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

[Hussar]

If I tell the players I'm changing a crit to an ordinary hit so as not to kill off Falstaff it is fudging every bit as much as if I do the same thing and don't tell them.

Fudging = arbitrarily changing a die roll from something undesired to something desired. Whether or not you tell anyone about it is irrelevant.

Totally agree

Reroll meta-mechanics are just sanctioned fudging IMO, and are thus poor design. Edit to add: poor design in an RPG. In Yahtzee where re-rolling is a built-in part of the structure of the game, it's fine.

Totally disagree. Reroll mechanics have a very strong place in the game and are, IMO, an excellent design. It might be something you don't like, but, that doesn't make it poor design. The evolution of fudging mechanics in RPG's is pretty clear. We started with most of it being hidden behind the DM's screen and it has now moved into the open and can be planned for.

Think about it this way. The developers couldn't know that most groups were going to fudge their character creation. Paladins were rare because you needed high rolls to get one. But, if people are just fudging the rolls, then paladins stop being rare. Same with rangers and druids and monks. All that gating of group power behind die rolls during chargen goes straight out the window as soon as the rubber meets the road.

So, you can easily wind up with a group of six PC's that include a ranger, a paladin and a druid/thief/MU. Which in turn means that other limitations and whatnot stop working. Those level limited demi-humans? Well, it says right there if I've got an 18 Int, my elven MU can now go up to 15th level (or whatever the numbers are) so, poof, my elven MU is always going to have an 18 or 19 int.

When fudging is purely ad hoc DM fiat, there's no way to design around it. When it's player facing and defined, then you can start to incorporate it into your design decisions.

 

[robus]

Coming in late to this discussion, so apologies if I’m repeating a point made already.

My opinion is if I’m doing my job as DM I’m turning the dials of the game to match the capabilities of my players in order to challenge them appropriately. I do that as part of my encounter prep of course, but I can also do it during the session if I feel like I’ve wildly miscalculated. This could happen during a boss fight (and did during the final level 20 boss encounter of my last campiagn). The players were going to win but the challenge was not matching expectations so I added HP/minions as needed to keep the players on their toes. It was an epic and memorable climax to the campaign rather than the opposite.)

There are a number of dials we can turn during an encounter in order to provide the desired challenge:

• HP
• Legendary Resistance
• Lair actions
• Monster action choices
• More monsters
• And more I’m sure I’m forgetting

The one thing we use that isn’t a dial is the dice. Don’t roll dice if you’re not going to abide by the result.

 

[billd91]

I thought everyone would be more accepting of fudging because they TRUST the DM's JUDGEMENT. Afterall, they got that EMPOWERMENT for a reason?

But... but... the input of the dice is sacred! Heretic!

 

[DEFCON 1]

There are a number of dials we can turn during an encounter in order to provide the desired challenge:

• HP
• Legendary Resistance
• Lair actions
• Monster action choices
• More monsters
• And more I’m sure I’m forgetting

The one thing we use that isn’t a dial is the dice. Don’t roll dice if you’re not going to abide by the result.

So are you suggesting that it's okay to adjust a monster's HP during the fight (up or down) to set up a result, but changing a die roll is not? That doesn't make much sense to me. Because all that means is that you could theoretically decide to adjust a monster's HP up high enough to just counteract the hit and damage roll you weren't willing to change so the monster ends up in the exact same place-- just as if you had fudged the attack roll to a miss. Personally... I don't see one being any better or worse than another.

And this is really why I think fudging is "good"-- because a large number of people here are giving all kinds of scenarios where changing game mechanics to alter results is fine for them in maybe one specific way and which they don't consider it "fudging", but yet will believe that doing it in all different other ways is bad, bad, bad. And it seems like every single one of those people have a different thing that they say is okay.

To me though... when anyone has to go over their own particular details and picadillos with such a fine-toothed comb to justify their preferences... I just throw my hands up and say "Why get so hung up on it?" Why waste your own time with those attempts at justification? Just be comfortable with what you are doing and not care how anyone else thinks about it. Just be comfortable with fudging as a "thing" you and/or other people do. And not worry about it!

People fudge. It's fine. You fudge. That's also fine. Other people fudge only when they tell their players openly that they are doing it. Fine as well. Other folks say they don't fudge at all but sometimes just give free successes when the players did something cool. Fine again. And some people run their games as though they are just like a computer program and make no allowances or changes or fudges or anything. Fine.

Do whatever you want! Just don't put yourself out over it. You have better things to do than trying to fool yourself.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So are you suggesting that it's okay to adjust a monster's HP during the fight (up or down) to set up a result, but changing a die roll is not? That doesn't make much sense to me. Because all that means is that you could theoretically decide to adjust a monster's HP up high enough to just counteract the hit and damage roll you weren't willing to change so the monster ends up in the exact same place-- just as if you had fudged the attack roll to a miss. Personally... I don't see one being any better or worse than another.

And this is really why I think fudging is "good"-- because a large number of people here are giving all kinds of scenarios where changing game mechanics to alter results is fine for them in maybe one specific way and which they don't consider it "fudging", but yet will believe that doing it in all different other ways is bad, bad, bad. And it seems like every single one of those people have a different thing that they say is okay.

To me though... when anyone has to go over their own particular details and picadillos with such a fine-toothed comb to justify their preferences... I just throw my hands up and say "Why get so hung up on it?" Why waste your own time with those attempts at justification? Just be comfortable with what you are doing and not care how anyone else thinks about it. Just be comfortable with fudging as a "thing" you and/or other people do. And not worry about it!

People fudge. It's fine. You fudge. That's also fine. Other people fudge only when they tell their players openly that they are doing it. Fine as well. Other folks say they don't fudge at all but sometimes just give free successes when the players did something cool. Fine again. And some people run their games as though they are just like a computer program and make no allowances or changes or fudges or anything. Fine.

Do whatever you want! Just don't put yourself out over it. You have better things to do than trying to fool yourself.

So, let's unpack this a moment. When dice are rolled, the mechanics of the system have been invoked to resolve a conflict. This conflict is one of two things -- either two (or more) people at the table want different, mutually exclusive things to happen or the system demands a thing happen and there's a need to determine what thing happens here. Effectively, a wager has been made, and everyone's got stakes in the outcomes.

So, then, wagers are a thing where people expect the nature of the wager to be resolved fairly. But the bits that lead into the wager are up for grabs -- we can set terms in lots of ways, but once set, those are expected to be the terms of the wager. If I reach for dice as a GM, I'll only do so if the terms are clear and set and so the dice are going to determine the outcome. I don't reach for dice willy-nilly and then decide if I actually liked the wager -- or at least I really try not to. It happens, on occasion, because no one is perfect, but at that moment I discuss what just happened and why and what I feel about it and the table can decide if we want to let that wager go and replace it with a new one or something else. It will not be my decision as the GM because that's not my place to decide anymore -- my place to decide was before the dice were rolled.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Totally agree

Totally disagree. Reroll mechanics have a very strong place in the game and are, IMO, an excellent design. It might be something you don't like, but, that doesn't make it poor design. The evolution of fudging mechanics in RPG's is pretty clear. We started with most of it being hidden behind the DM's screen and it has now moved into the open and can be planned for.

No, again. Reroll mechanics did not originate from fudging. Look at Advantage, the most recent iteration. This isn't a reroll because a result was unwanted and a different outcome selected, it's instead a way to model the same thing a +2 to the roll for advantageous circumstance that the previous two editions had. Except this is modified to prevent the large bonus stackings of the previous two editions and stick within the concepts of bounded accuracy better. It's not at all about choosing a preferred outcome, but about representing a diegetic concept into the mechanics. It's a "reroll" totally divorced from the intent of fudging.

As are most all reroll mechanics -- they represent something diegetic in the system, like being really good at something and so reducing the randomness of the mechanics to reflect that these things just aren't that random for your PC in that situation. In D&D, it's typically there to reduce the swingy nature of the d20 in situations that the diegetic framework suggests shouldn't be that swingy. It's not about selecting outcomes, but altering the random nature of the outcome by adjusting the randomness, not eliminating it.

The closest you'll come to finding an example of your argument would be Inspiration. This is a tokenized reroll mechanic that is divorced from the diegetic framework (or, at best, loosely attached). But, even here, it differs from fudging in that it's not about choosing a desired outcome, but rather altering the random distribution of outcomes. It's still a mechanic that alters the chance of outcomes, but doesn't select them based on arbitrary whim.

Think about it this way. The developers couldn't know that most groups were going to fudge their character creation. Paladins were rare because you needed high rolls to get one. But, if people are just fudging the rolls, then paladins stop being rare. Same with rangers and druids and monks. All that gating of group power behind die rolls during chargen goes straight out the window as soon as the rubber meets the road.

So, you can easily wind up with a group of six PC's that include a ranger, a paladin and a druid/thief/MU. Which in turn means that other limitations and whatnot stop working. Those level limited demi-humans? Well, it says right there if I've got an 18 Int, my elven MU can now go up to 15th level (or whatever the numbers are) so, poof, my elven MU is always going to have an 18 or 19 int.

When fudging is purely ad hoc DM fiat, there's no way to design around it. When it's player facing and defined, then you can start to incorporate it into your design decisions.

This doesn't describe my experiences with the game at that time at all. We had 1 paladin in a long (5 year) campaign, and one other set of stats that could have been a paladin. We never saw any STR over 18/77 without a magic item. I played a thief with a DEX of 15 because it was my highest stat -- everything else was 10 or lower (thankfully the lowest was a 7). I don't know what to tell you other than please stop making your experiences the assumed default for play.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

A simple google search on "fudging, Dragon magazine" found, as the first result, a pdf of issue #48, from 1981, with the following quote:

"Try to talk with the DM for at least a few minutes before you play. Ask him if and how he has modified the standard AD&D™ rules. Does his magic system favor MagicUsers? Most do. Is his combat system vague? This often means he likes to fudge the results. You will probably like this the first few times you get lucky. Soon, though, you will realize that an unfair combat system makes victories less meaningful. Does this DM ever allow no-saving-throw deaths, other than those examples in the AD&D rules? This can lead to no-saving-throw violence between the players and the DM. Don’t take your cherished character into a killer dungeon. Finally, remember that there is no virtue in unnecessary complication. Do his variants improve the flow of play? Be inquisitive now rather than enraged later. Find out as much as you can, but don’t rush to judgment. Play with anyone once."

This was, again, just using some guestimates about the term and doing a google search. It certainly isn't the first appearance of the word.

Yes, prior to when you think the term existed, even. Yet that section you quoted does not mention fudging, and isn't at all the same kind of changing of secretive changing of mechanic outcomes to a preferred result that fudging means.

Nice find!

I think the amount that fudging bothers a person is probably correlated with the emphasis on aspects of the game.

for example, my group enjoys war games and the emphasis on “earning” a victory and sucking it up when we lose.

I bet some people that are less into emergent play like us and are more story based are less bothered by it.

but dragon had it right for us—-if we get a bunch of get out of jail free cards, we are annoyed.

we have hassled our dm before and said “dude, it’s ok. We died!”

our exception is when the dm does something on the fly, adding things we where we can’t Make a choice…course correction is a different matter. But if we make a choice and die, we die. If we win and survive a risk, there is yelling and high fives!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nice find!

I think the amount that fudging bothers a person is probably correlated with the emphasis on aspects of the game.

for example, my group enjoys war games and the emphasis on “earning” a victory and sucking it up when we lose.

I bet some people that are less into emergent play like us and are more story based are less bothered by it.

but dragon had it right for us—-if we get a bunch of get out of jail free cards, we are annoyed.

we have hassled our dm before and said “dude, it’s ok. We died!”

our exception is when the dm does something on the fly, adding things we where we can’t Make a choice…course correction is a different matter. But if we make a choice and die, we die. If we win and survive a risk, there is yelling and high fives!

I'm not sure this is correct. I very much enjoy Story Now games, which are far more focused on generating dramatic events than D&D-alikes, but there the mechanics are very much important to follow and not fudge. Fudging there completely eliminates the purpose of play -- to find out what happens for everyone involved. Fudging is more about one person deciding what happens.

Heck, even in storygames, which are organized around telling a story and feature mechanics like conch passing and consensus conflict resolution, you still have an adherence to the mechanics that is important and shouldn't be fudged. Fudging really only shows up in games where there's a heavy process sim mechanical suite and when that conflicts with a non-process-sim agenda like telling a story. It's a symptom of a mismatch between system and agenda of play where the system is spitting out results that go against the agenda of play (at least of the GM, perhaps also the entire table).

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I'm not sure this is correct. I very much enjoy Story Now games, which are far more focused on generating dramatic events than D&D-alikes, but there the mechanics are very much important to follow and not fudge. Fudging there completely eliminates the purpose of play -- to find out what happens for everyone involved. Fudging is more about one person deciding what happens.

Heck, even in storygames, which are organized around telling a story and feature mechanics like conch passing and consensus conflict resolution, you still have an adherence to the mechanics that is important and shouldn't be fudged. Fudging really only shows up in games where there's a heavy process sim mechanical suite and when that conflicts with a non-process-sim agenda like telling a story. It's a symptom of a mismatch between system and agenda of play where the system is spitting out results that go against the agenda of play (at least of the GM, perhaps also the entire table).

Could be I am using the term incorrectly.

I have seen groups where their character’s story is semi mapped out. Or there is a big wish list and they want to see the story conclude. It seems DM and players are trying to make that happen.

meanwhile, our group has characters with personalities but no overall story goal. We are presented with challenges and see where it goes. We are into surviving and setting goals and seeing what happens—-some of the story is born of failures and character deaths (though not frequent death like becmi).

if we take on a horde and die, we like it to stick. When we win we feel like we “really won.”

so taking out technical terms I might be using inappropriately, I will just say fudging clearly bothers some types of groups more than others. Mine does not care for it—-though we have been captured instead of killed a time or two over the decades when the DM felt we were railroaded.

I have also heard of people “cheating” by tricky moves with dice or numbers on their sheet.

This too is foreign to me to the extent I would not even understand the fun they derive an any but a very academic level. Heavy fudge and actual cheating just does not compute…

 

[DEFCON 1]

So, let's unpack this a moment. When dice are rolled, the mechanics of the system have been invoked to resolve a conflict. This conflict is one of two things -- either two (or more) people at the table want different, mutually exclusive things to happen or the system demands a thing happen and there's a need to determine what thing happens here. Effectively, a wager has been made, and everyone's got stakes in the outcomes.

So, then, wagers are a thing where people expect the nature of the wager to be resolved fairly. But the bits that lead into the wager are up for grabs -- we can set terms in lots of ways, but once set, those are expected to be the terms of the wager. If I reach for dice as a GM, I'll only do so if the terms are clear and set and so the dice are going to determine the outcome. I don't reach for dice willy-nilly and then decide if I actually liked the wager -- or at least I really try not to. It happens, on occasion, because no one is perfect, but at that moment I discuss what just happened and why and what I feel about it and the table can decide if we want to let that wager go and replace it with a new one or something else. It will not be my decision as the GM because that's not my place to decide anymore -- my place to decide was before the dice were rolled.

Right. And for you, that wager is important. But for a bunch of other people... the "wager" of how the game mechanics of D&D play out is not. D&D mechanics (and thus results) just aren't that important or sacred. They're nice to have... they are fun to use and can give interesting results... but they aren't sacrosanct. We just aren't that concerned. And which is why all manner of people are okay with any number of the different ways that results don't end being the way others think the results should be.

For me... it's always been "If I'm not going sweat A, why get hung up on sweating B or C?" And if you sweat A, B, and C? That's cool! Glad you're enjoying your game!