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

[EzekielRaiden]

I may have misread the intent of soviet's post. Very likely, even. But it seems to me that if a player is seeking redress, they're trying to correct a wrong. If they don't think a monster's action is fair, they object and counter it with an alternative. How does that work at a table? Hey, DM. I noticed the orc didn't surrender even though half its comrades are dead. It seems more fair to me that it would drop its weapon and surrender now. That seems adversarial. If it's not, no problem, I'll withdraw my statement. But do players in your games really provide counter-proposals for monster's actions that they don't think are fair? As a DM, that behavior would definitely throw me off. It takes up most of my bandwidth to keep track of everything going on without players second-guessing me and challenging the little stuff. It doesn't happen to me.

If it's all amiable discussion, good and great. No problem.

Well, I can't think of any specific examples that actually happened to me personally, though I'm sure some have. But a hypothetical describing what I'm thinking of:

DM: "Garka, you're a bit exposed, there, so the bandit archer takes aim at you, and--"
Garka: "Wait, what? I'm confused, didn't you say it was oppressively dark here, because of some enchantment? I thought I couldn't be seen."
DM: "Oh, y'know what, I totally did say that. You're not in immediate danger, but you know if you stay there too long, they'll figure something out."
Garka: "Hah! The fools think I'm trapped here with them. I'll show them they're trapped here with me. What Are You Waiting For?"
DM: "That's the Garka I know. Roll that beautiful dice footage."

Or...

DM: [player rolls 6- on Defy Danger] "Ouch, that's a miss Charity. The Raven-Shadow assassin strikes you hard with his sword, and you take [roll] 12 damage, which ignores armor."
Charity: "Hey, my Quest boon gives me immunity to edged weapons. Doesn't that apply?"
DM: "Excellent question! Unfortunately, no, it doesn't apply here--because what makes these blades deadly is not their edge, but the dark magic bound to them. The wounds they leave can be seen by Spirit sight, but not by mundane, mortal eyes. That's why it can ignore armor, its very essence is no longer entirely material."
Charity: "Well then, if the blade be not of this crude matter, its bite won't be either. My Bloody Aegis protects me, leaving me Shaken but not deterred."
DM: "Probably a good call! Remember to mark that down. The assassin is shocked to see the blade leave you seemingly unharmed, and you can sense he's been thrown off his game, even if only for a moment. This is a golden opportunity--what will you do?"

Neither of these seem "adversarial" to me, and instead sound like someone asking for a quick "hey, wait, what?" Details often get lost in combat, especially if you use TOTM as my group often does, so such "hey wait" moments are vital for making sure people can confidently participate in combat.

 

[Irlo]

Neither of these seem "adversarial" to me, and instead sound like someone asking for a quick "hey, wait, what?" Details often get lost in combat, especially if you use TOTM as my group often does, so such "hey wait" moments are vital for making sure people can confidently participate in combat.

Agreed, none of that is adversarial.

Also, none of that is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

One more time, then I'll drop it.

DM bias potentially affects fudged dice rolls. DM bias much more significantly (and just as opaquely) affects decisions about monster tactics, choice of targets, threshold for retreat or surrender, etc. And those decisions have a much greater effect on actual game play than fudging the occassional attack roll or saving throw. Yes, players can see the tactics and see the surrender (or lack of it), but they can't see the DMs basis for making those decisions.

I'm not talking about forgetting the prevailing lighting conditions or overlooking a PCs bloody aegis.

 

[Lanefan]

And, just to add something here.

If you absolutely hate fudging, how do you feel about reroll mechanics?

I generally dislike them and do not use them.

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.

And were I running 5e I wouldn't let it work that way for a bunch of reasons, far from the least of which is that I wouldn't allow (successful) casting of anything while in melee, period. The best you could hope to generate would be a wild magic surge with random, unpredicatable, and sometimes very unpleasant (or very pleasant) possible results.

And even if you could cast in melee, I wouldn't allow any spell other than Counterspell to be cast as a reaction (and then only in reaction to a spell that is not itself Counterspell).

And even were I to allow casting as a reaction, you'd be casting in reaction to the attack being declared, and ALWAYS before the attack roll is made. You don't get to back things up once the roll is made, as the roll completes the attack action.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

DM bias potentially affects fudged dice rolls. DM bias much more significantly (and just as opaquely) affects decisions about <snip>

That's where we differ. No, I cannot read the DM's mind. But I can directly observe that the DM is engaging in various tactics.

I can never see the DM's internal thought processes. That is universal for all DMing actions ever. If I required a lack of bias at the level of thought processes, I could not in good conscience be a DM, nor accept anyone else being one. But I can see what actions they take in the active play space....as long as they aren't concealed. I can try to account for what a given person thinks is relevant, by watching what they choose to say. I can prepare for monster tactics because those tactics (necessarily) must be displayed to me in order to do anything. I can prepare for choice of targets, because the only possible way that "choice of target" can affect me is if I become aware that the target has been chosen.

You are correct that I can never know what goes on inside the DM's head. But I can see what they do for all of your example things. According to its proponents, not only can I not see what fudging does, the very fundamental intention IS to prevent me from seeing what fudging does. You have seen how several posters, not just me, have said that the knowledge that the DM might fudge when they feel it warranted causes a creeping, unavoidable doubt that any given roll is the genuine article. It's not possible to have that kind of doubt with monster tactics because we can just...see the monster tactics. They are, of necessity, right there in the open.

The DM's internal thoughts are always opaque to me, especially since I play mostly online. But there is another, additional layer of opaqueness--an opaque layer requested by players that are at least neutral about fudging, and specifically implemented to avoid upsetting those players who strongly oppose fudging. The intent will always be opaque, but the "you won't even be allowed to find out that I'm doing it" is additional opaqueness not present in any of the other examples you've given. I could, at least in principle, observe that a DM is lowballing most encounters or intentionally using inappropriately foolish tactics or what-have-you. If the pro-fudging advocates are as successful as they claim to be (which I doubt, but am willing to grant for the sake of argument), then I cannot even in principle observe that the DM is fudging.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, hey, I just wanted it to be absolutely clear.

The basic issue is that the DM is hiding changing the numbers. Changing the numbers is, in and of itself, not really an issue. Except, I think, that I see that @Lanefan might have some issue with it as well. And, I'm not sure about others. But, the basic issue is one of the DM not announcing to the table what he or she is doing.

Does explain why I never see this as a major issue. Every table I've ever played at since I began gaming just assumed the DM was fudging. The DM never needs to announce it because, well, everyone at the table knows that it's just part of DMing. It's been an assumed part of DMing since Day 1.

Like I said, I've never seen players get terribly fussed about this. I know, as a player, I just assume that the DM will alter rolls from time to time. The DM is encouraged to do so by various advice in the DMG and it has always been like this.

Just not a hill I would even consider dying on. Heck, I wouldn't even think of it as a hill.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Like I said, I've never seen players get terribly fussed about this. I know, as a player, I just assume that the DM will alter rolls from time to time. The DM is encouraged to do so by various advice in the DMG and it has always been like this.

And this is why I have no issue with fudging, but I also have no problems with others who refuse to go along with it. My tables and their tables seem vastly different and thus who am I to judge? I don't feel the need to try and convince anyone that it's "allowed" or whatever, as @Maxperson has been attempting to do (a consistently valid attempt although one I never assumed would succeed in any way, LOL, but kudos for trying!).

At the end of the day, I just have acquired a bunch of players who just don't care about the board game that much like I don't... and who enjoy our sessions quite enough to never worry about who's lying to whom. Apparently enough others don't have that luxury and are stuck playing with DMs for whom being lied to is a genuine issue and problem and a detriment to the game. And I'm sorry to hear that.

 

[FrozenNorth]

It's also a bit weird to have the DMG literally say you can do it - but don't get caught doing it!

Frankly, considering the nature of the advice and the potential blowback - there needs to be A LOT more devoted to it than that. But that's one of my big complaints with the 5e DMG, it's REALLY tough for new DMs to get what they need out of it.

I do feel that some posters are overselling what the DMG actually says. The DMG basically presents multiple different options with multiple perspectives on several topics, and doesn’t really take a stand either way, so I don’t see this as an endorsement, just a “some people play this way”.

Otherwise, I don’t understand how other people are both playing with tons of die rolls and die rolls used sparingly, etc.

 

[soviet]

For me the issue is just that fudging is less fun. When I GM, I state the numbers out loud, make the stakes of success/failure clear, and then roll the dice in front of everyone (or have the player do the same).

'OK Bob, the ghostly stalker is sniffing the air suspiciously while scanning the room for your hiding place. Your stealth check was 23, right? I'm adding 10 so I need a 13 to spot you. I get...' [rolls big d20 in the middle of the table]

There's a tension and a suspense to every dramatic roll there that can't be beat. The players can see that what's happening is not pre-loaded. It's genuinely exciting. For me as the GM as well - I get to be constantly surprised by the events of play.

The alternative of [rolls behind a screen, it's a successful spot, considers Bob's low hit point total, fudges] 'Uhh he doesn't find you' is such a pale shadow of that tension that I genuinely don't understand the appeal. Even if Bob then gets killed.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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?

So, the player rolls Arcana to learn more about the dragon, and rolls high. The DM tells them the breath weapon recharges every round, yes? Seems different.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's genuinely exciting. For me as the GM as well - I get to be constantly surprised by the events of play.

This is the reason I personally don't fudge.