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

[Crimson Longinus]

The morally objectionable part isn’t the fudging, it’s the active hiding of it from players because you know they wouldn’t like it.

Nothing is being hidden. It literally reads in the rules that the GM could opt to do this. It may not be advertised, but that's not the same thing. And the reason for not advertising is not that players wouldn't like the GM doing it, it is that them knowing would spoil the illusion of danger, which often is the point of using the technique in the first place. Yes, it is a bit weird, but if the GM knows their players and suspects that they like having such an illusion, then doing this makes perfect sense.

And this is still about running an elf game. Even running an elf game really, really badly, isn't "morally objectionable", at worst it might be "mildly annoying."

I don't know why I'm arguing here, as I said I don't fudge,* but I still find a lot of the anti-fudger arguments really bizarre and the moralising rather distasteful.

(* Not that I would ever promise that I wouldn't. As a GM I reserve the right to run the game in the manner I best see fit, and if this means in some exceptional case breaking my self-imposed rules, then so be it. And frankly, as player, it is not your business what happens behind the curtains, so stop worrying about it. Yes, that goes for the quantum ogres too!)

 

[Irlo]

I think the difference is that those tactics, thresholds, etc. are visible to the players. Meaning, if they aren't satisfied they're plausible or fair, they can make that objection known, or ask why something happened and maybe try to present a counter proposal. A dice roll fudged behind a screen offers none of those opportunities for redress.

I have very different gaming experiences than some of you. My players wouldn't grill me over monsters motivations even if I made a stupid move and I wouldn't press my DM for explanations, let alone redress. I completely understand that all tables are different. I'm just a frequently taken aback by how adversarial things appear to be.

 

[Lanefan]

So first, that's not actively concealing or even concealing. It's just not actively revealing.

That's a pretty fine hair you're trying to split there...

Second, whether they feel deceived or not is 100% irrelevant to whether they are actually being deceived. You can feel something is true without it being true.

Perception matters, particularly to the perceiver; and it's that perception which will determine their reaction to whatever comes next.

If I feel like I've been - or am being - deceived then no matter what your intent or motive or perception may be, my trust is eroded. (this is also my default position whenever I feel like some sales pro is trying to sell me something I don't need: that this person is trying to deceive me and I just have to figure out how)

I'm not deceiving them. Not even a little.

You're either deceiving them or deceiving yourself. Pick one.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not actively telling them about it =/= concealing.

Yes, it is. The game tells players dice rolls determine what happens when there's a contested situation. Changing that without telling people (whether that be "telling them in advance" e.g. session zero, or "telling them in the moment," which no one here wants AFAICT) is concealing something. Period.

 

[Maxperson]

That's a pretty fine hair you're trying to split there...

Not fine at all. The argument that I'm deceiving my players by not revealing that I fudge is an argument that everyone deceives everyone they interact on a daily basis, because I guarantee you that they don't reveal every little thing that they have done prior to interacting with that person. Deception!!!!

Perception matters, particularly to the perceiver; and it's that perception which will determine their reaction to whatever comes next.

Perception matters. As does misperception. Only one of those is incorrect, however.

If I feel like I've been - or am being - deceived then no matter what your intent or motive or perception may be, my trust is eroded.

Sure, but if that feeling is based on a misperception, that's not my fault or responsibility. I'd try to explain, but beyond that I have no obligation.

You're either deceiving them or deceiving yourself. Pick one.

I pick neither, since no deception is happening here.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, it is.

Then you conceal a whole lot from your friends, acquaintances and loved ones. Shame! Because there's no way you actively reveal everything you do on a daily basis to those you interact with.

The game tells players dice rolls determine what happens when there's a contested situation. Changing that without telling people (whether that be "telling them in advance" e.g. session zero, or "telling them in the moment," which no one here wants AFAICT) is concealing something. Period.

Except not. It's not concealing, since concealing requires active hiding, which is not going on.

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes, it is. The game tells players dice rolls determine what happens when there's a contested situation. Changing that without telling people (whether that be "telling them in advance" e.g. session zero, or "telling them in the moment," which no one here wants AFAICT) is concealing something. Period.

Say a DM decides that dragon breath doesn't need a recharge roll, they can just do it every round, even though the game tells players it needs a die roll. If they don't tell the players this, it is concealed from them. Does that make it cheating? Should DMs not be able to conceal a lot about the game from the players?

 

[Maxperson]

Say a DM decides that dragon breath doesn't need a recharge roll, they can just do it every round, even though the game tells players it needs a die roll. If they don't tell the players this, it is concealed from them. Does that make it cheating? Should DMs not be able to conceal a lot about the game from the players?

Apparently if I draw a map of a dungeon and don't reveal it to the players, I'm deceiving them. And if I don't divulge the NPC elf's alignment, motivation, treasure, spells, and every other piece of info about him, that's concealment and I'm deceiving the players!!

 

[soviet]

I have very different gaming experiences than some of you. My players wouldn't grill me over monsters motivations even if I made a stupid move and I wouldn't press my DM for explanations, let alone redress. I completely understand that all tables are different. I'm just a frequently taken aback by how adversarial things appear to be.

I don't really mean in an adversarial way. Just in a 'oh that's unexpected, can I tell why they're reacting that way?' sort of sense. An effort to understand and get on the same page. And maybe - if the GM is amenable - bring up a factor that might have been overlooked, or get a chance to take action and swing events the other way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not disagreeing, but I also think that in any discussion about trusting the DM, you also need to ask what actions the DM has taken to create trust among their players.

There isn’t a single action a DM can take to create trust that works in all circumstances, but I think things like being honest and transparent, and rolling in the open can help build trust. Colville claiming he does not fudge when he does, and faking rolls to sell the lie is the opposite of that.

Yeah, I know some people at least claim outright illusionism is a virtue in some cases, and maybe it is, but the default assumption its good is, I think, not well supported.