Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How do players feel about DM fudging?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8597378" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>That's what I've been advocating though! Take responsibility without fudging. You can, just as you say, always achieve the desired end <em>without</em> fudging because, y'know, phenomenal <s>cosmic</s> DM powers.</p><p></p><p>Which is exactly why I told my players that <em>permanent, irrevocable, random</em> character deaths won't happen in my game. There might be PC deaths (none so far, but nothing is guaranteed!), but they will either be temporary, reversible, or the result of an agreement between the player and me. No player needs fear totally losing the character they're invested in. That does not mean there are no stakes. I have made my players agonize over choices multiple times, or fear for the places and people they love, or consider (and occasionally take) risks where they KNOW they don't know the full story and are possibly playing into a wicked NPC's hands. And as a result of my choosing to do this, my players are more relaxed. They can try some zany things, knowing that they won't lose the character and story they have been exploring. They're still overall very gunshy, treating risk as something to either mitigate to oblivion or simply avoid completely, but I am slowly persuading them to consider more flashy means.</p><p></p><p></p><p>My issue (which I think is the same as Iserith's) is that I don't make errors of the kind you describe. Like...that is just completely orthogonal to the ways players gain information about threats they might face. Let me give an example from my actual game.</p><p></p><p>Recently, the players went on an expedition to investigate an ancient genie-rajah city, once lost to the desert, now uncovered: Al-Shafadir, the City of Fire and Water, located in a dormant caldera (think a small city built inside something like Yellowstone crossed with Crater Lake, just with less lake.) This was something of a more casual, palate cleanser adventure, as we'd had a lot of high drama, high plot stories prior. Since they knew it would be a volcanic caldera, they did some preparation for the plausible threats, and investigated what they could, but records are limited when the city has been lost for two millennia. But they learned what they could, getting some idea of the kind of threats they'd likely face: fire spirits, maybe basilisks, maybe flying creatures who could reach the caldera from the air, curses and traps left behind by the former occupants, bandits or rivals trying to strip the most valuable stuff right away, etc.</p><p></p><p>None of that required any amount of "this threat is definitely easy" or "you're going to struggle to fight this." It instead is heavily qualitative: these are some <em>likely</em> creatures or entities, and these are the characteristics your research indicates these things possess. But research is rarely so accurate or precise that it gives a comprehensive and objective threat assessment, so the players planned for possible problems, buying antidotes, fire resistance potions, and tools, supplies, and equipment for a moderately long stay should it prove necessary.</p><p></p><p>So I'm just kind of at a loss about your question. This type of error just...isn't one that occurs in my game. Not because I am incapable of error (I assure you, that is emphatically NOT true), but because the way player research and investigation work does not produce the kind of result you describe, and I'm frankly not sure how they <em>could</em> do so. Hence, the example seems contrived.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Wow. I just...wow. Thank you, Sigmund Freud. So glad to know that my open repudiation (to the point of intentionally stepping back my rhetoric after generic mod admonition to the thread) is simply proof that I'm in denial—or worse, outright lying to everyone.</p><p></p><p>It's not like I use a system where DMs almost never roll, or like I use a Discord bot for all rolls so it's impossible for me to change the results or conceal them from the players...</p><p></p><p></p><p>Former: If it was any kind of serious game (which is 99.9% of my gaming) then I would thank them for telling me and leave the table as politely as possible. I have no interest in playing a relatively serious game where the DM reserves the right to tell me they know better than I do what I will find fun.</p><p></p><p>Latter: I would tell the DM in private exactly how I feel about such tactics and then leave. If it's a particularly egregious example, I might walk from the table then and there.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8597378, member: 6790260"] That's what I've been advocating though! Take responsibility without fudging. You can, just as you say, always achieve the desired end [I]without[/I] fudging because, y'know, phenomenal [S]cosmic[/S] DM powers. Which is exactly why I told my players that [I]permanent, irrevocable, random[/I] character deaths won't happen in my game. There might be PC deaths (none so far, but nothing is guaranteed!), but they will either be temporary, reversible, or the result of an agreement between the player and me. No player needs fear totally losing the character they're invested in. That does not mean there are no stakes. I have made my players agonize over choices multiple times, or fear for the places and people they love, or consider (and occasionally take) risks where they KNOW they don't know the full story and are possibly playing into a wicked NPC's hands. And as a result of my choosing to do this, my players are more relaxed. They can try some zany things, knowing that they won't lose the character and story they have been exploring. They're still overall very gunshy, treating risk as something to either mitigate to oblivion or simply avoid completely, but I am slowly persuading them to consider more flashy means. My issue (which I think is the same as Iserith's) is that I don't make errors of the kind you describe. Like...that is just completely orthogonal to the ways players gain information about threats they might face. Let me give an example from my actual game. Recently, the players went on an expedition to investigate an ancient genie-rajah city, once lost to the desert, now uncovered: Al-Shafadir, the City of Fire and Water, located in a dormant caldera (think a small city built inside something like Yellowstone crossed with Crater Lake, just with less lake.) This was something of a more casual, palate cleanser adventure, as we'd had a lot of high drama, high plot stories prior. Since they knew it would be a volcanic caldera, they did some preparation for the plausible threats, and investigated what they could, but records are limited when the city has been lost for two millennia. But they learned what they could, getting some idea of the kind of threats they'd likely face: fire spirits, maybe basilisks, maybe flying creatures who could reach the caldera from the air, curses and traps left behind by the former occupants, bandits or rivals trying to strip the most valuable stuff right away, etc. None of that required any amount of "this threat is definitely easy" or "you're going to struggle to fight this." It instead is heavily qualitative: these are some [I]likely[/I] creatures or entities, and these are the characteristics your research indicates these things possess. But research is rarely so accurate or precise that it gives a comprehensive and objective threat assessment, so the players planned for possible problems, buying antidotes, fire resistance potions, and tools, supplies, and equipment for a moderately long stay should it prove necessary. So I'm just kind of at a loss about your question. This type of error just...isn't one that occurs in my game. Not because I am incapable of error (I assure you, that is emphatically NOT true), but because the way player research and investigation work does not produce the kind of result you describe, and I'm frankly not sure how they [I]could[/I] do so. Hence, the example seems contrived. Wow. I just...wow. Thank you, Sigmund Freud. So glad to know that my open repudiation (to the point of intentionally stepping back my rhetoric after generic mod admonition to the thread) is simply proof that I'm in denial—or worse, outright lying to everyone. It's not like I use a system where DMs almost never roll, or like I use a Discord bot for all rolls so it's impossible for me to change the results or conceal them from the players... Former: If it was any kind of serious game (which is 99.9% of my gaming) then I would thank them for telling me and leave the table as politely as possible. I have no interest in playing a relatively serious game where the DM reserves the right to tell me they know better than I do what I will find fun. Latter: I would tell the DM in private exactly how I feel about such tactics and then leave. If it's a particularly egregious example, I might walk from the table then and there. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How do players feel about DM fudging?
Top