In Praise of Dice

I don’t think I need to convince anyone that dice are cool. But for those who feel dice are only useful for looking pretty and making a clattery sound behind a GM’s screen, I disagree.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

Fudging Dice Rolls​

Recent years have seen an explosion in all manner of gorgeous artisan dice and special editions. It seems every convention I’ve been to I’ve had to add another set to my already over developed collection, whether it was some rainbow dice during Pride at Origins or a set of cool Eldritch Cthulhu dice the next year.

In such articles, the conversation is about taking control of the story and making sure the results do the best thing for the adventure rather than accept a random result. It makes sense, and in many games I’ll ignore my dice (as a GM that is, for a player that’s called cheating) to work in the best interest of the story to get a more satisfying outcome for the players and the game.

But while I do agree with the odd fudging, I have to also council against it, and suggest your story may be a lot better because of the randomness so often eschewed by ardent story gamers. Quite simply, a random result will not only test your storytelling but also get you out of a rut.

Digging Out of a Rut​

We all fall into storytelling ruts. Many players have a certain type of character they love to play, and GMs do the same thing with favourite types of encounter and NPC. There isn’t especially anything wrong with this if that’s what you enjoy playing. But if you are finding your game seems have become a little samey, you need to go a bit random. Instead of choosing character options, roll them by the book and take whatever you get, no matter how unoptimised or odd. Then take all that randomness and make it fit together. Not only will you get a character you have probably taken a lot more time to think about, but also something you don’t usually play. You might hate it, but if so, you can always create a new character, and at the very least you may have gained few interesting ideas you’ll want to use again.

The same goes for the gamemaster. It doesn’t hurt to let fate take over the driving seat now and again. While it might not always take you down the best route, a random dice roll will take your game somewhere unexpected. When the game slides onto a path even the GM didn’t predict, you are all suddenly on a mystery tour. As a GM I find that exciting, because I want to know what’s going to happen as much as the players do. It may mean a little more improvising but that can be part of the fun. Either way, just like creating a random character you will go somewhere you don’t usually go, and tell a story you don’t usually tell. If it isn’t working you always have the option to pull the adventure back onto more familiar ground by fudging the next dice roll. But give it a chance before you do as sometimes the most jarring paths can take you to a very interesting place if you take just a few more steps down that road.

The Glory of Failure​

It’s at this point I should add a note about one of the best things about dice, failure. Failure is good, and possibly one of the best storytelling devices you will ever find. Sure, it might suck to be the thief who fails to pick a lock or the group who fails to take down the villain. But such events only start new stories. If the lock can’t be picked, the party isn’t going to just go home. They must find a new way to get past the door. If they can’t defeat the villain, they won’t just give up (or shouldn’t if they are true heroes). Instead, they will come back again, and how much more satisfying to overcome a problem that seemed insurmountable the first time.

I even include expert characters in this. While your thief might be a world-renowned locksmith, no one has a 100% change of success every time. Even experts fail now and again. So, don’t get hung up on the idea that it is part of your character that ‘they never fail to pick a lock’. Embrace the fact they are imperfect and can have a bad day and ask yourself how they deal with the fact they have failed.

As it often does, Pendragon offers a model for this with the personality traits. Even the most Chaste or Brave knight might fall victim to the charms of an enchantress or be struck by cowardice before a big battle. They are human, it happens. The question then becomes how do they cope with this failure, and how does it affect their position in the group? Can they make amends, will they overcome the lack of confidence, and what will they feel the next time they are called upon to face a similar test?

So, in short, don’t always take too much control of the story. Let go a little and see what fate brings you. It may take you somewhere you never even dreamed possible, and you get to roll a few more of those gorgeous shiny polyhedrons you spent all that money on.

Your Turn: How important are dice in shaping your game's narrative?

 

[Alzrius]

I've been collecting unusual dice for a few years now. Mostly "unusual" in terms of the actual number of faces; d3s, d7s, things like that. The largest one I have at the moment is a d120, which according to the place where I bought it is the greatest number of sides it can have without becoming a sphere (as it is, it looks like a golf ball).

In lieu of more dice of unusual construction, I've also picked up quite a few with unusual listings, such as d14s with the days of the week printed on them (with each day listed twice; once in blue for nighttime and once in red for daytime).

The only problem is that having so many dice means it takes several minutes of rooting through my dice bag in order to find the one(s) I'm actually looking for.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Players who fudge dice are cheating and that is seen as a bad thing, or at least that is pretty much how it has always been presented to me. If it's wrong for players to fudge die rolls to get the results they desire, why should it be okay for the GM to fudge? Why is a GM fudging not cheating if the players are cheating if they fudge?

 

[billd91]

Anyway, I would rather keep talking about dice themselves. How do you all feel about dice towers? I got one for the first time recently and I will never go back!

I never used a dice tower before either. But right now, thanks to having to play a lot online (not always with a VTT) at a desk with limited space, I am using a little fold-up one with a small dice tray it sits on, inside a relatively large dice tray. Together, it's a nice, space saving, dice corralling unit.

 

[DemoMonkey]

"Players who fudge dice are cheating and that is seen as a bad thing, or at least that is pretty much how it has always been presented to me. If it's wrong for players to fudge die rolls to get the results they desire, why should it be okay for the GM to fudge? Why is a GM fudging not cheating if the players are cheating if they fudge?"

That's a good question , and it hangs on whether at your table the players roll openly and the DM rolls behind a screen, or whether everyone rolls openly.

If the DM rolls behind the screen, then - from the players perspective - the results are undetermined until announced. Whereas the results of the players rolls collapse the wave form as soon as they stop rolling.

If a player rolls a 6, they have rolled a 6. To say that they rolled an 8 is observably false. That can be defined as "cheating".

If a DM rolls a dice behind the screen and then says "It's an 8" it is not observably false. It is also not observably true. Whether it is cheating or not is not determinable and therefore is not relevant.

(To clarify something that I think is unclear: I would never fudge a roll AGAINST a PC. Not because it's wrong, that's irrelevant, but because it's not the best tool for the job. If the monsters are not putting up an exciting challenge I can just add more monsters!)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

See the other extreme now, EzekielRaiden? This is where these discussions always end up - someone from the never fudging camp brings up the argument "why roll at all?" when that's never really an issue.

You see it as a troll. I see it as a genuine argument, and don't understand why it's a troll. (Other than, obviously, you having claimed it is so.)

So I will ask, genuinely: If you're going to fix the terms, which at the very least one person in this thread has admitted to doing, what is the point of rolling? You aren't actually using the dice as a source of suspense. You aren't actually accepting the situation delivered to you. You set out, in advance, what the situation should be, and if the dice disagree with you, you will always discard them. Is this not true? Is there ever a situation where your DM instincts tell you "this isn't fun, I should be fudging this" and you don't actually do so? Because if you never favor the dice over those instincts, if in every case where you determine "this isn't the fun thing I planned for my players to experience," then the dice are neither servant nor master. They are props, things to give players the belief that they aren't just being told a story, the false certainty that if they fail it is because they made a bad call (even if that call was "trust the dice too much") and that if they succeed it is because they made a good call (even if that call was "the odds paid off despite being unlikely").

If any roll will always be overridden if it disagrees with your DM sensibilities, why roll? All it does is make the players believe something false. Again, as noted, there are numerous ways to accomplish all the same goals that don't require any fudging, you are not enslaved to the dice or numbers just because you don't represent false things as true and then permanently cover up any evidence that might indicate you did so. The goal accomplished by fudging can be accomplished without fudging. So: if you're going to fudge even though you don't need to, and that means treating the dice as at very most a suggestion you simply don't bother to override, why roll?

As for the D30, I have used it almost exclusively as my "Speaking in [language]" indicator. If I'm holding up the die, my character is speaking in [language].

That's...actually a pretty interesting concept. It reminds me distantly of the Escalation Die from 13th Age, just for a purely roleplay context. I wonder what other things could be done by using dice as held or presented props?

When it comes to 'fudging' rolls, the Buddhist concept of the middle path always works wonders for me. It's the extremes that tend to cause 'problems' and reduce enjoyment. No fudging at all can lead to scrubbed agency and random derailment & death (note that this can be super appropriate for certain game styles and tones, but it is a specific case and thus falls within the middle path idea) while too much fudging can lead to boredom and, interestingly, also lessed feeling of agency (and if used often enough it might call for a different type of system to be used than one that relies on dice rolls).

How would you respond, then, to my assertion that it is entirely possible to achieve every aim fudging achieves, without actually fudging? Again, using my specified tripartite definition thereof (a mechanic or narrative element is invoked into play, and the DM overrules that mechanic/element secretly, and the DM prevents any possibility of discovering the overruled mechanic/element). Weakening or removing any one of the parts ensures it isn't fudging, and there's a reason I've said there isn't any situation that actually requires you to fudge. Not speed of play, not permitting stories to play out in a satisfying way, not adapting to cool ideas from the players, and not counteracting the rare but meaningful periods where randomness just completely goes against the players. What need is there for this "middle way" when--if my assertion is true--there is no need to take one of the paths at all, to any degree?

Fudging also allows for, and works best with, later reflection, especially if it was an error on my part that lead the players to the situation where I felt the need to do some on the spot fudging. The play continues, and if the players are engaged enjoy themselves, great! Then I can see where I or my planning went awry and I can use that for the game going forward.

Perhaps I am projecting, but I find that most DMs who proudly engage in fudging--and especially those who will explicitly lie to their players' faces about whether they have fudged--do not do this kind of self-reflection. I am, of course, willing to be corrected on that front. But my distinct impression has been that fudging is treated as obviating the need for such reflection; if something has gone wrong, I can just fudge it away and maintain the illusion of error-free DMing.

Not a fan of the fudging convo because it is a matter of style and there is always at least one person who wants to argue that fudging ever undermines all other dice rolls "So why even roll?" when it is obvious there is a huge spectrum from totally narrated no dice games to "all dice as rolled all the time" and to act otherwise seems absurd whether you are willing to fudge or not.

Well, when I ask "why even roll," I'm almost always speaking specifically of D&D and similar games where dice explicitly and specifically are used to adjudicate any situation that is not seen as automatically decided. (I very very much ENCOURAGE DMs to make use of "just say yes or no" type stuff, especially leaning into the "say yes" side if the player isn't being abusive or coercive.) If you're playing something like Fate, the simple answer is "because there's no need to, and I'm confused as to why you would ask." But if you're playing D&D, or Dungeon World, or 13th Age, or numerous other explicitly dice-based systems, "why even roll" is not a bizarro question, it's very much rooted in the explicit and implicit process of play.

But for me, what Kannik said above describes my fudging. Sometimes I realize that some encounter I designed was just too hard (or more rarely) too easy and a little behind the scenes tweaking can make the encounter remain challenging and a threat without being an unfair wipeout because of an error. That may not be as common as it was when I was younger, or as common late in an edition cycle as it is when I am still getting the hang of it, but it happens.

Then, as before: Why use fudging, when non-fudging approaches--which require only a very, very small extra amount of creativity and effort--can accomplish the same goal?

To give a practical example: I tend to be a soft-ball pitcher when it comes to DMing. My players have steamrolled several encounters, and I was beginning to worry that I wouldn't be able to challenge them, that they might feel the game was too easy. (They don't, for the record, but I'm a worrywart.) So, something like a year ago, I put together a combat I was almost certain would be a real challenge. Outnumbered, with a big-bad boss type, multiple lieutenant-types, and multiple chaff underling-types. And it turned out yes, they really were outmatched! I could have fudged rolls (or, rather, could have fudged numbers--this is DW, I almost never roll as DM other than monster damage), but instead, I chose to leverage the players' actions and the moves written for the monsters to level the playing field. (Specifically, they were bound shadow-spirits protecting the ruins of a long-abandoned Raven Shadow hideout, and the big one had life-draining capabilities.) The PCs decided to try to valiantly spike down the big guy, and I decided to say that that meant the big guy drained the essence of all the weak shadows in order to power itself up so it could flee--better to survive to fight another time than to lose the "brains" of the protection, as it were. This paved the way for a PC win, just with some extra effort put into chasing the big shadow down, and it made for a very satisfying experience; their strategy paid off, yet they also got a taste of what it's like to be the underdog for once.

So: Why make use of fudging (as defined), when you can do something openly that changes the state of play, or do something covert but discoverable, so the players can learn how the state of play changed, and prevent, prepare for, or exploit it?

That's a fair say, but I also think it's maybe a little overblown. A lot of players are fine with hidden rolls when they understand why they're necessary. I don't do it, but I don't play games where I need to either. Trust at the table is about a lot more than fudging rolls or not.

That it is about other things does not mean that trust is unaffected by doing it. If trust were not diminished by doing it, why would DMs go to such great lengths to keep it concealed from their players? You don't actively prevent even the possibility of discovery for things that wouldn't upset people. This is not like preparing surprises or having deceitful NPCs (both of which are fine, and things players should expect). This is "I won't ever let you know, no matter what you do or how hard you look."

Because the conditions under which a fudge feels necessary are not that common and the vast majority of times the dice are fine arbiters? That would be my answer, but I think that the answer to that question varies widely from table to table. I just think "no fudging"/"might as well be all fudging" is a false dichotomy.

I'll grant you that. But that's not the dichotomy I've described, or at least not the one I'm trying to describe.

When you never fudge, the rolls and numbers that have entered play always are what they are. The players can actually learn how the world works, because it doesn't change beneath their feet in ways they can never, even in principle, observe or understand. When any amount of fudging is present, the players can never be sure that any given fact about the fictional world actually is a fact; it might change underneath them without any ability on their part to know or learn that it changed.

The example I like to give here is a murder-mystery. There's been a murder at a fancy masquerade ball, and the prime suspects are the Countess and the Duke. You, as DM, have prepared for their investigation; you know who the murderer is (let's say the Duke), and have prepared evidence to that effect. The party, however, comes up with a clever idea you didn't expect, which allows them to immediately get the solid, incriminating evidence against him. Two of the five players seem a little disappointed at solving the mystery so quickly, and two others are skeptical that this evidence is real--it could have been faked by the Countess! So you decide that, despite the fact that they did find the real evidence, NOW it's going to be the case that the Countess always was the real perpetrator, and the Duke is the one being framed.

This is exactly, in every meaningful way, equivalent to fudging a die roll or monster statistic (which these latter two are mathematically equivalent to begin with, just as fudging a monster's damage roll is equivalent to giving or taking away a character's HP). Yet I'm pretty sure most people here would have far less appreciation for this situation than they would for fudging a die roll. If you (or anyone!) would not have a problem doing this as DM, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the difference between the above scenario and railroading.

That we can agree on. When I fudge it is because I want to be fair!

So: What about methods of pursuing fairness--of rejecting the dice or numbers--that don't use fudging? Would those not, at least in principle, be preferable over fudging if they can both achieve the same end without costing you overmuch time or effort?

 

[dragoner]

Years ago a GM introduced to us the idea of luck points, in AD&D; that mechanic allows a re-roll. It is something, if the table is amenable to it, to alleviate concerns.

Myself, I play in a tavern, don't use a screen, and in fact carry my dice in an altoids tin, with a portfolio, and in my messenger bag.

 

[Arilyn]

First, get off my lawn you kids!

Second, the only good dice are the ones where you crayon in the numbers. Photos later when I can find mine from the Holmes box (at least I got some, instead of chits).

Third, peanut butter fudge is the only kind worth having at the game table. It's why I always roll my dice in front of my screen.

Fourth, I'm with @Fenris-77 - I lean much more towards games where my players do all the rolling.

Oh, I have those dice that were crayoned. Mine kinda melted, even after little use.

I have dice with tiny little pandas and bamboo inserted in them. Am I proud? Yes, yes I am.

As for fudging? It came up in the old days of D&D because it was next to impossible to survive without the GM fudging things. These days, even with the swingy d20 in 5e, I haven't felt the need because characters are much sturdier, with more options when things go bad.

And I like player only rolling games too.

 

[Ace]

SNIP good stuff

​

Your Turn: How important are dice in shaping your game's narrative?

I'm ambivalent about dice.

I think they are quite important in more purist forms of D&D or similar games but otherwise I can take them or leave them.

My favorite system. Cinematic Unisystem used in Ghost of Albion/Buffy and Angel requires no rolls from the GM and I'm quite fine with that. It makes play much faster and combats are still tense and fun while taking very little time.

I've also done a lot of pure narrative RP games or ones with very abstract dice systems and had tons of fun too.

I often just skip rolls where failure wouldn't be interesting or would make a character who is supposed to be capable look like a fool in that situation. So I guess it really doesn't matter.

As a gamer objet d'art, honestly I just don't care. Easy to read, durable and balanced matter more than anything else.

 

[billd91]

You see it as a troll. I see it as a genuine argument, and don't understand why it's a troll. (Other than, obviously, you having claimed it is so.)

So I will ask, genuinely: If you're going to fix the terms, which at the very least one person in this thread has admitted to doing, what is the point of rolling? You aren't actually using the dice as a source of suspense. You aren't actually accepting the situation delivered to you. You set out, in advance, what the situation should be, and if the dice disagree with you, you will always discard them. Is this not true? Is there ever a situation where your DM instincts tell you "this isn't fun, I should be fudging this" and you don't actually do so? Because if you never favor the dice over those instincts, if in every case where you determine "this isn't the fun thing I planned for my players to experience," then the dice are neither servant nor master. They are props, things to give players the belief that they aren't just being told a story, the false certainty that if they fail it is because they made a bad call (even if that call was "trust the dice too much") and that if they succeed it is because they made a good call (even if that call was "the odds paid off despite being unlikely").

If any roll will always be overridden if it disagrees with your DM sensibilities, why roll? All it does is make the players believe something false. Again, as noted, there are numerous ways to accomplish all the same goals that don't require any fudging, you are not enslaved to the dice or numbers just because you don't represent false things as true and then permanently cover up any evidence that might indicate you did so. The goal accomplished by fudging can be accomplished without fudging. So: if you're going to fudge even though you don't need to, and that means treating the dice as at very most a suggestion you simply don't bother to override, why roll?

You see, this is what we always face without fail - a raft of assumptions that what we're doing is pre-deciding without even consulting the dice... for everything. You're assuming that the determination was used ahead of time when it might have just been a case of, once the roll is seen, "ouch, not that one".
And you're apparently oblivious to the idea that "why roll at all" being the extreme end opposite of "never fudge" when more moderate positions might be "accept the roll for most stuff, but if the GM is on a hot streak of crits, maybe it's time to ignore a natural 20 or two" or "I'm rolling for wandering monsters, but rather than using the warband of 40 orcs I got, I'll bump it down to their scouting party of 5" or even "I rolled a crit on this 4d8 attack, if I shave off a couple of dice instead of rolling all 8d8 the point will still be made"
It's not that everything is false, it's that the die roll is considered like any other input in the GM's side of the screen - subject to edits.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You see, this is what we always face without fail - a raft of assumptions that what we're doing is pre-deciding without even consulting the dice... for everything. You're assuming that the determination was used ahead of time when it might have just been a case of, once the roll is seen, "ouch, not that one".
And you're apparently oblivious to the idea that "why roll at all" being the extreme end opposite of "never fudge" when more moderate positions might be "accept the roll for most stuff, but if the GM is on a hot streak of crits, maybe it's time to ignore a natural 20 or two" or "I'm rolling for wandering monsters, but rather than using the warband of 40 orcs I got, I'll bump it down to their scouting party of 5" or even "I rolled a crit on this 4d8 attack, if I shave off a couple of dice instead of rolling all 8d8 the point will still be made"
It's not that everything is false, it's that the die roll is considered like any other input in the GM's side of the screen - subject to edits.

You're right that I still don't see it. People keep just SAYING "that's not what it is," but they don't do anything MORE than say that.

I genuinely do not understand what the difference is. You say it's "just one input." But that still means, in the end, you are deciding what the experience is. I don't see how that ISN'T "my players are an audience, and I will ensure they have the experience I intend for them." Whether that intent is perfectly planned out six months in advance or spur-of-the-moment, it's still DM intent über alles. The dice are, as I said, but a suggestion, one that is only heeded so long as it does not conflict with DM intent. Every die roll is but a suggestion.

And, as I've already said repeatedly, ignoring the dice is NOT the same as fudging! There are numerous ways to ignore the dice without any fudging. They're just done by never invoking the dice in the first place, or openly stating that you're going to ignore the dice, or doing it with a veil of secrecy that player actions or choices at least could potentially pierce. Everything short of, y'know, both secretly changing the rules AND curtailing every possible player effort that could even potentially reveal the secret.

I have listed example after example after example of possible ways to avoid fudging while achieving the aims fudging seeks. Not one person yet has even tried to offer a counter-example, where fudging IS required to achieve that end. I cannot say if that means no such examples exist, if people are just ignoring me (quite possible, my posts are logorrheic), or if this means there are no such examples. But it's pretty frustrating that I'm genuinely trying to present the argument as an argument, rather than just as a casual dismissal...and am getting casually dismissed in turn.