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

[Thomas Shey]

What about those of us that would rather the DM run the game instead of dice?

Well, one can suggest then dispensing with dice would be the obvious solution.

 

[iserith]

So when a new monster book comes out with monsters appropriate to Area X, do you not use any of those new monsters for encounters? Because that would impact their ability in the same way.

Right, I would not. Once my prep is done, it does not change and I do my prep for next campaign while playing the current campaign. If a book comes out after my prep is completed, it doesn't make it into that campaign.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, I would not. Once my prep is done, it does not change and I do my prep for next campaign while playing the current campaign. If a book comes out after my prep is completed, it doesn't make it into that campaign.

For my part, I believe the game world is supposed to have unknowns in it, so I have no problem with adding new monsters to the game world where they would fit in appropriately. Or even creating new monsters from scratch.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Pro-fudge:
-Don't let luck get in the way of a group's good time, which is why we play games in the first place.
-Fudging can help GMs fix their own prepping mistakes, or an adventure's sloppy encounter design.

Anti-fudge:
-Fudging turns RPGs into less of a game, and more like a GM-presented play, and turns players into unwitting actors.
-That fudging is nearly always secret is proof that GMs know it's paternalistic, unsavory behavior that most players would object to.

-If you don’t fudge, you can roll all (or virtually all) you dice in the open. That has its own benefits.

 

[Cadence]

I agree with this and I want to add a secondary point. While not all types of fudging require rolling behind a screen, some do. I find that rolling in the open has benefits for its own sake that are lost if you roll behind a screen in order to be able to fudge.

-If you don’t fudge, you can roll all (or virtually all) you dice in the open. That has its own benefits.

Such as?

 

[Flamestrike]

In B, the DM rolled then ignored the roll (or changed the result), which is fudging.

There is no difference though! In each example, the DM choose the result.

 

[Flamestrike]

All the set-up is. All the events aren't.

The fact you think there is a difference amuses me.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

Such as?

Less of a catastrophe if your screen gets eaten by a badger.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The DMG has historically allowed the DM that option (if not encouraged them to use it). I don't think it's ever been formally allowed for the PCs - and so it might feel really odd to even ask that (like it does to me).

Since fudging would be/is done regardless of what the DMG says, why is the fact the DMG offers it as a possibility for DMs but is silent as to players relevant?

 

[Flamestrike]

What does that have to do with the DM deciding that a character needs to die for "story reasons"?

When the heck did I advocate that? How is that challenging and fun?

I was advocating the exact opposite. Avoiding pointless TPK's that grind the story to a halt.