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

[Swarmkeeper]

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!"

Got it. The players can still make the determination for the PCs to run. It's not all on the DM to determine "appropriate challenge". It's also on the players to determine how to handle a given challenge. An experienced DM should be able to pivot in the moment without skipping a beat (e.g. the ogres drag the PCs back to their lair to sell to the goblin boss the next day OR the owl bears drag the PCs back to their cave for their soon-to-be hatchlings first meal.) I guess when everyone, DM and players alike, is inexperienced at the table and something like the 5 ogres thing happens, the results might be an unsatisfactory TPK but it is what it is. Adventuring is a dangerous profession. Also, we play and learn. Roll up some new characters and next time the players and DM both know what's going to happen in a similar situation.

TL;DR: Fudging might work when used sparingly in the hands of a skilled DM but it isn't a necessary tool to run the game successfully.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

TL;DR: Fudging might work when used sparingly in the hands of a skilled DM but it isn't a necessary tool to run the game successfully.

Sure. I'm just saying that it is not some cardinal sin that should never ever under any circumstances be done, that's all.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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?

So the succinct answer is that at your table you rarely have a fail state, just a succeed with penalties? I can see that as a workable option.

 

[Gilladian]

We play on roll20. I am sure I COULD hide my rolls, but why bother? It is more fun to roll openly and hear my players groan or cheer. We also do most rolling in the open at the table, because I am too lazy to use a screen.

 

[Campbell]

I personally think Perception and Knowledge checks are dumb and do not use them. I usually just refer to passive values for what characters see and know, colored by their fictional positioning. Stealth rolls are made against Passove Perception. I also generally let it ride so

 

[Azzy]

Depends on what the roll is for. I typically roll attacks, damage, saving throws, etc. in front of players. If it's something I don't want to know about, I'll roll in secret (some times, I'll roll dice in secret for no purpose other that to make the players wonder what and why I was rolling—gotta keep them on their toes).

 

[Li Shenron]

"Always" is too strong a word, but the closest to what I do, which is mostly hidden rolls.

 

[Coroc]

Some wrote they hide when e.g.rolling for invis.mobs. But is it, that your players always can interpret your rolls? Just roll in front of them, even if you need some npc decision randomized. Just roll sometimes without purpose, they will never figure it out, don't you think?

 

[iserith]

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.

The situation is that the DM miscalculated the difficulty, not the stakes. And so did the players. The DM doesn't need to save the characters - that's on the players. I have not made any claim about the dirtiness of fudging the dice, only that it is entirely unnecessary and something that I don't do.

 

[iserith]

So the succinct answer is that at your table you rarely have a fail state, just a succeed with penalties? I can see that as a workable option.

"Succeeding with penalties" (or "progress combined with a setback") is a fail state for a check that did not succeed. But really this comes down to whether failure has meaningful consequences. If there are no meaningful consequences, there is no ability check in the first place. The character just succeeds or fails, no roll, depending on the approach to the goal in the given situation.