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

[EzekielRaiden]

"Because it's very comfortable, matches my decor, and why should I shell out $$$ when I can just do a little DIY?"

In practice, I find that it is a little DIY.

And then a little more.

And then just a smidge more.

And then you find another cool thing, but it would take up too much space, so you do some more intensive DIY to make it work.

And then you have to get the carpet cleaned, and suddenly all that DIY work you did becomes a nightmare both to untangle enough so you can get the cleaning done, and to reassemble when you're done so that it will all fit back together again without any wobbles or having to do more DIY work.

People make exaggerated jokes about binders full of house-rules in Ye Olden Dayse, but there's a grain of truth in those stories.

 

[Scott Christian]

That's...not how I have ever used that phrase. "X sure is a thing" is how one intentionally avoids making any kind of assessment, positive or negative, by falling back to an utterly inarguable objective statement. Because, as I think we can all agree, fudging actually is a thing! Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing isn't specified. I meant exactly zero sarcasm with it.

Interesting. You have never used the word "sure" to denote sarcasm? There is an entire section in Webster's dedicated to its usage. But, we all have our own phrasings and speak. It's also very true when we write for this forum, we do not stress about any of it. So thank you for your clarification.
One thing is for sure, using "sure," sure is a good way to make things clear. (Just kidding)

 

[Lanefan]

Risk management. If multiple crit runs are off the table, one can more confidently work with typical damage numbers when considering the risk vs reward of adventuresome actions in combat. E.g., "if I rush to save the Wizard, the evil Princess and her thugs might hit me, but I think I have the HP to risk it...and they shouldn't crit so much that it would kill me." (Note that risk of death is still present in this example; it just won't be "eating three crit OAs in a row" levels or whatever.)

Where I guess I don't mind higher risk provided there's higher possible reward to balance it out.

If I-as-PC can crit three times in a row and set a string of high-damage records, I think it's only fair that the opposition have the same opportunity to do likewise to me.

I had had no idea that what I really wanted was a rigorously balanced system that put every player on a level playing field and said "alright, gloves are off, do the best you can with the tools you have."

The bolded is what I also want, but I'm not nearly as concerned about balance. Even a third-string PC can signficantly contribute given the chance, provided the tools it has are used well and the character sticks its nose in rather than shies away or holds back.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Interesting. You have never used the word "sure" to denote sarcasm? There is an entire section in Webster's dedicated to its usage. But, we all have our own phrasings and speak. It's also very true when we write for this forum, we do not stress about any of it. So thank you for your clarification.
One thing is for sure, using "sure," sure is a good way to make things clear. (Just kidding)

The phrase "sure is a thing," not the single individual word "sure," which...I would not usually call a "phrase" even if it technically meets the definition of the term. E.g., when I've discussed something with a friend and I legit didn't have any strong feelings one way or another about that thing, I have said, "that sure is(/was) a thing." In some contexts, I admit that this could be damning with faint praise, e.g. if we're discussing a film or a game or something, saying "that sure was a level/dungeon/etc." would be arguably "condemning" it by having nothing positive to say about it. But I've said it about historical events, or heck, even about situations or events that occurred in my Dungeon World campaign.

It's a bit like saying, "Of all the Xs in the world, this is one of them." Again, it has the "damning with faint praise" angle, but if the worst thing one can say about something is that it's too inoffensive and safe to actually have done anything worth criticizing, one could also call that praising with faint damnation.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Where I guess I don't mind higher risk provided there's higher possible reward to balance it out.

If I-as-PC can crit three times in a row and set a string of high-damage records, I think it's only fair that the opposition have the same opportunity to do likewise to me.

I only use that as an example because pro-fudge people have. I would not do that myself--or, rather, if a PC were pushed so close to death by such a string of luck, I would use other methods to address the issue. Like the aforementioned "you KNOW that strike should have killed you, you're too experienced with combat to know otherwise...and yet you are not dead. This is Really Weird, but you'll have time to figure out what the heck is going on after you survive this battle. Assuming you have survived the battle already! "

The bolded is what I also want, but I'm not nearly as concerned about balance. Even a third-string PC can signficantly contribute given the chance, provided the tools it has are used well and the character sticks its nose in rather than shies away or holds back.

I mean, I guess? I find that that's not very effective in practice. Getting a cool story in the rare circumstances where narrative weight makes it matter and the dice cooperate to let it happen just isn't enough for me. That would mean far, far too low a density of Cool Moments. By raising the level of balance, more Cool Moments happen, and more of the campaign is memorable. Memory is of course finite and fallible, but I don't see a surfeit of Cool Moments as devaluing their coolness simply because there's a lot of them. That's a strangely zero-sum perspective for intangible experiences. There is, of course, a balance (heh) to be struck; it's hard to make literally every single moment intensely memorable (and I'm not sure I would want it to be even if it were possible). But I find the "third-string PC can significantly contribute" thing is the reverse--so few memorable moments that even the ones I do get are drowned out in the noise of "you died"/"nothing happened"/"the much more powerful people actually got things done."

 

[Scott Christian]

The phrase "sure is a thing," not the single individual word "sure," which...I would not usually call a "phrase" even if it technically meets the definition of the term. E.g., when I've discussed something with a friend and I legit didn't have any strong feelings one way or another about that thing, I have said, "that sure is(/was) a thing." In some contexts, I admit that this could be damning with faint praise, e.g. if we're discussing a film or a game or something, saying "that sure was a level/dungeon/etc." would be arguably "condemning" it by having nothing positive to say about it. But I've said it about historical events, or heck, even about situations or events that occurred in my Dungeon World campaign.

It's a bit like saying, "Of all the Xs in the world, this is one of them." Again, it has the "damning with faint praise" angle, but if the worst thing one can say about something is that it's too inoffensive and safe to actually have done anything worth criticizing, one could also call that praising with faint damnation.

I understand. And thanks for the clarification. It's like I said, we all have our own phrasing and self-speak. Thanks for explaining yours.

 

[Fifth Element]

In practice, I find that it is a little DIY.

And then a little more.

And then just a smidge more.

And then you find another cool thing, but it would take up too much space, so you do some more intensive DIY to make it work.

And then you have to get the carpet cleaned, and suddenly all that DIY work you did becomes a nightmare both to untangle enough so you can get the cleaning done, and to reassemble when you're done so that it will all fit back together again without any wobbles or having to do more DIY work.

People make exaggerated jokes about binders full of house-rules in Ye Olden Dayse, but there's a grain of truth in those stories.

So you're saying to mind the slope, it might be slippery?

 

[Fifth Element]

Giving the GM (finite, visible) rerolls might be a fix that works for some people. But that would be different from fudging because fudging is not a reroll but a chosen result, has no limit, and is not only done in secret but if players found out many of them would be mad.

Pretty sure that most people would call the DM re-rolling a result they didn't like 'fudging.' You're using an awfully narrow meaning here.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So you're saying to mind the slope, it might be slippery?

Not exactly. More that an urge to tinker, in the context of TTRPGs, is almost never satisfied with a single change, done once, tested thoroughly, and then left as-is forever.

That is, tinkering, DIY in a gaming context, usually reflects a critical eye and an urge toward improvement....and every system, even the systems I love dearly, has areas that can be improved. I'm sure you've heard someone say something to the effect of "if we required [novels/games/papers/movies/etc.] to be perfect, nothing would ever get made." At some point, a creator has to throw up their hands and say "good enough!" Consumers with an interest in tinkering/DIY are not subject to such pressures. We can keep iterating indefinitely, because the only cost is our personal time and energy, and we (myself included!) find that "expense" joyously worthwhile....but continuous tinkering has a tendency to produce what programmers call "spaghetti code," and spaghetti code is very difficult to clean up.

Now that I think about it, actually, spaghetti code is an excellent example of exactly this effect in action. "Software rot" is a real, extant phenomenon that plagues many developers unless they actively uphold countermeasures, but your logic here would dismiss it as a slippery slope. It isn't. It really happens. Game design tinkering is similarly liable to such changes, because who's gonna tell you not to tinker with anything (and, thus, everything) that rubs you the wrong way with a system you overall like?

Pretty sure that most people would call the DM re-rolling a result they didn't like 'fudging.' You're using an awfully narrow meaning here.

Well, I can't speak for "most people" [citation needed?] but I've already quoted a fairly significant slice of people in this thread who consider secrecy to be a fundamental part of "fudging," and looking through links posted previously by Umbran, this pattern holds at least as far back as 2010 on ENWorld, and seemingly much earlier in general, based on other textual references I have seen/read.

It might not be the case that everyone thinks secrecy is essential for something to be "fudging," but for a fair chunk, it is. I personally said that several times earlier in this thread, and no one got all up in my grill about the secrecy then, so it's a little weird that more than one person is now declaring that secrecy isn't a valid restriction.

Now, to be fair to your points, if I saw that a DM was openly rerolling (because, again, I don't consider this fudging proper) to an excessive degree--e.g., if it happened at least once in most sessions--I would see that as a cause for concern. But, because I'm allowed to know that it's happening, I can do something about it. I can talk with the DM (away from the game, of course) and try to find out why they're choosing to intrude on the game mechanics so often. Assuming we have a productive conversation, this means we can actually get on the same page and find a solution that works for everyone involved, rather than having the DM unilaterally deciding what is best for me as a player.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My own experience is its possible to learn to let it be beyond what changes you think you really need, but it takes a lot of experience to learn that if you naturally are prone to tinkering.