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

[iserith]

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.

Change the stakes and you don't have to fudge the dice: The berserkers knock the PCs out and take them to the Eye of Gruumsh as worthy sacrifices (especially that elf wizard). Then you don't need to ignore dice results. The story continues when the PCs awaken in the shaman's gruesome lair.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Change the stakes and you don't have to fudge the dice: The berserkers knock the PCs out and take them to the Eye of Gruumsh as worthy sacrifices (especially that elf wizard). Then you don't need to ignore dice results. The story continues when the PCs awaken in the shaman's gruesome lair.

Perhaps these are ghouls or whatever things that are known for not taking prisoners. But it doesn't even matter. The GM can always adjust the world or the narrative so that the characters survive, it merely might just be more apparent and silly in some situations. Now this absolutely is my favoured method to do these things, it is more fun for me as a GM, but ultimately t doesn't matter how it was achieved, as long as the narrative works. I don't see much point making the dice some sacred instrument that shall never be questioned. They're mindless lumps of plastic, what do they know about good drama?

 

[iserith]

Perhaps these are ghouls or whatever things that are known for not taking prisoners. But it doesn't even matter. The GM can always adjust the world or the narrative so that the characters survive, it merely might just be more apparent and silly in some situations. Now this absolutely is my favoured method to do these things, it is more fun for me as a GM, but ultimately t doesn't matter how it was achieved, as long as the narrative works. I don't see much point making the dice some sacred instrument that shall never be questioned. They're mindless lumps of plastic, what do they know about good drama?

The drama comes from choosing the stakes that appeal to your group - win OR lose. The dice add tension, particularly when they are rolled in the open.

 

[Hriston]

Question to the tables who do all open rolling...

How do you handle the metaknowledge a player gains by knowing if they rolled high or low for a skill?

For example...there is a HUGE difference in feel at the table when Sarah rolls a 17 with a +5 perception and announces a 22 followed by the GM saying "You don't notice anything out of the ordinary" and the GM rolling for Sarah behind the screen and announcing the very same thing.

I assume that, in your example, there is something to notice and that the DC to notice it is higher than 22. Otherwise, there would be no check called for at my table. Secondly, assuming, as I have, that Sarah failed her roll, my response wouldn't be a simple "You don't notice anything." Stakes would have been set before the roll was made, including a known DC and a meaningful consequence for failure, such as inadvertently setting off the trap that Sarah was looking for.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The drama comes from choosing the stakes that appeal to your group - win OR lose. The dice add tension, particularly when they are rolled in the open.

And here we are talking about the situation where the GM miscalculated the stakes. I get what you're saying, I prefer to do it that way too, but the truth is that the GM can save the PCs whenever they want and doing it with fudging is just one way to do it, not inherently any more 'dirty' than the others.

 

[Lanefan]

But why ask for a perception check at all in these situations? Just wait till the players actually take an action to search for a trap. Then you avoid this issue entirely. If the threat is foreshadowed, then the perception checks aren't random, they are motivated.

Answer: because foreshadowing everything has, in the end, exactly the same effect as asking for a perception check out of the blue - it creates suspicion in the players' (and PCs') minds. Oftentimes a hidden trap is supposed to be just that - hidden - with the specific intent that anyone who wanders into it finds it the hard way.

If you foreshadowed something, then it should be worth spending some time on. If the players are engaged in the fiction, then that is anything but boring. Knowing a trap might be around, but being unable to find it, builds suspense and dread.

Except I want that suspense and dread all the time, which means were I to use your method I'd be constantly false-foreshadowing so as to a) keep the suspense up and b) disguise the real threats, if any are present.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

And here we are talking about the situation where the GM miscalculated the stakes. I get what you're saying, I prefer to do it that way too, but the truth is that the GM can save the PCs whenever they want and doing it with fudging is just one way to do it, not inherently any more 'dirty' than the others.

Not sure I understand what is meant by a DM “miscalculating the stakes”. Maybe I should say I understand but it’s not really a concern at our table. As a DM, I throw varied challenges at the players. Some might be above their combat pay grade and I’ll telegraph it best I can. I’m not going to grossly mis-Telegraph something tough as easy. It’s really up to the players to determine whether a particular encounter is something they want their PCs to take on as a combat, negotiation, surrender, flee, whatever. Or if, after choosing one option, they want to change their tactics midway through an encounter. If the dice don’t go their way, that’s an accepted, known element to our game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not sure I understand what is meant by a DM “miscalculating the stakes”. Maybe I should say I understand but it’s not really a concern at our table. As a DM, I throw varied challenges at the players. Some might be above their combat pay grade and I’ll telegraph it best I can. I’m not going to grossly mis-Telegraph something tough as easy. It’s really up to the players to determine whether a particular encounter is something they want their PCs to take on as a combat, negotiation, surrender, flee, whatever. Or if, after choosing one option, they want to change their tactics midway through an encounter. If the dice don’t go their way, that’s an accepted, known element to our game.

We are talking about a situation where a GM, maybe due being inexperienced, maybe due being in hurry and messing up the math or something like that, thinks that the encounter is far easier than it actually is, thus doesn't frame and telegraph it properly and realises their mistake when the combat has already commenced.

"Oh naughty word, there was a smudge on the module, it said five orcs, not five ogres!"

 

[Ath-kethin]

I used to always use/roll behind a DM screen. But then I bought a swank dice tower and now everything is out in the open.

 

[Imaculata]

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.

I had a BBEG wizard fail a save and be reduced to an idiot due to 1 spell by one of the players. It was great. What kind of GM would I be if I took that victory away from them?