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

[Thomas Shey]

It isn’t really controversial, happens all the time. The people that object to it, just don’t know it’s happening.

This again suggests an inflated sense of how easy it is for most people to hide they're doing this over time.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Everyone has an inflated sense of everything about this topic.

It's an entire galaxy out of a mote of dust.

 

[CleverNickName]

Everyone has an inflated sense of everything about this topic.

It's an entire galaxy out of a mote of dust.

I agree, but the discussion is still pretty interesting to me. (The arguments, not so much. But I like to read about other peoples' games and their expectations.)

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Is anyone who is on this thread and is anti-fudging adopting such a broad definition of fudging, however?

I don’t think this is what you intend, but it could be interpreted as presenting others’ arguments in the worst possible light. If no one who dislikes fudging considers revising notes because they don’t reflect the situation as presented to the players as fudging.

 

[Arilyn]

The best way to fudge at the game table:

View attachment 154918
BUCKEYE FUDGE (Source)

• 3-1/4 cups peanut butter chips, divided
• 1-14oz. can sweetened condensed milk
• 1/2 cup creamy peanut butter
• 1-1/2 cups semi-sweet chocolate chips
• 1/2 cup heavy cream

1. Line an 8" x 8" pan with parchment, foil, or cling film, and spray with cooking spray. Set aside.
2. Melt 3 cups of the peanut butter chips in a microwave, stirring every 30 seconds until smooth. Add the sweetened condensed milk and peanut butter, and stir until smooth. (Mixture will be very thick.) Spread into the prepared pan.
3. In a separate bowl, combine the chocolate chips with the cream. Heat in a microwave, stirring every 30 seconds, until smooth. Pour the chocolate over the peanut butter fudge. Let cool for 5 minutes, then garnish with the remaining peanut butter chips.
4. Refrigerate for 1 hour, then remove from the pan and cut into squares. Makes 16, 2" x 2" squares.

You have won the argument. Everyone is fudging now!

 

[FrozenNorth]

I mean, good for you and your group if that's what you like.

I and many others... don't. We don't care about the 'consequences' or 'challenge' and are really just down for a good game of pretend with an arbitration system that can adjust by reading the room.

And that works for us because that's what we like.

Then why are you taking such an extreme position on it? Even the most anti-fudging people on this thread, @Charlaquin and @iserith seem to be OK with the DM bringing up in Session Zero whether they reserve the right to change results after they are rolled, and then deciding based on that whether they will play in the game.

But to some of the pro-fudging people, even that seems like a hill worth dying over.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is anyone who is on this thread and is anti-fudging adopting such a broad definition of fudging, however?

I wouldn't call it fudging. It is illusionism though, and is a similar sore point for certain people, some of the most vocal anti-fudgers here included.

 

[iserith]

I'm sorry you feel my example is contrived. I had hoped a simple example would be more illustrative of my point that a more fleshed-out example would be, but apparently not.

Stepping away from the example, do you always communicate intel to your players accurately, and do they always take away from it what you intended them to? If not, how do you personally prefer to address such errors and miscommunications when they arise?

I don't purport to be a perfect individual, but I have seen no instance in any game with any group of players where the information I conveyed was in and of itself causing the players to reach an erroneous conclusion. They may well reach conclusions that are flawed, but that would be due to things they don't know or assume or ignore or downplay or assign more import to than is necessary. And even when they do, they tend to prepare for unforeseen eventualities anyway, which allows them to mitigate the result of their bad conclusions in the moment.

This leads me to believe the concern is way more overblown than is being asserted in this thread.

 

[Xetheral]

Is anyone who is on this thread and is anti-fudging adopting such a broad definition of fudging, however?

I don’t think this is what you intend, but it could be interpreted as presenting others’ arguments in the worst possible light. If no one who dislikes fudging considers revising notes because they don’t reflect the situation as presented to the players as fudging.

To my understanding, yes, at least a few posters have included revising notes after play starts as fudging. My intent was to be as inclusive and non-judgemental as possible, and hadn't considered that including the broadest definitions might be interpreted as deliberately presenting others' arguments in a poor light. Thanks for pointing out that possibile interpretation--I can see it now that you mention it, and will give some thought as to how best to make sure my intention comes through accurately in the future.

 

[iserith]

I mean, good for you and your group if that's what you like.

I and many others... don't. We don't care about the 'consequences' or 'challenge' and are really just down for a good game of pretend with an arbitration system that can adjust by reading the room.

And that works for us because that's what we like.

Me saying what I do is not a judgment on what you do, so there's really no need for posts like this.