Only your DM can decide if they want to fudge. It is NEVER cheating.
Only your DM will know if it's good or not.
Only your DM will know if it's good or not.
Last edited:
-
Monstrous Menagerie II: Hordes & Heroes has a launch date! Mark your calendars for November 12th, 2024. 300+ more monsters for your D&D 2024, or Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition games, plus new horde rules and rules for heroic monsters who level up alongside you--whether they be allies, companions, or foes! Click here to follow on Kickstarter!
Keeping a Group Together
- Thread starter SirAntoine
- Start date
Continually re-asserting this doesn't make it so! Not everyone shares your view about the role of the GM in refereeing a FRPG.
Grogg of the North
Adventurer
Page 18 of the DMG says otherwise. Pathfinder basically reiterates the same points as the DMG.
Fudging is a tool at the DM's disposal. Use it as you feel necessary.
I can see the players being discouraged, especially if they are aware of it. On occasion, I have let players make a save to avoid getting killed by a blow, i even instituted something similar to 'action points/heroic points' that allows them to do this. As for beefing up monsters mid fight, I would rather have some buddies join vs the heroes, if it makes sense to do so.
What happened to "rulings not rules"? Or is that against the rules now, at least where fudging is concerned?
If I'm playing a style of game in which fudging is counter-productive, why would I change my mind because Paizo or WotC gives me some advice that is at odds with my preferred approach to play?
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
What an odd thread. Did the OP remind anyone else of 'Stay together for the children! If you can't stand each other, argue where they can't hear!'?
Mind, I probably wouldn't leave a group because of one instance where the DM was caught fudging. In fact I played through a rather long and boring session where the DM was continually and obviously fudging. But if he hadn't split from the group for other reasons, I definitely would have had a talk with him about it.
Mind, I probably wouldn't leave a group because of one instance where the DM was caught fudging. In fact I played through a rather long and boring session where the DM was continually and obviously fudging. But if he hadn't split from the group for other reasons, I definitely would have had a talk with him about it.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Can you give a quote for those? Or specify which DMG you speak of, since the 5e DMG doesn't appear to say that on Page 18 (which appears to be about villages and kingdoms and such?)
Does that extend to lying about it when directly questioned? Because that "hide it from your players, because it WILL upset them" thing has been in there from the very beginning.
Last edited:
Grogg of the North
Adventurer
The 3.5 DMG. My apologies on not being specific. The gist of the passage is that as DM, you can't cheat. What you say goes. But you should be careful in what you do because you're playing a game and the point of the game is to have fun. It also states that if your players feel you won't let them die they'll get crazy in what they're doing. Pathfinder's core rulebook, IIRC, gives similar advice. The BESM handbook, while I don't recall it calling out fudging exactly emphasizes having fun above the rolls and rules.
As for being asked about it directly, the answer I would give is "That's not for you to know". If you're really worried about being "caught", get multiple d20s and put on a little show about how your dice have betrayed you and can't roll above a 5. Putting the die in "Time out" helps. Again, as I've pointed out I've been in sessions where we suspected that the GM was fudging. He was fudging in order to keep the game going and so that everyone at the table, himself included, was still having fun*. No one begrudged him for it. In fact we were all happy he took steps to keep the game going.
I think we've reached a point in this discussion where the disagreement on GMs fudging a die roll is going to come down to play styles more than anything. Some players are going to want a grim and gritty, play it where it lays game. Where a streak of bad luck will result in a TPK and that's that. Other players want to play in a more narrative based game where heroes succeed in spite of the odds. Neither play style is wrong. Neither is right.
Have I fudged die rolls? Yes. Would I do it again? Yes, if it helps the game and enjoyment of everyone. Did my group know? I don't know. No one ever said anything to me and I've been playing with the same group, more or less, for years. Have I been in groups where the DM has fudged? Yes, and I don't mind. As long as it keeps the narrative going and everyone has fun.
I'm not sure if we, as a community, are going to reach any sort of consensus on this topic. We're on page 5 and the discussion seems to be just going in circles. I've certainly contributed to that and I feel I have done this discussion, and the community, a disservice. If fudging die rolls is a deal breaker for any player, then I think the best thing to do, when joining a new group or having a new DM at the table, is to ask what they feel about it. If the DM is fine with fudging die rolls but the group wants all the rolls in the open then the DM should go with what they want. D&D is an incredibly social game. The DM is, responsible for ensuring everyone at the table is having fun. If one player wants everything in the open but the rest of the group wants DM rolls hidden, then that player should ask themselves if that is a deal breaker for that game.
*The "at CR encounter" was grossly outside of the party's abilities to handle and on its way to a TPK. The DM quickly realized this and did his best to fix the situation while keeping the game going.
As for being asked about it directly, the answer I would give is "That's not for you to know". If you're really worried about being "caught", get multiple d20s and put on a little show about how your dice have betrayed you and can't roll above a 5. Putting the die in "Time out" helps. Again, as I've pointed out I've been in sessions where we suspected that the GM was fudging. He was fudging in order to keep the game going and so that everyone at the table, himself included, was still having fun*. No one begrudged him for it. In fact we were all happy he took steps to keep the game going.
I think we've reached a point in this discussion where the disagreement on GMs fudging a die roll is going to come down to play styles more than anything. Some players are going to want a grim and gritty, play it where it lays game. Where a streak of bad luck will result in a TPK and that's that. Other players want to play in a more narrative based game where heroes succeed in spite of the odds. Neither play style is wrong. Neither is right.
Have I fudged die rolls? Yes. Would I do it again? Yes, if it helps the game and enjoyment of everyone. Did my group know? I don't know. No one ever said anything to me and I've been playing with the same group, more or less, for years. Have I been in groups where the DM has fudged? Yes, and I don't mind. As long as it keeps the narrative going and everyone has fun.
I'm not sure if we, as a community, are going to reach any sort of consensus on this topic. We're on page 5 and the discussion seems to be just going in circles. I've certainly contributed to that and I feel I have done this discussion, and the community, a disservice. If fudging die rolls is a deal breaker for any player, then I think the best thing to do, when joining a new group or having a new DM at the table, is to ask what they feel about it. If the DM is fine with fudging die rolls but the group wants all the rolls in the open then the DM should go with what they want. D&D is an incredibly social game. The DM is, responsible for ensuring everyone at the table is having fun. If one player wants everything in the open but the rest of the group wants DM rolls hidden, then that player should ask themselves if that is a deal breaker for that game.
*The "at CR encounter" was grossly outside of the party's abilities to handle and on its way to a TPK. The DM quickly realized this and did his best to fix the situation while keeping the game going.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I seem to recall similar sentiments in the 1e DMG, though I can't quote page ref's as my DMG isn't with me at the moment.
Please, do me a favour and repeat this statement every time one of the "PC's should never die" crowd gets started (an argument I've been through a few times in here).
Lan-"no comment"-efan
Greenfield
Adventurer
I've had times when I came up with a monster, a rule, an item or some trick that the players couldn't figure out, and I've had players flat out demand an explanation, at the table, with the implication that I must be cheating somehow.
My answer is always the same: "There are things that I know, as DM, that your character doesn't. I assure you that this is legal, and there's a good reason for it working the way it is. If I explained it would ruin things, so you'll just have to trust me. I may explain later, I might not."
As a DM I don't have any obligation to explain or justify my adventure, and in fact owe it to the players *not* to ruin things by giving the story away.
As for PC death: If you can't lose, winning doesn't mean anything.
I've said that as a player, I've said it as a DM, and I mean it every time.
One of my gripes with the "railroad" game is that the outcome is predetermined, and that may require certain characters to survive at least until key, high dram scenes. Others may be fated to die in equally high drama. (This latter is far less common, but really stinks.) Winning and/or losing are outside of the players' grasp and control. No thrill for pulling off an unlikely victory.
My answer is always the same: "There are things that I know, as DM, that your character doesn't. I assure you that this is legal, and there's a good reason for it working the way it is. If I explained it would ruin things, so you'll just have to trust me. I may explain later, I might not."
As a DM I don't have any obligation to explain or justify my adventure, and in fact owe it to the players *not* to ruin things by giving the story away.
As for PC death: If you can't lose, winning doesn't mean anything.
I've said that as a player, I've said it as a DM, and I mean it every time.
One of my gripes with the "railroad" game is that the outcome is predetermined, and that may require certain characters to survive at least until key, high dram scenes. Others may be fated to die in equally high drama. (This latter is far less common, but really stinks.) Winning and/or losing are outside of the players' grasp and control. No thrill for pulling off an unlikely victory.
Similar Threads
