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

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah. And there is a lot of "but if you prepared better or houseruled the mechanic or had done this or that then you wouldn't need to fudge" going on this thread. Which, sure, is often true. But also not everyone is perfect like me, so sometimes mistakes happen, and fixing it via fudging if you can is not a great sin.

Yup.

Of course this is compounded by the fact there are people who's takes on this are extreme; where its better to have a misjudged encounter kill characters than to fudge to avoid it.

That said, you're just about the same about backing up in that situation, so, how to put this delicately, is this about more than who's ox is getting gored in that case? Because I'd honestly rather do either than just go "Oh well, I made a mistake, too bad." That seems the worst of all worlds to me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The dice can’t screw up. They are random number generators. If they can generate a result the DM doesn’t want to be possible, then it is the DM who has screwed up in when/how they used the dice.

Eh. I'm still not sold that standing up to extreme probability aberrations that you couldn't reasonably have foreseen is a virtue. Its one thing to avoid setting up a situation where a single roll or a couple rolls will lead to catastrophe, and another to look up and realize a whole string of them has done that. Ideally a system has other tools for dealing with those, but if it doesn't...

 

[Thomas Shey]

Though I wouldn't characterise the sort of fudging people have said they use in these threads as "picking the result regardless of what the PCs do." It seems to be mostly about mitigating extreme streaks of bad luck. (Perhaps d20 system simply is more swingy than some people like?)

Well, I can't imagine it helps.

But I suspect the real issue is that the people hostile to fudging don't have particular faith in a GM's sense of barriers here. Its not unreasonable to question where fudging can become a slippery slope, especially with people who think they're doing it for the better of the game and players' experience.

 

[Xetheral]

I don’t feel like “be open and honest with your players” should be such controversial advice. In every other situation people advise it, but when it comes to fudging? Oh, no, for some reason that’s different and suddenly it’s better to go behind the players’ backs. I don’t get it.

Part of open and honest conversation is discussing (ahead of time) when is the right time for open and honest conversation. Adhering to such an agreement and refraining from discussing certain topics at certain times isn't a failure to be open and honest, it's just respecting anothers' wishes.

As a player, I want open and honest communication with my DM about how the game is designed and run before and after a session, but preferably not during the session. (Such conversations during the session make the game less enjoyable for me.) A DM who refrains during the session from openly and honestly discussing how the game is designed and being run is honoring my communication preferences, not going behind my back.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So you would ignore the requirement to roll on the random monster table and instead just arbitrarily select a result?

How is that different from rolling the dice and ignoring the result and instead arbitrarily selecting a result?

Well, for one thing, a random monster table is a largely self-imposed process at the GM end. Its not player facing, it has nothing to do with any mechanical process within the game. Like generating treasure, its a DM tool and convention, it doesn't involve anything that directly interacts with the player at all.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So far, out of 120 votes, there are:
24 positives
36 neutrals
60 negatives

Sounds about right.

And as I noted, I didn't vote because the options don't represent my position.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In my experience, TPKs are extremely rare, even in a no-fudging game. I think often people fudge because they’re afraid the results they’ve rolled won’t lead to a fun experience, but I find that D&D tends to be a fun experience regardless of the results of the rolls. And personally, I find the experience overall is better when the results of the dice sometimes lead to outcomes we would not have intentionally chosen. As a player I want any given roll to go in my favor, but I don’t want every roll to go in my favor. And I don’t want a the DM to be the one who chooses which ones go in my favor and which ones don’t. That’s why we use dice.

That's perfectly understandable and very close to me perspective, and that's why I tend not to fudge. As a GM I want to be surprised too. But as player, I don't really care what's going on behind the curtains. As long as it feels that my actions matter and things are not predetermined, I'm good. It doesn't really matter if that's the truth or an illusion, I'm having good time in either case.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That said, you're just about the same about backing up in that situation, so, how to put this delicately, is this about more than who's ox is getting gored in that case? Because I'd honestly rather do either than just go "Oh well, I made a mistake, too bad." That seems the worst of all worlds to me.

I think you put it too delicately, as I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Isn’t that what we’re talking about? Things that directly affect the PCs?

No. Fudging can relate to things that only indirectly affect the PCs, such as how much HP the enemy has. These are distinct from how much damage the PC has taken, because one changes what’s on the PC character sheet, and the other doesn’t.

By doing something they wouldn’t want you to do if they knew you were doing it. I don’t see how that’s anything but going behind their back.

But you won’t even recognize that it isn’t that when the player involved is fine with it. Who says they wouldn’t want you to if they knew?

Again, it’s entirely about the social contract at a given table.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think you put it too delicately, as I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here...

Okay, let me lay it out as a choice set. Some event comes up in the game (the one I particularly focus on is that, for whatever reason, I've put out an encounter that is significantly more dangerous for characters at their current capability than intended; maybe I'm new to a given incarnation of a game, maybe I made a bad assumption about what tools were available to the PCs, whatever). Its obvious they're going to lose people, lose a fight they can't afford to, or worse. The situation is pretty clearly my fault to me. This seems to have three possible outcomes:

A. I let the chips fall where they may.
B. I tell people I messed up, and back up to a point where I can correct the error already in play.
C. I fudge.

Either B or C seems better than A to me; to you, B is undesirable, to others in this thread C is. Both you and they feel strongly. Is there something other than personal preference that makes your take on this more appropriate than theirs?