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

[Lanefan]

I disagree. Players in the old days could enter a dungeon with 1 hp. Tripping on stairs could kill you with that. Groups that didn't fudge at all would have players come to the table with binders full of back up characters, or Bob the 2nd, 3rd or 4th. Players sometimes never even named their characters until 2nd or 3rd level. Following the early rules the magic user rolled for their spells. You could start off with 1 hp and a detect magic.

Not if done by RAW: a MU would always start off with 4 (optionally 5) spells: one offensive, one defensive, one 'other', and Read Magic. IF a fifth was given it was random from all types.

But yes, characters of any class could in theory start with 1 h.p.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok, guess fisking is the proper way to respond to this.


So, just to be clear here. You are equating changing a single die roll result to auto killing a PC? To automatically failing every single check that a player could make? I just want to be absolutely clear that this is the comparison you are making.


Nope. This is false. There are numerous reroll mechanics where the better of two results are chosen. There are also numerous mechanics that simply change the target number needed - Shield being the clearest example of this. So, no, you do not always replace the first roll with the second.


Just like fudging.

Just like fudging - although, to be fair, the when and how are largely left up to the DM.

Except when there are numerous mechanics that change the first rolled outcome flat out. Which you seem to be continuously ignoring for some reason that I cannot quite understand.

But, yes, I do agree that I'm moving to the conclusion. I'm not sure where you are getting the notion of "justification" from though. It's not about justifying anything. I don't have to justify anything. It's right there in the rules. As far as I'm concerned, there just isn't really any difference. In both cases, the results are altered after the fact. And, realistically, the player side mechanics are far, far more used than DM fudging. I seriously doubt that any DM fudged every single encounter. But, there will be reroll style mechanics used every single encounter. Making it player facing simply made it a LOT more common in the game.

And, that's fine because the player side mechanics are generally quite fun. So, great. It's a better idea. Moving fudging from behind to the DM's screen to the player's hands has certainly resulted in a better game, IMO. I'll not argue that it's worse.

I was going to respond to the numerous red herrings above, but this last part, the bit I've bolded, makes my argument. If you say that there's no difference between fudging and mechanics like rerolls or legendary resistance then why are you saying that moving away from fudging to these makes for a better game?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh, by the way, since we all want to bring up actual quotes, here's the quote from X59 of the Moldvay Expert rules:



So, yeah, fudging was part and parcel to the game since day 1.

Sigh. What die was rolled and then the outcome changed to one not on the die? This is recommending that slavish adherence to rolling on tables is not recommended. It's telling the GM that the tables are tools, and should be used when warranted. It doesn't say "roll dice, if you don't like them, just say they rolled something else." It's not a matter of changing outcomes but rather one of reminding you that these kinds of rules are there for the GM's discretion to use, and are not required. You don't have to roll random encounters if you don't want to, but if you do, this snippet doesn't tell you to pick the encounter you want after rolling one you didn't and to keep all of this secret from the players.

 

[slingbld]

I'm Neutral: Fudging to punish the players or to make things easier is wrong in my book. Fudging to help with story flow or to help ensure certain key events happen in the story is acceptable, as long as it is not used often and with care.
I play/run Savage Worlds and for the most part, I let the dice do the talking. I've only fudged a couple of times in my current campaign (currently on session 20). Normally, if the dice result in the death of a key villain, I let th3e players take that win and I adjust my story to adapt to the new situation. Likewise, if a roll results in player death, my group is willing to allow their characters death for a good story moment and create new characters.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm glad to see my "Very positive - Fudging is good" group is slowly but surely gaining new members.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Oh, by the way, since we all want to bring up actual quotes, here's the quote from X59 of the Moldvay Expert rules:

"But I rolled it!" A common mistake most DMs make is to rely too much on random die rolls. An entire evening can be spoiled if an unplanned wilderness encounter on the way to the dungeon goes badly for the party. The DM must use good judgment in addition to random tables. Encounters should be scaled to the strength of the party and should be in harmony with the theme of the adventure.

So, yeah, fudging was part and parcel to the game since day 1.

You could read that bolded bit as a call for fudging. Alternatively, you could read it as a call for simply not rolling in the first place. My preference would be the latter.

Aside, IMO: The part about scaling "to the strength of the party" is nonsense. But the part about "in harmony with the theme of the adventure" is spot on.

 

[Fifth Element]

Honestly, I'm unconvinced it was even vaguely common before then. After all, on its simplest level, did no player ever GM themselves?

My first DM (in 1986ish I guess?) tried to enforce it. It didn't work.

 

[Fifth Element]

You could read that bolded bit as a call for fudging. Alternatively, you could read it as a call for simply not rolling in the first place. My preference would be the latter.

But in situations where a die is normally supposed to be rolled, choosing not to is the same as fudging, because you're deciding on the outcome as DM rather than letting the dice decide.

 

[CreamCloud0]

IMO fudging is there to mitigate extreme bouts of bad luck, it is at the DM's discression to judge when to fudge, they are the ones who know the entire game world after all, what their intentions were for a monster or a trap or a hazard were to do and when the dice swung way above their weight to kill-'over half negative HP'-kill a player which was not in their plans they need to be the ones to say 'No, this is not fun for the players, this will not be happening like this' and fudge that crit into a regular hit or whatever they need to adjust for the sake of fun,

Fun is also something dependant on what the players and DM have agreed it to be, an uber-deadly combat focused game where the chance of death is part of the thrill will probably have less fudging than a character focused game where the players aren't actually expected to die, and if they are it's on their own terms not because of a particularly deadly spike trap, Judge the need to fudge on the type of game that you the DM are running.

You trust the DM to facilitate the entire rest of the experience so why are these once-in-a-blue-moon scenarios where they fudge a single roll to keep things from going south quickly so different for them to adjust things behind the scenes the same as they have adjusted probably a hundered other things that you never knew about but which weren't actually dice rolls becasue it would have been too harsh on a battered party, the poisoned dart trap that just didn't trigger, the ogre that was meant to be with the pack of goblins but wasn't, when the dragon didn't immediately use it's breath weapon the instant it recharged...

Fudging is there as a last ditch saftey net to be used when utmost required, but it is not something a DM should seek out opportunities to do it (not that i think it is something many if any DM's seek out to perform)(hence the lack of 'very positive' votes on the poll)

Personally i think i would rather revel in my ignorace of not knowing if fudging was happening and that the DM has my best interests in mind than compromise my own fun worrying about something that might not even be happening?

 

[Arilyn]

Not if done by RAW: a MU would always start off with 4 (optionally 5) spells: one offensive, one defensive, one 'other', and Read Magic. IF a fifth was given it was random from all types.

But yes, characters of any class could in theory start with 1 h.p.

Yes, I do remember that too. Maybe it was OD&D? Maybe I'm old and forgetful? (nah...)