D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Lanefan]

I wouldn't pull too much stock in surveys on this site, the numbers are too small.

Perhaps, but they're still a lot bigger (and the responses are, probably, a lot more varied) than what any of us could get just asking around among our own gaming community.

 

[Lanefan]

You're welcome to have that opinion. But you claiming something is irrefutable doesn't prevent me from refuting it (or at least questioning it), because I don't recognize you as an authority on the behavior of "many, many GMs". Sorry. You make a claim that strongly, expect a request for proof.

I stand to be corrected, but isn't it right there in the 5e DMG somewhere, that DMs can fudge if they need to?

If yes, I'd (rather sadly) say that's proof enough.

 

[Gimby]

Skimming the first few pages, adjustments are made in favor of the characters. Ending a combat when the outcome is certain, dropping crits to regular hits and so on.

Like I said, in my experience some DMs will hold back in order to not kill off characters. I think that likely depends on group preferences.

Edit - in other words I still don't see much evidence of widespread killer DMs out to punish players as some seem to imply.

Right, and I admit to the same in that thread. It's still fudging though, even if done in favour of the characters

 

[clearstream]

I stand to be corrected, but isn't it right there in the 5e DMG somewhere, that DMs can fudge if they need to?

In 5e 2014 DMG235

If you roll dice where the players can see, they know you're playing impartially and not fudging rolls. Rolling behind a screen keeps the players guessing about the strength of their opposition. When a monster hits all the time, is it of a much higher level than the characters, or are you rolling high numbers?​

​

Rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit, or even a miss. Don't distort die rolls too often, though, and don't let on that you're doing it. Otherwise, your players might think they don't face any real risks-or worse, that you're playing favorites.​

​

In 5e 2024 that changes to

Should you hide your die rolls behind a DM screen, or should you roll your dice in the open for all the players to see? Choose either approach, and be consistent. Each approach has benefits:​

​

Hidden Die Rolls. Hiding your die rolls keeps them mysterious and allows you to alter results if you want to. For example, you could ignore a Critical Hit to save a character’s life. Don’t alter die rolls too often, though, and never let the players know when you fudge a die roll.​

​

Visible Die Rolls. Rolling dice in the open demonstrates impartiality—you’re not fudging rolls to the characters’ benefit or detriment.​

​

Even if you usually roll behind a screen, it can be fun to make an especially dramatic roll where everyone can see it.​

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Likewise it is illusion, and not illusionism, that is the wall at the edge of every sandbox.

"Every" is a bit of a strong claim there.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I stand to be corrected, but isn't it right there in the 5e DMG somewhere, that DMs can fudge if they need to?

If yes, I'd (rather sadly) say that's proof enough.

I had specifically chosen to not mention that section because I have significant issues with it. But yes, it does exist, and I have no better opinion of it than you do, I suspect.

 

[bloodtide]

That is where we disagree. I do think the DM's vision for the campaign setting is absolute. Player character have freedom but that freedom is limited by the campaign world. Again all of this is upfront and agreed to in advance. The player controls the character he has made and has his character do things that his character could do.

I agree!

The latter is deceiving the players themselves.

This is the best way.

The whole "oh, um, your character thinks the illusion is real...but you Best Buddy Player know it is false" is not my cup of tea.

Well, there's no real way to know. I mean, going back to the old WotC surveys, the average half life of a campaign was something like 12 months. That's why 3e was designed the way it was - so that you could get the full game experience (1-20) in something like 12-18 months.

There's no real evidence I've ever seen that suggests that these multi-year campaigns were common. And, considering how rare it is for anyone to live in the same city for that long, I'd say it's a very rare occurance. Most people move away from home after high school - go off to uni or whatever - and probably move two or three times, at least, after that. Never minding how many people drop out of the hobby as well. With the number of people in the hobby remaining more or less static from 1985 to about 2015, there's a pretty strong suggestion that multi-year campaigns were nowhere near common. No one stayed in the hobby that long.

Or, at least, not enough people stayed in the hobby that long.

As a multi year gamer, I'd say they are Uncommon. I do run six of them....3 once a week, 3 once a month.

And for every person that bounces around and lives in all sorts of places....there are two that just mostly stay put.

And sure "most" people play an RPG for maybe a year or two then drop them forever to do other "cool" stuff. But not everyone.

 

[clearstream]

Some text in Daggerheart illustrates a more sophisticated approach

When you want an adversary’s action to have a chance of failure, you can offer the PCs the opportunity to make a reaction roll or otherwise respond to the situation. This highlights the agency of the PCs and keeps the story focused on them. For example, when a Kraken attacks the party’s boat to throw them into the sea, you might have the PCs all make a Strength or Agility Reaction Roll to see if they’re able to keep themselves from falling overboard. For dramatic or difficult tasks that the PCs can’t influence, you might want to roll to see if the adversary succeeds.​

​

Granting (or withholding) rolls to manage the odds is somewhat similar to altering results: GM intentionally bends outcomes toward their table preferences. It feels better because it's in the open and those rolls can still fail.

GM's make so many decisions that impact play -- from equipping foes with shields to choosing who they attack to deciding the difficulty of all kinds of actions -- that it could be felt that fudging is no big deal. Why should it matter that a critical is annulled when the monster could have been given lower damage up front? Describing the option simply acknowledges the difficulty of accurate balance... especially for new GMs.

That 5e text is not to my taste, but I wonder if I am really the target for it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

A simple perusal on your part of what he mentions in his post would demonstrate its truthfulness, I'm certain.

Why should I? He made the claim. Why is it my responsibility to look into the evidence he didn't provide?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I stand to be corrected, but isn't it right there in the 5e DMG somewhere, that DMs can fudge if they need to?

If yes, I'd (rather sadly) say that's proof enough.

The advice is out there, and may even be prevalent, but that isn't irrefutable proof that many, many GMs do it. My issue here is the intensity and lack of wiggle-room with which @EzekielRaiden made their claim.