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

[Thomas Shey]

D


It really, truly doesn't. Particularly since, as many have noted, even the 5e DMG's reference to fudging explicitly says to never let your players find out you do it. You keep banging on this drum and every single one of us has already conceded it. We get it. There are players cool with fudging who just don't want to hear that it is happening in the moment. That has zero intersection with whether DMs should be honest with their players about whether or not they "reserve the right" to fudge.

It has everything to do, however, with a question that lumps together things that can be answered differently by the same people. So, frankly, Ezekiel, get off my back here.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Though I think even if you don't want players to know what individual monsters can do (I find I don't really care), there's a difference between "this particular monster has this special trick" and "monsters generically get to do this." I think the players ought to know about the latter.

Yes. Perhaps. Probably.

In any case, matters of secrecy aside, another big reason to not to do it via such additional rules is that the situations in which it would matter come up so rarely, that it simply is easier for people who feel it might be a problem to handle them via fudging than come up with codified rules for 'allowed dice manipulation' that would still cover every desired situation.

 

[Hussar]

And, just to add something here.

If you absolutely hate fudging, how do you feel about reroll mechanics? I mean, 5e has lots of reroll mechanics built into the system. And, honestly, I use a lot of other systems as reroll - a defensive fighter's disadvantage trick is a reroll at our table so that it doesn't get wasted for example.

What's the difference between fudging and a reroll mechanic?

Is a Shield spell fudging or not? After all, you absolutely are changing the numbers AFTER the die is rolled. You don't cast Shield before the attack roll is rolled. It's 100% mechanically sanctioned fudging.

So, what's the difference?

 

[Ovinomancer]

And, just to add something here.

If you absolutely hate fudging, how do you feel about reroll mechanics? I mean, 5e has lots of reroll mechanics built into the system. And, honestly, I use a lot of other systems as reroll - a defensive fighter's disadvantage trick is a reroll at our table so that it doesn't get wasted for example.

What's the difference between fudging and a reroll mechanic?

Is a Shield spell fudging or not? After all, you absolutely are changing the numbers AFTER the die is rolled. You don't cast Shield before the attack roll is rolled. It's 100% mechanically sanctioned fudging.

So, what's the difference?

One is unilateral, hidden, and a choice made for or against the player without their knowledge or input. The other is still unilateral, but is open and is made with player knowledge and choice.

I'm struggling to understand why the hidden/unilateral/choice made by the GM for the GM's agenda and that changes the outcome of a mechanic is not immediately noticeably different from an openly deployed mechanic that is honored. I get preference, but this is moving past "I like it/I don't like it" and actively questioning obvious differences to try and tell others that they're wrong for noticing the obvious differences.

 

[Hussar]

Dude, a simple google search on the topic turns up blog posts from the aughts that are anti-fudging! I mean, totally get your position (it's not at all something I want or like, but sure), but these claims that it didn't exist and it's a new thing is just showing that you weren't exposed to it in a way you remember, not that it hasn't been a hot topic since the game pretty much came out!

And equally as many posts from the same time that have no problem with it. If I'm not allowed to point out that it's fine because it's commonly done, you can't then turn around and claim that it isn't fine because people complain about it.

 

[Hussar]

One is unilateral, hidden, and a choice made for or against the player without their knowledge or input. The other is still unilateral, but is open and is made with player knowledge and choice.

I'm struggling to understand why the hidden/unilateral/choice made by the GM for the GM's agenda and that changes the outcome of a mechanic is not immediately noticeably different from an openly deployed mechanic that is honored. I get preference, but this is moving past "I like it/I don't like it" and actively questioning obvious differences to try and tell others that they're wrong for noticing the obvious differences.

So, the entire issue isn't changing the die rolls. The ONLY issue is that the DM isn't telling the players.

In other words, there is nothing inherently wrong with fudging. Just with not telling the players that you do it. Which, frankly, is simply your personal preference and not really any sort of objective standard.

"I don't like it when DM's hide fudging" is a VERY different statement from "Fudging is lying to the players and must never, ever be done".

 

[Ovinomancer]

And equally as many posts from the same time that have no problem with it. If I'm not allowed to point out that it's fine because it's commonly done, you can't then turn around and claim that it isn't fine because people complain about it.

The claim wasn't that there wasn't a controversy, but that the controversy did. not. exist. This is wrong, the controversy has existed pretty much as long as the game has.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure, there are other tools. And any that allow the players to keep thinking that the risks were greater than they actually were involve some sort of misdirection. Because that's what we are talking about here: creating an illusion of danger.

Ooooooor...you don't make an illusion of fake danger, and instead keep the danger grounded in consequences that could actually happen. Which is what I do. My players know I won't kill off their characters forever (and, in exchange, they have promised not to abuse that situation to behave irrationally) unless that's the story they wish to tell. Instead, I have built a world with things the players care about, stuff that they're excited about, NPCs they enjoy interacting with, opponents they love to hate. Stuff that would harm or threaten those things, people, principles, etc. is so much more meaningful to them, because they know, truly for certain, that I won't hold back if something goes wrong. By giving away the illusion of dangers that would not be interesting or entertaining, I have made the (fictive) reality of dangers that are so.

I can play with my proverbial cards face up.

"Morally objectionable!" Get a grip, man, it's an elf game! This sort of hyperbolic judgemental language is just uncalled-for.

Charlaquin has it covered:

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.

My words will do no better.

Being a GM by necessity contains a massive amount of metalevel thinking. GM has a different role than the players.

Being a player by necessity contains a pretty massive amount of metalevel thinking too. Especially if you're even passingly familiar with the MM. You almost inherently have meta knowledge, but only the player is super duper ultra frowned upon for altering their behavior purely for meta reasons. That's what I'm opposed to.

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.

There's nothing adversarial about this? I'm confused as to why you would see it as such. Just as DMs ask players to explain how or why something makes sense, don't players do exactly the same thing with DMs? For example, the majority of the time if my players have an idea, I run with it, but sometimes something hitches and I'm not seeing how or why it works, so I ask them to "sell me on it." I likewise welcome, even expect my players to question anything I do that doesn't make sense to them. Addressing the times and places where that happens is how we keep everyone on the same page.

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.

...as I said earlier in this thread, I actually prefer to not conceal much of anything. But yes, I do consider many of these things concealed, and generally I strongly dislike such concealment--it is a constant, tiresome, wearying grind to have to remember what I should and should not say, to "keep up appearances," etc. I vastly prefer to be fully candid and forthright with everyone, and have since I was a very small child. I actually got in huge trouble as a kid because, at the time, I couldn't understand why anyone would conceal presents they'd bought for someone else. If you bought a gift for someone, why would you hide it? Give it to them so they will be happy! I eventually learned that there is value in revealing what is concealed at a particularly symbolic or opportune moment, of course: I learned that such forthrightness requires tact. But that overall pattern of "you should not conceal things, you should be candid and forthright about most things" has remained.

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

Not at all. To use the oh-so-commonly invoked example: does not the magician performing a card trick conceal how the trick works from the audience purely by not telling them how the trick works?

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?

Since I must apparently repeat this every time: The players can discover the map. They might fail to uncover all of it, by choice or by happenstance--that's fine, plenty of concealed stuff never gets discovered. But it is, in principle, always possible for them to learn all the information relevant to their interests about that. Likewise, BBEG plans. My players know there are bad guys and that they have plans. They take actions to learn what those plans are, and in principle it is always possible for them to learn the full extent of those plans. There is never a situation where I, as the DM, attempt to prevent them from discovering that information.

You have, absolutely, shown that there are things DMs conceal. The concealment alone is not the issue. Concealment and preventing the players from knowing about it is the issue.

Like, this ties into another, related issue I have with D&D stuff: the way perception rolls are handled. Specifically, that failed perception rolls are stinky rotten garbage. It's either necessarily concealed rolls, fostering player distrust of the information provided to them, or open rolls, where players are now forced into the crappy metagame decision of "I-as-a-player know this information is false, but I-as-a-character do not." Which is why, should I ever run proper D&D as opposed to DW, I'll always roll my perception checks in the open...but make sure that the results of a failed perception check are not "you don't notice anything," but rather you notice something bad. That, as noted above, eliminates the issue with illusory danger. The danger becomes "real" (within the fiction) because the players can trust the result of the roll.

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!!

See above. Those things are concealed but learnable. Fudging, by definition and by explicit request from most people who DO tolerate/like it, is not learnable. And that is where the active part comes into play. You must do it, and yet prevent the player from knowing that you do it: for those who like it, you do so because they (almost always) want you to conceal it; for those who dislike it, because you know it will upset them if they find out. Either way, actively working to ensure players cannot learn about it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, the entire issue isn't changing the die rolls. The ONLY issue is that the DM isn't telling the players.

In other words, there is nothing inherently wrong with fudging. Just with not telling the players that you do it. Which, frankly, is simply your personal preference and not really any sort of objective standard.

"I don't like it when DM's hide fudging" is a VERY different statement from "Fudging is lying to the players and must never, ever be done".

Fudging is not defined as changing a die roll, and a reroll is not defined as changing a die roll. A reroll is a mechanic that allows you to replace a die roll, but you still have to roll the die and take the result! Fudging is the GM choosing the result of the die roll and replacing it. There's actually a huge difference here -- choosing the outcome vs risking the outcome. Your claim is deeply flawed.

Again, this has nothing to do with liking or disliking fudging -- this is just honesty about what's actually happening in the face of you trying to cast fudging as something different from what it is.

 

[Cadence]

you DO realize that "endorsement" is a form of recommendation, right? And that you cannot recommend both doing X and NOT doing X? You can either recommend one or the other or have no stance toward either. But you cannot, of the same thing, in the same sense, simultaneously recommend X and recommend not-X. "You should do X, and you should do not-X" is a straight up contradiction.

"I would recommend either" seems common with videos, classes, and menu items at restaurants, even when the viewer can only watch one, the student can only take one, and the diner can only eat one. Maybe they will pick the other later.

And the recommendation also came with details about how to do it (like don't let on), right?