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

How do you, as a player, feel about DM fudging?

  • Very positive. Fudging is good.

    Votes: 5 2.7%
  • Positive. Fudging is acceptable.

    Votes: 41 22.4%
  • Neutral. Fudging sure is a thing.

    Votes: 54 29.5%
  • Negative. Fudging is dubious.

    Votes: 34 18.6%
  • Very negative. Fudging is bad.

    Votes: 49 26.8%

  • Poll closed .

Thomas Shey

Legend
"I had this piece of furniture that would have been about perfect if only it was 1/2" taller and 1/16" narrower. So I put some 1/2" wood blocks under the legs and sanded a 1/16th inch off the side going against the wall."

"Why not just actually try to find a piece of furniture that is perfect?"

----

Which system do you suggest that does everything else virutally the same as D&D does except for avoiding the long runs of super good or super bad luck on the dice?

Before I would even try to answer that, I'd need to know the definition you're using of "virtually the same" or its a fool's game to even try. Even if the assumption is that "everything else" is actually desirable to you rather than what you're used to. But either way, not a question I'd try to answer because I could count on getting "but it doesn't do X" "Looks like it sure does X to me" "Well, not this extremely specific way"...and off we go.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Thomas Shey

Legend
On a D&D board about D&D, telling people to stop playing D&D because you don't like them monkeying with D&D and see it as 'using a wrench to hammer nails' is both inappropriate, insulting, and obnoxious.

Telling them they might want to play something else because they keep patching around problems with D&D seems none of the above to me. I see nothing whatsoever inappropriate about it, and the latter two are subjective issues its not my job to make sure no one ever takes offense. I'm not telling them they're stupid; I'm telling them they're going to a bunch of extra effort to get a result they could probably get elsewhere. If you find that insulting and obnoxious, I would suggest blocking me and having done with it.

(Also, if you think I limit this response to D&D you're quite mistaken. I've told people they probably don't want to be playing games I'm quite fond of for the same reasons).
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
Well kinda, it can open up a whole other kettle of worms if it doesn't do what the GM who's asking wants it to in other respects, which is usually the problem. E.g. in our case we play Pathfinder and hacked it a little to do OSR style hexcrawling and sandboxing, if someone tries to redirect the conversation to another game, that might make sense to them, but it would be missing a lot of the reasons I want to adjust the game I'm playing to do it.

In a lot of cases its breaking A, B, and D to fix C, if that makes sense to you.

Sure. And were I compelling someone in some fashion or not permitting them to go into the reasons they want to to stick with their main choice and fix it, I'd have more sympathy. But "don't even suggest something else?" No, I'm not going to have much sympathy there. As I said earlier, I'm not preventing someone from ignoring me or countering me. I'm just not allowing them to dictate how I respond to thing they present as long as I stay within the norms of discussion.
 

"I had this piece of furniture that would have been about perfect if only it was 1/2" taller and 1/16" narrower. So I put some 1/2" wood blocks under the legs and sanded a 1/16th inch off the side going against the wall."

"Why not just actually try to find a piece of furniture that is perfect?"
"Because it's very comfortable, matches my decor, and why should I shell out $$$ when I can just do a little DIY?"
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
The system I suggest is stock D&D but giving each PC a couple of rerolls.

Your 'slightly imperfect furniture' analogy doesn't really work here, because the kind of tinkering you describe is not what you're doing. Instead of luck points or house rules etc to fix the problems you're experiencing, you're sidestepping them by secretly and unilaterally ignoring the rules when it suits. (I have no idea how to put that in context of the analogy!)

Well, of course, the issue with this reaction is that seems (at least to the frequency done) a minor patch to them. It doesn't to you and people with strong feelings, but that context is important.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
Player rerolls under limited circumstances would probably work. I'm not sure the players would always know when to use them for things like saves, or how they would stop the DM from criticaling them four times in a row, say

Well, one way around that (because its a common problem with hero point mechanics in systems where rolls are normally done on one side of an exchange) is to allow the rerolls to be forced on opposition too.

The issue about "knowing when" bumps right up against how fussy you are about letting people know before they decide to do rerolls. A lot of times games that do that will outright let you know before deciding, but I know that would leave a bad taste in some people's mouth.

(As an aside, to answer your last question (which my quoting messed up) its not necessarily a smaller change to give players some ability to do it, but its got two things involved: the players decide when its important to them, not the GM, and they have a finite number.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
Giving the GM (finite, visible) rerolls might be a fix that works for some people. But that would be different from fudging because fudging is not a reroll but a chosen result, has no limit, and is not only done in secret but if players found out many of them would be mad.

A number of games do, in fact, give GMs a certain number of metacurrency points. Savage Worlds comes to mind.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
"Because it's very comfortable, matches my decor, and why should I shell out $$$ when I can just do a little DIY?"
Totes. If you have changes that do the job, go for it. If you want to rewrite the entire game into your own fantasy heartbreaker, go for it. My points have been that sometimes someone's already done the work and you might find you like it and that at some point you've moved the game enough that it's no longer the same game as what's printed, so calling it the same thing leads to confusion when you're talking about your hack and everyone else is talking about the game as printed (or close to it). These seem like simple points, to me. No?
 


I'm not sure how much there is to learn from "the DM probably won't let the bad guy crit multiple times in a row".
Risk management. If multiple crit runs are off the table, one can more confidently work with typical damage numbers when considering the risk vs reward of adventuresome actions in combat. E.g., "if I rush to save the Wizard, the evil Princess and her thugs might hit me, but I think I have the HP to risk it...and they shouldn't crit so much that it would kill me." (Note that risk of death is still present in this example; it just won't be "eating three crit OAs in a row" levels or whatever.)

Unless the player hates player side metagame mechanics.
All of my suggestions have been for DMs only. I have not recommended any metagame mechanics intended for direct player use, and in general I am trying to avoid metagaming at all (hence the emphasis on diegetic solutions).

Does the safeguard give you at least one of the negatives you listed above (how do you learn things from an ad hoc safe guard that may or may not happen again) .

What kind of safeguards were you picturing?
I gave an example earlier in this thread (IIRC, anyway) from my own Dungeon World campaign. See, I tend to be a big old softie when it comes to DMing, and I was worried my players might feel Il was throwing fights at them that weren't meant to be more than speedbumps. So I set up a combat meant to be slightly tough but not too hard...and the party demolished it no sweat. At that point, I decided I needed to make a fight that would (at least I hoped!) be clearly too hard. As part of that, I built in diegetic "safeguards" that could be exploited later to make the fight less dangerous. Specifically, these were bound shadows (a favored trick of the Zil al-Ghurab, the Raven-Shadow assassin cult), which were already known to have magic that could manipulate life force. I intentionally overloaded the fight with smaller "minion" creatures, led by one greater shadow. After the first two rounds, the party realized that they were in a bad position and needed to either break or achieve a major success, so they chose to nova strike the greater shadow (presumably intending to disrupt the lesser ones, they didn't explicitly say). In one round, they were able to pump out enough damage that the greater shadow WOULD have died right there, but that would only have partially mitigated the difficulty of the encounter, given the sheer number of other opponents.

Instead, I creatively exploited the life force magic of the shadows. The greater shadow, sensing defeat was near and deciding that it was better to flee so it could maintain its mission in the future rather than be destroyed here, chose to absorb the life force of (most of) the lesser shadows and then tried to book it, hoping to lose the party and then reconstitute the smaller shadows later. Instead, the party gave chase and destroyed the greater shadow. They had a very real brush with lethal danger. However, because I prepared with a possible countermeasure to mitigate the encounter difficulty, I was able to address the problem purely diegetically without needing any metagame mechanics nor fudging rolls or stats. (I can't actually fudge rolls as players make all rolls in Dungeon World, but I obviously could still fudge stats. I just don't do so.)

Going from the lowest tier to second highest does feel like a thing :)

And some people liked 3.5 and loathed 4... ::🤷:;
Oh I know, though I would prefer not to delve too deep into that. I merely gave it as an unequivocal example where I know for a fact that a player (that is, I) wanted something from the game but genuinely did not know that I wanted it. I had had no idea that what I really wanted was a rigorously balanced system that put every player on a level playing field and said "alright, gloves are off, do the best you can with the tools you have."

Sometimes, we get caught up on what we believe something to be, or we fail to realize what specific thing is actually valuable to us because we just don't have the experience to give it a name or a shape. That doesn't mean we should just roll over and tolerate it if someone says "play something else." We should, however, be open to the possibility that the tool we have become attached to is not effective for the purpose we intend.

But I think we three of us agree that the "go play other games" tangent is done, so I'm willing to leave it there if you are.

Unrelated, this was in my +Quote backlog and I figure it too is worth a reply.

I thought everyone would be more accepting of fudging because they TRUST the DM's JUDGEMENT. Afterall, they got that EMPOWERMENT for a reason?
Well, firstly, you should know that not everyone is particularly keen on all this "DM Empowerment" rhetoric. (As far as I'm concerned, DMs were already plenty empowered, and nothing actually changed about how much power they have or had.)

As to your core points, I don't think it's that weird to be upset about finding out someone is concealing things from you, and it certainly wouldn't make me less suspicious if they followed that up with "but you're supposed to trust me!" More importantly, I have seen too many examples of well-meaning but faulty DM judgment over the years, both personally and from testimonials online. No one is infallible, but fudging that requires such "trust"--that is, secretly modifying rolls or modifiers after they're already in play--by definition has no error-correction mechanism unless the secret gets out (and almost everyone agrees that getting "caught" doing this is a Bad Thing which should be avoided). So it both projects a (false) impression of infallibility, and denies the only possible means by which one can get feedback and error correction.

I'm cool with cooperating with a DM--but cooperation, like respect, is a two-way street. Expecting unlimited trust is just as much of a problem for cooperation as expecting unlimited approval. Expecting trust to be backed up by communication and collaboration is not a bizarre paranoid reaction. It is not weird to respond negatively when you find out that the DM has secretly manipulated results to be what she wished them to be, even if she had the best intentions, and only did it wishing to help the players.
 

"Because it's very comfortable, matches my decor, and why should I shell out $$$ when I can just do a little DIY?"
In practice, I find that it is a little DIY.

And then a little more.

And then just a smidge more.

And then you find another cool thing, but it would take up too much space, so you do some more intensive DIY to make it work.

And then you have to get the carpet cleaned, and suddenly all that DIY work you did becomes a nightmare both to untangle enough so you can get the cleaning done, and to reassemble when you're done so that it will all fit back together again without any wobbles or having to do more DIY work.

People make exaggerated jokes about binders full of house-rules in Ye Olden Dayse, but there's a grain of truth in those stories.
 

That's...not how I have ever used that phrase. "X sure is a thing" is how one intentionally avoids making any kind of assessment, positive or negative, by falling back to an utterly inarguable objective statement. Because, as I think we can all agree, fudging actually is a thing! Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing isn't specified. I meant exactly zero sarcasm with it.
Interesting. You have never used the word "sure" to denote sarcasm? There is an entire section in Webster's dedicated to its usage. But, we all have our own phrasings and speak. It's also very true when we write for this forum, we do not stress about any of it. So thank you for your clarification.
One thing is for sure, using "sure," sure is a good way to make things clear. ;) (Just kidding)
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Risk management. If multiple crit runs are off the table, one can more confidently work with typical damage numbers when considering the risk vs reward of adventuresome actions in combat. E.g., "if I rush to save the Wizard, the evil Princess and her thugs might hit me, but I think I have the HP to risk it...and they shouldn't crit so much that it would kill me." (Note that risk of death is still present in this example; it just won't be "eating three crit OAs in a row" levels or whatever.)
Where I guess I don't mind higher risk provided there's higher possible reward to balance it out.

If I-as-PC can crit three times in a row and set a string of high-damage records, I think it's only fair that the opposition have the same opportunity to do likewise to me.
I had had no idea that what I really wanted was a rigorously balanced system that put every player on a level playing field and said "alright, gloves are off, do the best you can with the tools you have."
The bolded is what I also want, but I'm not nearly as concerned about balance. Even a third-string PC can signficantly contribute given the chance, provided the tools it has are used well and the character sticks its nose in rather than shies away or holds back.
 

Interesting. You have never used the word "sure" to denote sarcasm? There is an entire section in Webster's dedicated to its usage. But, we all have our own phrasings and speak. It's also very true when we write for this forum, we do not stress about any of it. So thank you for your clarification.
One thing is for sure, using "sure," sure is a good way to make things clear. ;) (Just kidding)
The phrase "sure is a thing," not the single individual word "sure," which...I would not usually call a "phrase" even if it technically meets the definition of the term. E.g., when I've discussed something with a friend and I legit didn't have any strong feelings one way or another about that thing, I have said, "that sure is(/was) a thing." In some contexts, I admit that this could be damning with faint praise, e.g. if we're discussing a film or a game or something, saying "that sure was a level/dungeon/etc." would be arguably "condemning" it by having nothing positive to say about it. But I've said it about historical events, or heck, even about situations or events that occurred in my Dungeon World campaign.

It's a bit like saying, "Of all the Xs in the world, this is one of them." Again, it has the "damning with faint praise" angle, but if the worst thing one can say about something is that it's too inoffensive and safe to actually have done anything worth criticizing, one could also call that praising with faint damnation.
 

Where I guess I don't mind higher risk provided there's higher possible reward to balance it out.

If I-as-PC can crit three times in a row and set a string of high-damage records, I think it's only fair that the opposition have the same opportunity to do likewise to me.
I only use that as an example because pro-fudge people have. I would not do that myself--or, rather, if a PC were pushed so close to death by such a string of luck, I would use other methods to address the issue. Like the aforementioned "you KNOW that strike should have killed you, you're too experienced with combat to know otherwise...and yet you are not dead. This is Really Weird, but you'll have time to figure out what the heck is going on after you survive this battle. Assuming you have survived the battle already! 😉 "

The bolded is what I also want, but I'm not nearly as concerned about balance. Even a third-string PC can signficantly contribute given the chance, provided the tools it has are used well and the character sticks its nose in rather than shies away or holds back.
I mean, I guess? I find that that's not very effective in practice. Getting a cool story in the rare circumstances where narrative weight makes it matter and the dice cooperate to let it happen just isn't enough for me. That would mean far, far too low a density of Cool Moments. By raising the level of balance, more Cool Moments happen, and more of the campaign is memorable. Memory is of course finite and fallible, but I don't see a surfeit of Cool Moments as devaluing their coolness simply because there's a lot of them. That's a strangely zero-sum perspective for intangible experiences. There is, of course, a balance (heh) to be struck; it's hard to make literally every single moment intensely memorable (and I'm not sure I would want it to be even if it were possible). But I find the "third-string PC can significantly contribute" thing is the reverse--so few memorable moments that even the ones I do get are drowned out in the noise of "you died"/"nothing happened"/"the much more powerful people actually got things done."
 

The phrase "sure is a thing," not the single individual word "sure," which...I would not usually call a "phrase" even if it technically meets the definition of the term. E.g., when I've discussed something with a friend and I legit didn't have any strong feelings one way or another about that thing, I have said, "that sure is(/was) a thing." In some contexts, I admit that this could be damning with faint praise, e.g. if we're discussing a film or a game or something, saying "that sure was a level/dungeon/etc." would be arguably "condemning" it by having nothing positive to say about it. But I've said it about historical events, or heck, even about situations or events that occurred in my Dungeon World campaign.

It's a bit like saying, "Of all the Xs in the world, this is one of them." Again, it has the "damning with faint praise" angle, but if the worst thing one can say about something is that it's too inoffensive and safe to actually have done anything worth criticizing, one could also call that praising with faint damnation.
I understand. And thanks for the clarification. It's like I said, we all have our own phrasing and self-speak. Thanks for explaining yours.
 

In practice, I find that it is a little DIY.

And then a little more.

And then just a smidge more.

And then you find another cool thing, but it would take up too much space, so you do some more intensive DIY to make it work.

And then you have to get the carpet cleaned, and suddenly all that DIY work you did becomes a nightmare both to untangle enough so you can get the cleaning done, and to reassemble when you're done so that it will all fit back together again without any wobbles or having to do more DIY work.

People make exaggerated jokes about binders full of house-rules in Ye Olden Dayse, but there's a grain of truth in those stories.
So you're saying to mind the slope, it might be slippery?
 

Giving the GM (finite, visible) rerolls might be a fix that works for some people. But that would be different from fudging because fudging is not a reroll but a chosen result, has no limit, and is not only done in secret but if players found out many of them would be mad.
Pretty sure that most people would call the DM re-rolling a result they didn't like 'fudging.' You're using an awfully narrow meaning here.
 

So you're saying to mind the slope, it might be slippery?
Not exactly. More that an urge to tinker, in the context of TTRPGs, is almost never satisfied with a single change, done once, tested thoroughly, and then left as-is forever.

That is, tinkering, DIY in a gaming context, usually reflects a critical eye and an urge toward improvement....and every system, even the systems I love dearly, has areas that can be improved. I'm sure you've heard someone say something to the effect of "if we required [novels/games/papers/movies/etc.] to be perfect, nothing would ever get made." At some point, a creator has to throw up their hands and say "good enough!" Consumers with an interest in tinkering/DIY are not subject to such pressures. We can keep iterating indefinitely, because the only cost is our personal time and energy, and we (myself included!) find that "expense" joyously worthwhile....but continuous tinkering has a tendency to produce what programmers call "spaghetti code," and spaghetti code is very difficult to clean up.

Now that I think about it, actually, spaghetti code is an excellent example of exactly this effect in action. "Software rot" is a real, extant phenomenon that plagues many developers unless they actively uphold countermeasures, but your logic here would dismiss it as a slippery slope. It isn't. It really happens. Game design tinkering is similarly liable to such changes, because who's gonna tell you not to tinker with anything (and, thus, everything) that rubs you the wrong way with a system you overall like?

Pretty sure that most people would call the DM re-rolling a result they didn't like 'fudging.' You're using an awfully narrow meaning here.
Well, I can't speak for "most people" [citation needed?] but I've already quoted a fairly significant slice of people in this thread who consider secrecy to be a fundamental part of "fudging," and looking through links posted previously by Umbran, this pattern holds at least as far back as 2010 on ENWorld, and seemingly much earlier in general, based on other textual references I have seen/read.

It might not be the case that everyone thinks secrecy is essential for something to be "fudging," but for a fair chunk, it is. I personally said that several times earlier in this thread, and no one got all up in my grill about the secrecy then, so it's a little weird that more than one person is now declaring that secrecy isn't a valid restriction.

Now, to be fair to your points, if I saw that a DM was openly rerolling (because, again, I don't consider this fudging proper) to an excessive degree--e.g., if it happened at least once in most sessions--I would see that as a cause for concern. But, because I'm allowed to know that it's happening, I can do something about it. I can talk with the DM (away from the game, of course) and try to find out why they're choosing to intrude on the game mechanics so often. Assuming we have a productive conversation, this means we can actually get on the same page and find a solution that works for everyone involved, rather than having the DM unilaterally deciding what is best for me as a player.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
My own experience is its possible to learn to let it be beyond what changes you think you really need, but it takes a lot of experience to learn that if you naturally are prone to tinkering.
 

Epic Threats

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top