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

[Thomas Shey]

D&D 5e has inspiration for that.

And that may be sufficient for some of the cases; I'm not familiar enough with the specific mechanics of Inspiration to say how often, but metacurrencies vary greatly in terms of what they'll let you do to a situation. Most of them will let you correct a single critical die roll at a bad moment, but not all of them give you much useful tools for bailing out a whole chain of them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But you can have that open, honest conversation before or after the game instead of in the middle of it. Establishing in session zero whether or not folks are ok with fudging and if they want to know when it happens, for example.

Absolutely. Don't think I've said to the contrary. But the question was "How can people want open and honest communication and still want fudging to be hidden?" The answer is "The want the former in the framing and set up, but don't want it in the heat of the moment because they find it disruptive."

 

[Thomas Shey]

Again, I don't see what is controversial about "change things, but be diegetic." It achieves literally exactly the same end (shaping the result to the desired form, rather than what the dice or numbers say), but without deception. Being diegetic doesn't require you to be all up in players' faces about it. Just means it's really "part of the world" and can be learned about and understood within the world. It's not secret in the sense of being actively concealed from the players, but it could end up never being investigated (or failing to pass a check) and thus an unknown purely by coincidence. And absolutely none of that requires any kind of explicit "I'M FUDGING THE RESULTS, GUYS" flag.

Because some people don't like it. Again, they aren't required to share your views that's functionally the same. I can pretty much promise you if you unpack that there will be people in this thread who will find it unacceptable.

Well....that kind of touches on what I said earlier. This is unhealthy. It creates the expectation that DMs need to be perfect, and if they can't live up to that expectation, they must cook the books so that they maintain the illusion of perfection. That's not good for DMs and contributes unrealistic and unreasonable player expectations.

Call it unhealthy if you want (I think that's a pretty harsh characterization, but not my job to tell you how to see things), its still the practical reality of how some people want it done.

[I'm going to assume the rest of your post is directed at someone I have blocked or vice versa since I can't see context in what I posted for it].

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is kinda true and also one reason why I personally don't like to fudge.

But it is also a bit misleading. In a game where the GM is basically in charge of everything outside the characters, ultimately everything happens because GM lets it to happen. Even if you don't fudge the dice, you could have always have an ally to come to the characters' aid, have the enemy decide to not kill the character, etc. Ultimately there really is not escaping of that responsibility.

That might work in 5e or other games where accidental kills are very difficult, but I've got to say there are plenty of games where the only way to ensure that is not to attack the character at all.

 

[Thomas Shey]

How are they wonky? I literally gave the classic five option spread: strongly approve, approve, neutral, disapprove, strongly disapprove. I just like adding color commentary.

Well, because its a little low information, I had some problems with it. Almost any spot would imply things to me that aren't quite true. "Negative. Fudging is dubious" is probably closest to my view, but it ignores the fact I'm actively for it under some circumstances.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Like the guy a few pages back that told me to play a diceless game?

Making direct observations of things that happen in the thread is an extreme position now.

I think there's a little bit of a heavy load to have characterized my statement that way. That wasn't me so much telling you to do that as suggesting it seems to be a little perverse to play a game with dice if you're frequently unhappy with their results.

Or put another way, my saying people's choice of sticking with game systems that are doing things they actively dislike is a little perverse is not my demanding they do something different; its my saying I see it as perverse.

 

[Thomas Shey]

For a lot of us, it's not really a style choice or justification, and it has nothing to do with "machismo." (Also: what?) I play on a virtual tabletop, so I pretty much have to make my rolls in the open. Foundry VTT and Roll20 won't easily let me "fudge" anything without the players knowing it...even add-on tools and widgets designed to allow it can be detected by players who know where to look.

I'll just note there's nothing intrinsic to a VTT that requires you to use an automated and visible dice roller. I run with a VTT all the time and play in another game that uses one, and everyone just rolls their own dice and we take their word for it (I realize this may not be acceptable for a number of reasons, but I just wanted to note "VTT=Open Dice Rolling" is not a given).

 

[Scott Christian]

Side questions to the OP's question are:

• Would you be ok with having the DM shift hit points of the boss during the final battle? At the beginning of the fight? At the last second?
• Would you be ok with rolling on a random treasure table because that is what the DM told you to do, and then the DM changes your roll?
• Would you be ok with the DM shifting your rolls for the six core attributes?
• Would you be ok with the DM rolling for a wandering monster, and then changing said roll?

All of these are a product of DM knows best.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Side questions to the OP's question are:

• Would you be ok with the DM shifting your rolls for the six core attributes

I just want to inject a "One of the things is (strongly) not like the others" here; change a player roll that intrinsically will effect the play of the character for their entire lifespan has a bigger footprint than the other things you mention.

(Not that I'm a fan of random character gen anyway, but this strikes me as particularly disruptive).

 

[Mordhau]

This is kinda true and also one reason why I personally don't like to fudge.

But it is also a bit misleading. In a game where the GM is basically in charge of everything outside the characters, ultimately everything happens because GM lets it to happen. Even if you don't fudge the dice, you could have always have an ally to come to the characters' aid, have the enemy decide to not kill the character, etc. Ultimately there really is not escaping of that responsibility.

That's why GMing is an art not a science.

And part of that art is knowing that when you roll the dice it's so the dice take some responsibility. If I decide the Orcs attack I decide there's a chance that they kill the PCs. I don't decide they kill the PCs, I don't decide if the PCs live. The players don't full decide that either. It's understood there's an element of chance.

I find it hard to see fudging as anything other than the GM making the decisions while pretending that the dice are taking some of the responsibility.

And I find it hard to see that as anything other than basic deception. If it's time to decide, decide, if it's time to roll the dice roll the dice.