that difference, for you?

 

[Hussar]

I don't think my point has anything to do with you promoting or not promoting fudging. You've repeatedly made the case that fudging is no different from a reroll mechanic. I've challenged that, repeatedly, you've stuck to those guns. Yet you're not presenting an argument that relies on there being a difference, because you like one and dislike (apparently) the other. What is that difference, for you?

Not quite. I've repeatedly made the case that reroll mechanics are the natural outgrowth of fudging. One leads to the other. And, at the end of the day, they both arrive at the same outcome. We have all these player facing fudging mechanics - after all CHANGING A DIE ROLL IS FUDGING BY THE DEFINITIONS IN THIS THREAD. Look, I'm just using the definitions that were established. If you change the outcome of a die roll, that's fudging. That a reroll mechanic might result in a second failure doesn't change the fact that you are still changing the outcome of a roll. Never minding all the various player fudging mechanics that allow you to flat out substitute a result, with no chance of failure.

I mean, what do you really think something like a Rogue's Reliable Talent is, for example? How is that not fudging? No matter what you actually roll, no roll can ever be lower than a 10. That's straight up fudging a die roll.

Again, I understand why we have these things and I believe that the game is better for it. Relying on a DM to do this is a bad idea because DM's often judge from their gut and get it wrong. Most people have really bad sense when it comes to calculating odds. So, it's much better to have lots of little fudges that the players can deploy rather than one big one that the DM uses. It's more incremental, it's less intrusive, and it gives the players more control over the game. All things I'm totally in favor of.

But, it doesn't change the fact that all we've done is shift fudging to the player's side of the table.

If die rolls are sacrosanct and should never, ever be changed by the DM, and any time the DM changes the result of a die roll, it's fudging, then why is it suddenly not fudging when a player does it? And, if we trust the players to do it, then why the huge reaction when the DM, using his or her best judgement, does it as well?

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

In a well-balanced and well-designed encounter
I don't mind it if the DM rolls openly. We (players) just have to deal with the roll of the dice. And hopefully the lay of the land allows us to employ some interesting tactics that swings the balance in our favor.

If the DM made a mistake, or there is no strategy
If the DM accidentally made the NPCs (much) too strong - either because of a mistake, or because the DM overlooked the fact that the PCs were already hurt and/or already used some valuable resources such as spell slots and items, I really get a grudge if the DM rolls openly and consistently rolls well (including some critical hits). Now we're dead because of a poorly designed encounter. All that character development is gone, because of a little mistake by the DM.

Also, if combat is just a matter of slugging it out with dice - without any opportunity to be strategic - I get a grudge if the DM's dice are really lucky.

In a nutshell
If my character dies and I feel that I did nothing wrong - we were just unlucky, or we never even had a chance to begin with - I strongly feel that the DM should have fudged the dice. I feel that a lot of people in this thread that oppose fudging base that opinion on the premise that the DM is experienced and makes no mistakes.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Oh, by the way, since we all want to bring up actual quotes, here's the quote from X59 of the Moldvay Expert rules:



So, yeah, fudging was part and parcel to the game since day 1.

That quote does not advocate fudging. It advocates good judgment in addition to the rules. Every single thing I have advocated is not fudging, but IS using good judgment to build preferable solutions to undesirable results, as opposed to invisibly forcing desirable results.

But in situations where a die is normally supposed to be rolled, choosing not to is the same as fudging, because you're deciding on the outcome as DM rather than letting the dice decide.

It is not. My players know immediately when I choose not to roll the dice (or, rather, when I choose not to have them roll the dice). Usually because I tell them.

I have said several times that the concealment is a vital part of this. If it isn't concealed, it's not fudging. How on earth could you conceal choosing not to roll? You literally have to tell them about that!

You trust the DM to facilitate the entire rest of the experience so why are these once-in-a-blue-moon scenarios where they fudge a single roll to keep things from going south quickly so different for them to adjust things behind the scenes the same as they have adjusted probably a hundered other things that you never knew about but which weren't actually dice rolls becasue it would have been too harsh on a battered party, the poisoned dart trap that just didn't trigger, the ogre that was meant to be with the pack of goblins but wasn't, when the dragon didn't immediately use it's breath weapon the instant it recharged...

I would be very unhappy (probably not quite as unhappy as with fudging, but very unhappy nonetheless) to learn that the DM was secretly doing things like rewriting combats solely because the party was already beaten up or removing traps solely to not upset the players etc. Cohesion in the world matters to me. The causal link between my choices and their results matters to me. Because that means the DM doesn't take my efforts seriously; I would feel like a coddled child being secretly pulled along from one attraction to another with no actual agency.

Fudging is there as a last ditch saftey net to be used when utmost required, but it is not something a DM should seek out opportunities to do it (not that i think it is something many if any DM's seek out to perform)(hence the lack of 'very positive' votes on the poll)

Personally i think i would rather revel in my ignorace of not knowing if fudging was happening and that the DM has my best interests in mind than compromise my own fun worrying about something that might not even be happening?

Okay, but hear me out: What if you could avoid undesirable consequences and at the same time avoid any risk whatsoever of "compromising your own fun worrying about [possible fudging]"? Would you not agree that that would be the best of both worlds--preventing both the bad thing caused by unvarnished bad luck and the bad thing caused by not believing that the results are genuine?

Because that's what I've been advocating this whole time. I have been saying that it is not necessary to do the thing people are describing here. That it is entirely possible to retain consistency in the world AND avoid making secret invisible changes AND address unwanted and unpleasant side-effects, all at the same time. It just requires being open, diegetic, or prepared, or any combination of the three.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

CHANGING A DIE ROLL IS FUDGING BY THE DEFINITIONS IN THIS THREAD. Look, I'm just using the definitions that were established. If you change the outcome of a die roll, that's fudging.

In secret.

In. Secret.

I have said this SEVERAL times. It is changing a die roll in secret. I even said this to you specifically:

I mean, I have been extremely clear, over and over, across every discussion here, that it is the active concealment, the intent that the players should not even in principle be able to discover it, that is the issue.

I have said, repeatedly, even from the very beginning of these threads, that changing or ignoring(/"replacing," as Ovinomancer put it) a die roll (for resolving a contested situation) or creature statistics (when it has entered play) openly is fine. Or that doing so diegetically is fine. Or that secretly doing so when it isn't a roll that resolves something, e.g. when rolling up a random magic item, is fine. All of those situations involve, as I have repeatedly said, the possibility that the player can learn about it and respond. They might fail to capitalize on that potential, or they might choose to do other things instead. But the potential is there. It is not there for fudging.

If you're going to take me and others to task over this, dude, you should have done so thirty pages ago. We've been entirely clear about this.

You keep banging this "but but REROLLS" drum and it is just as irrelevant now as it was when you first brought it up. Rerolls are not fudging, because they happen in the open. If they are employing a reroll mechanic openly, it is not fudging; and I personally would not be okay with players using any "secret" reroll mechanics that were not in some way reported in an official way (e.g. using a computer program that won't let a player abuse said mechanic).

If a change is diegetic, it is not fudging--period. If a change is done openly, it is not fudging--period. If the change applies to things which have not entered the play-space, or which are irrelevant to resolving a contested situation, it is not fudging--period. Rerolls are open, and occasionally also diegetic, so they are not fudging. Period.

 

[Hussar]

That quote does not advocate fudging. It advocates good judgment in addition to the rules. Every single thing I have advocated is not fudging, but IS using good judgment to build preferable solutions to undesirable results, as opposed to invisibly forcing desirable results.

I know you guys keep wanting to interpret things this way, but, that's not how it was understood. Again, several quotes from things like The Dragon, White Dwarf, various forums and the like, show that fudging was certainly an understood thing that was done and that it generally wasn't particularly objectionable.

 

[Hussar]

In secret.

In. Secret.

That's your definition. That is not the definition that was used in this thread. Go back to the early part of the thread. It was repeatedly established that fudging is changing the results of a die roll. You can keep changing definitions if you like, and pretending that reroll mechanics aren't fudging all you like, but, I really don't care.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I know you guys keep wanting to interpret things this way, but, that's not how it was understood. Again, several quotes from things like The Dragon, White Dwarf, various forums and the like, show that fudging was certainly an understood thing that was done and that it generally wasn't particularly objectionable.

It may not be how it was understood, but that's not what it says. It doesn't say one single thing about fudging. I cannot know what the understanding at the time was. I can only know the words, and the words don't support fudging any more than they support not fudging.

That's your definition. That is not the definition that was used in this thread. Go back to the early part of the thread. It was repeatedly established that fudging is changing the results of a die roll. You can keep changing definitions if you like, and pretending that reroll mechanics aren't fudging all you like, but, I really don't care.

From the beginning of the thread, the secrecy--keeping it out of the players' sight--has been paramount. Over and over and over. Bold for emphasis.

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!

BUT, and it is a BIG but (I like them, I can't lie) you have to consider what the DMG actually says about fudging, basicly: Don't do it too often and don't let your player know you are doing it.

Presumably you have decided how many uses that creature has. Nobody know apart from you right? Unless the players are looking in the MM and holding the DM to account for the number of times written there?

In fact, many people in this thread are saying clearly that if they catch their DM fudging, it pretty much diminishes their fun.

Yes, using opaque ad-hoc fixes instead of solving the problem for good with a transparent rule is an inferior style of gaming in my view.

On the other hand, I don't think I'd even count it as fudging if the DM made changes to the pre-written notes before we even got to that part of the dungeon, say.

This is the first post that goes with your definition:

Any modification of a dice roll is fudging in my opinion.

So don't go telling me this is me inserting the secrecy side of things into this. I haven't. It's been part of the thread from literally the first page. Pro-fudge, anti-fudge, fudge-neutral. People from every side have emphasized the secrecy.

Rerolls aren't fudging, if they're done openly.

 

[DEFCON 1]

At this point, what difference does it make? Some of us will always fudge, even after others tell us there are different ways to do it--

--because we don't see fudging as bad, so there's no reason for us to do anything differently...

And some of you will never fudge and walk away from tables that do fudging--

--because you find fudging to be a breaking of trust and a loss of agency.

And never the twain shall meet. And that's fine! There's nothing left to argue about! And it doesn't matter if one is "right" or one is "wrong"... because from every point of view, BOTH fudging and not fudging are BOTH right and wrong. So continually going around in circles like this is pointless...

...unless of course you all are doing it because there aren't any other threads on the boards worth responding to and you have nothing better to do. So if that's the case, then have at it!

 

[Campbell]

As someone who does not like fudging or other behind the scenes deck stacking at all I have absolutely zero issues with a GM in any roleplaying game being like "Hey guys. these rules are producing results that I think run counter to our aims. Let's handle it like this now and look at changing these rules if it becomes an ongoing issue." I am that GM in a number of cases.

 

[soviet]

As someone who does not like fudging or other behind the scenes deck stacking at all I have absolutely zero issues with a GM in any roleplaying game being like "Hey guys. these rules are producing results that I think run counter to our aims. Let's handle it like this now and look at changing these rules if it becomes an ongoing issue." I am that GM in a number of cases.

Agreed. It's not the dice rolls or even the rules that should be sacrosanct, but the agreement between the participants on how things should be resolved - which is what the rules and dice rolls represent. Anything can be changed if it's done transparently and collaboratively.

 

[Hussar]

It may not be how it was understood, but that's not what it says. It doesn't say one single thing about fudging. I cannot know what the understanding at the time was. I can only know the words, and the words don't support fudging any more than they support not fudging.

So, you're going to ignore pesky things like facts because they don't support your argument? Okay. You've been shown that this is exactly how it was interpreted back then and this is why fudging became a thing in the game. That you don't happen to like it really doesn't matter.

And, AFAIC, fudging doesn't become non-fudging just because I show you the die rolls. So, you're saying that if I roll in the open and then declare a different result, that suddenly becomes not-fudging? Not really buying it. Player side fudging mechanics are simply an outgrowth of DM side ones. They are exactly the same result. The only difference appears to be one gets your seal of approval.

Well, I really don't care about getting your seal of approval to be honest. It doesn't affect my game at all. Changing results is changing results. Doesn't matter who does it or how. It's all the same result - the dice are being ignored and someone at the table has their thumb on the scales.

Do player fudging mechanics work better? I'd say yes. It takes the pressure off the DM for one which means the DM doesn't have to constantly monitor things. It shares responsibility for the dice not taking over the game among everyone at the table. Fantastic. It has the same result of shaving off the rough edges caused by runs of luck (good or bad). Again, fantastic. So, yeah, I am all for player fudging mechanics.

Secrecy or in the open is completely missing the point. That's just preference. Who cares what I or you or someone else likes? It really doesn't matter. We like what we like and we're not going to suddenly convince anyone else to like what we like or don't. But, a better method for achieving the same results? I think we can all get behind that.

Thus, we see player fudging mechanics proliferate throughout the game. In AD&D, you had virtually none. Now? The players fudge dice constantly. Probably every single session if not every single round of every single encounter.

 

[Hussar]

Let me put it another way. Say a DM rolls a roll behind the screen and decides to reroll because he or she doesn't like the result. So, a second roll is made, but, comes up with the same result. The DM decides that the dice gods of spoken and keeps the result.

Now, the only difference here between player side reroll mechanics and this example is that the roll and reroll isn't witnessed by the players.

But, apparently, that's the only thing that makes something fudging? That you, the player didn't get to witness it? Everything else is exactly the same but one is fudging and one isn't? That basically means that fudging="I the player do not trust my DM to play fairly". Not exactly the definition I would want to work with.

So, no, the secrecy part of fudging is the least important aspect. It simply doesn't matter. It matters so little that doing it in the open makes doing the exact same thing non-fudging. I really don't buy it. The only way that secrecy matters is player preference. And that's pretty hard to argue in any direction other than, "Well, I don't like it so you shouldn't do it." Again, never a good look.

Me, I prefer a more objective definition - fudging is changing the results of die rolls. In the past it was generally the purview of the DM and was done in secret so that the players wouldn't see how the sausage was made. Now, it's generally a player facing element of the game, gamified and codified, making it more regular, more controlled and it's impact easier to measure when designing the game.