D&D 5E How do you roll, DM?

[iserith]

All of you who are worried about fudging the dice. One that's the point to keep the story flowing and if you have a good DM that will work in your favor.

I've saved my party from certain death that way far more often than I've used it against a player. In fact the only time I've ever fudged dice malicously was when I had a friend who went to the game store spent 3 hours rolling from the bowl of seconds dice they had and found a die that rolled 18 to 20 pretty regularly. Everytime he rolled a natural 20 I rolled a natural 20. He was exceptionally dense . his party had to wait until I went to get food and ask him if he'd noticed every 20 he rolled prompted a 20 from me. heh....

If your worried your DM is going to screw you. find another DM you shouldn't be there.

I'm not against fudging because I think it will be used against me. I'm against fudging because I want my decisions to matter. If my reasonably informed decisions plus whatever dice I'm asked to roll as a result of those decisions (or the DM ends up rolling) indicate that my character is dead, then that's a fair outcome in my view and one that the goals of play for the game take into account. It can still be a great game where everyone has fun (including me) and contributes to the creation of an exciting, memorable story.

As well, the DM doesn't need to fudge dice since the DM sets the stakes. If the DM is rolling for life or death stakes, but isn't okay with death being an outcome of the roll, why then is the DM setting the stakes at life or death? The DM can choose something else instead and roll for that.

 

[Imaculata]

If I were to fudge the dice, I would rob my players of a chance to fail. Further more, I would rob them of the chance to rise to the occasion and squeeze out an unexpected victory in the face of imminent defeat.

I have had my players at death's door multiple times, only for them to save the day by coming up with something I had not thought of as a GM. It is fantastic to be surprised by your own players and to allow them to surprise you.

It would also undermine the suspense if I shielded my players from a party wipe. I see it as my responsibility as a GM to present my players with fun challenges of an appropriate difficulty, and to make an effort to kill them with my monsters and traps under those circumstances.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. People notice stuff they aren't looking for all the time.

Traps are designed to be hidden. Unless a player is specifically looking for it (ie takes an action to find traps), he won't see the trap (with the exception of course of broken traps that are merely there for set dressing).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As well, the DM doesn't need to fudge dice since the DM sets the stakes. If the DM is rolling for life or death stakes, but isn't okay with death being an outcome of the roll, why then is the DM setting the stakes at life or death?

Presumably because they naughty word up. For example seriously misjudged the lethality of an encounter.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

First, the DM should only call for an ability check when the task (goal and approach) described by the player has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. If those two conditions do not exist, then there is no roll.

If the check succeeds, the goal is achieved. For example, "There is a trap on the door. What do you do?"

If the check fails, the rules provide two ways to narrate the result of a failed check: The task fails. Or the task succeeds but with a setback. For any failed check wherein there might be a disconnect between the number on the die and what the DM says, if the DM instead narrates the result as progress combined with a setback, then there is no issue. For example, "There is a trap on the door and your efforts have set it in motion. What do you do?"

This is a good summation of the basics of GMing but doesn't address my question about players acting in character based on the outcome of a real life die roll.

In story a character checking for traps is almost always doing their best effort and will proceed assuming that if their best effort didn't find a trap then there probably isn't one (barring some very obvious foreshadowing like dead bodies piled up or blood streaks).

My question is how tables that open roll keep the characters from actiing differently based on the knowledge of if a die till was high or low.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Traps are designed to be hidden. Unless a player is specifically looking for it (ie takes an action to find traps), he won't see the trap (with the exception of course of broken traps that are merely there for set dressing).

I don't agree with this statement. A characters passive perception score is considered their bar of "always notice this". Characters are constantly perceiving their environment even when not taking an action to do so.

 

[Hriston]

I voted with the majority, in that it depends. I'm finding that I mostly roll in the open, however, even Dex (Stealth) checks for hidden creatures which I roll right as combat begins to determine surprise. There is one notable exception, though, which is during wilderness exploration, I resolve navigation by rolling secretly for the terrain against the navigator's passive Survival which allows for traveling in an unintended direction without knowing that's what happened.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Presumably because they naughty word up. For example seriously misjudged the lethality of an encounter.

Or the dragon just got lucky and recharged it's breath for the 5th round in a row. Or the 6 goblin archers all rolled 20s on their opening salvo. Or the thrilling final battle to a campaign ends with the BBEG slipping around in grease for 15 rounds.

Fudging is important to keep battles both winnable (if it was supposed to be) and also exciting. No 3 year long dramatic campaign should end with the BBEG squirming around in the muck like a Stooge.

 

[iserith]

Presumably because they naughty word up. For example seriously misjudged the lethality of an encounter.

Players shouldn't assume they can win all fights anyway. To assume that they can is an example of "metagame thinking" which I would imagine you'd be against.

 

[iserith]

This is a good summation of the basics of GMing but doesn't address my question about players acting in character based on the outcome of a real life die roll.

In story a character checking for traps is almost always doing their best effort and will proceed assuming that if their best effort didn't find a trap then there probably isn't one (barring some very obvious foreshadowing like dead bodies piled up or blood streaks).

My question is how tables that open roll keep the characters from actiing differently based on the knowledge of if a die till was high or low.

For one, it's none of the DM's business why a player chooses to have their own character do something. The DM doesn't need that information to adjudicate actions. If I want my character to spend time on checking for traps again, for example, that's something I can declare.

But also if you adjudicate as per the examples I gave in the post you quoted, then it doesn't matter since the situation already moved forward to another decision point. I checked for traps. I rolled low, failing the check. The DM tells me I find the trap (progress) because I set it in motion (setback). Now what do I do?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Players shouldn't assume they can win all fights anyway.

Sure.

To assume that they can is an example of "metagame thinking" which I would imagine you'd be against.

Yes, I would.

But the situation is that the GM accidentally did something they didn't mean to do and by fudging they're merely correcting to the situation to what they intended it to be in the first place. They might just as easily declare that orc berserkers 4 and 5 just have a sudden heart attack and die, but that would be far more jarring and negatively affect the narrative than just fudging the dice so that the berserkers miss a bit more than the dice would dictate.