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

[Cadence]

You can't be surprised by things you decide.

Which is probably why he only fudges under very specific, extremely rare circumstances?

 

[Maxperson]

Really? I've seen several mentions of fudging to avoid dangerous encounters for reasons of pacing and possible PC death (werewolves) as well as for metagame concerns like Bob's player having a bad day or a string of other failures.

There have been very, very few people saying that. You've probably been looking at the same person or two people.

 

[Mort]

You do realize that almost nobody on the pro fudging side is suggesting that fudging be used that way, right?

One of the problems with threads like this (that go so long and get contentious) is that people start drifting to extremes both in caricaturing other people's positions and even with their own stances.

It's something I'm careful to avoid, but really have to watch myself in threads like this.

 

[soviet]

Which is probably why he only fudges under very specific, extremely rare circumstances?

I suggest that if you retain a veto over the dice, to an extent you are deciding each time (at least, where fudge-appropriate circumstances apply).

 

[soviet]

One of the problems with threads like this (that go so long and get contentious) is that people start drifting to extremes both in caricaturing other people's positions and even with their own stances.

It's something I'm careful to avoid, but really have to watch myself in threads like this.

Well, I don't mean to be doing that, and I apologise if I have.

I am confused why that situation wouldn't be considered a candidate for fudging, given that Bob is stated to be at low HP and so a fight might potentially prove fatal. But it's tangential to my point, which was merely to illustrate the different approaches in terms of gameplay excitement. You can change the roll to 'an attack against Bob that will kill him if it hits' and the principle of it remains the same.

 

[Cadence]

I suggest that if you retain a veto over the dice, to an extent you are deciding each time (at least, where fudge-appropriate circumstances apply).

The parenthetical feels like it makes all the difference in the world. If it almost always (or even often) is a possibly fudge appropriate circumstance, then that does seem problematic to me!

 

[Maxperson]

I suggest that if you retain a veto over the dice, to an extent you are deciding each time (at least, where fudge-appropriate circumstances apply).

This is an incorrect statement. It falsely assumes that there are going to be circumstances outside of rigidly set up parameters where fudging might happen.

 

[Maxperson]

I am confused why that situation wouldn't be considered a candidate for fudging, given that Bob is stated to be at low HP and so a fight might potentially prove fatal.

Because fudging =/= keeping PCs alive. Possible or even probable death isn't the criteria for fudging for most of us.

 

[Cadence]

This is an incorrect statement. It falsely assumes that there are going to be circumstances outside of rigidly set up parameters where fudging might happen.

I bet a lot of folks haven't formalized their fudge-decision making as much as you have, and so have a lot more circumstances that might require thought. (Sheepish look).

 

[Maxperson]

The parenthetical feels like it makes all the difference in the world. If it almost always (or even often) is a possibly fudge appropriate circumstance, then that does seem problematic to me!

Yep. At that point there's no point in rolling and the DM should just be deciding what happens, which seems like a terrible way to play. Not jus because of the lack of fun, but it's also way too much work!