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

[Hussar]

I do have to point out you can think its ethically OK but think there's a loss of something in the illusion of the game if its visible. I don't consider that a good enough reason, but its not an irrational or hypocritical one.

It might not be irrational or hypocritical, but, it is pretty thin. After all, it's not like the DM is asking permission beforehand. I seriously doubt any DM in their session 0 straight up tells the players, "Hey, from time to time, when I feel it's appropriate, I'm going to fudge die rolls. I'm not going to tell you when, but, I am going to do it". I'm pretty sure what the response from the players would be and it likely wouldn't be very positive.

Because, once you've made it clear to the players that you might, at any point in time, whenever you feel it's "appropriate" over rule the dice and any time you do it, you will not tell the players, you lose a fair bit of trust at the table. After all, they never know when you will do it, so, that makes every roll suspect.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It might not be irrational or hypocritical, but, it is pretty thin. After all, it's not like the DM is asking permission beforehand. I seriously doubt any DM in their session 0 straight up tells the players, "Hey, from time to time, when I feel it's appropriate, I'm going to fudge die rolls. I'm not going to tell you when, but, I am going to do it". I'm pretty sure what the response from the players would be and it likely wouldn't be very positive.

Because, once you've made it clear to the players that you might, at any point in time, whenever you feel it's "appropriate" over rule the dice and any time you do it, you will not tell the players, you lose a fair bit of trust at the table. After all, they never know when you will do it, so, that makes every roll suspect.

We actually do have at least one person on this forum--IIRC in this thread, but I fear I no longer remember specifically whom--who has point-blank told me that yes, they do in fact tell their players that they may, on fairly rare occasions, fudge rolls if they feel that doing so is genuinely in the group's best interest. Their players have apparently been mostly fine with that.

 

[clearstream]

"Fudging" is cutesy baby talk to obfuscate what you're actually doing: Cheating.

That depends upon the game.

It's stated in the game text that DM can alter rolls if they choose, so doing so cannot be cheating in D&D, just as altering adversaries midsession cannot be cheating in Daggerheart. On the other hand, it would be cheating in any game that places GM within the rules as a player and lacks such text.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That depends upon the game.

It's stated in the game text that DM can alter rolls if they choose, so doing so cannot be cheating in D&D, just as altering adversaries midsession cannot be cheating in Daggerheart. On the other hand, it would be cheating in any game that places GM within the rules as a player and lacks such text.

I disagree with this assertion.

Just because the books declare you can do it, doesn't mean it isn't cheating. Cheating is more than simply "did you follow the rules?" If someone developed a device that allows you to read other people's minds, and secretly used it in order to win at a poker tournament, do you think that they would not be classified as "cheating" just because the rules don't explicitly say that telepathy is cheating? Further, let's say you're in a chess tournament, and you learn only after that the waiver everyone has to sign actually included a deeply-buried clause saying that the referees may move any piece on the board to any location on the board that they could have reached by a valid sequence of moves. Would that not still be considered "cheating" by most people watching that tournament, even though technically speaking the rules specifically allowed for it?

"Cheating" is not simply "breaking an explicit rule". It is to participate dishonestly in some way. That's why we use it for related things, like breaking fidelity with one's significant other, or illicitly acquiring the answers to an exam in advance.

Given the book itself includes mention of not telling the players you do this, that would seem to be an admission that it is illicit--even if it is recommended by the book text, it is a violation of some kind, something worthy of the players' ire, should they discover it.

 

[Maxperson]

I suppose. I think that answer's a bit convenient though. "Everything is in flux, except for the things I don't like to be in flux" is hardly a very satisfying axiom for game design.

See, I have zero problem with the idea that everything is in flux up to the point where it is introduced to the table (initiative is rolled). I fully support that idea. But, I was told that things being in flux was the antithesis of sandbox play. Which kinda leads to my confusion. If things are "in flux" then doing something like adding a cook to the kitchen is perfectly fine - after all, who or what is in the kitchen is "in flux" until the door is opened. Rolling random encounters are perfectly fine because everything is "in flux" until it's established at the table.

I love playing this way.

But, we've just spent the last four or five hundred pages of posts absolutely denying that things can be "in flux" in a simulationist and/or sandbox game.

So, you'll have to pardon my confusion here.

I don't think it's an answer of convenience. Degree is the difference between a tap and a punch, or a glass of water and a swimming pool, or an ultralight and a 747 jumbo jet.

My last post had a question mark at the end because I don't know how "setting element" was used in your discussion, so I was was guessing. My guess was along the following lines.

Suppose I had a homebrew setting and as part of its history elves disappeared 10,000 years ago and since that time that has not been a single sighting reported. Elves are gone from my setting, and there is a critical reason for them to be gone. Changing that is going to be a crapton harder than deciding to hit the party with 4 orcs instead of 6.

 

[Maxperson]

If you think it's cool and fine and perfectly above-board to change the roll, then do in the open, in full view of everyone at the table. If you actually believe that there's nothing wrong with it, then you wouldn't hide it.

That is wrong. I've already given one valid reason for not revealing it, and there are others.

If you fudge behind a screen, then you are admitting that it's not okay, no matter how many times you declare that it's perfectly fine when you're not making eye contact with the other people in the game.

Nope. This is also wrong. There is no such admission since I can in fact be using one of the multiple valid reasons for not revealing fudging.

YOU don't like it. That's fine. To you it's an abuse of DM authority. That doesn't make it cheating. The DM quite literally cannot possibly cheat. Every last rule is subject to his discretion, including any rule against fudging. There isn't one, though. 5e and 5.5e actually validate it as a method to use.

 

[Maxperson]

How do your players feel?? Would they rather you be impartial and TPK them or fudge things so they live?

I've never fudged it so that they live.

Every 1 to 3 years there will be a fight where they aren't rolling above single digits, while at the same time I'm hitting and critting like crays, AND they didn't make any bad decisions. That last is important, because if they made a dumb move and got themselves into that fight, there will also be no fudging.

Now for the fudging. I don't make it so that they live. Ever. All I do is give them a fighting chance by delaying a bit until the luck changes. They could still TPK, but at that point it won't be due to the extreme bad luck dice gods.

Heck. They've experienced at least one TPK over the years.

 

[clearstream]

Just because the books declare you can do it, doesn't mean it isn't cheating. Cheating is more than simply "did you follow the rules?" If someone developed a device that allows you to read other people's minds, and secretly used it in order to win at a poker tournament, do you think that they would not be classified as "cheating" just because the rules don't explicitly say that telepathy is cheating?

This example does not match what I described. If a poker tournament's rules expressly state that telepathy is allowed, it can hardly be cheating to use a device to read other people's minds to win that tournament. Even though one might criticise the wisdom of the tournament organizers in formulating that rule.

Further, let's say you're in a chess tournament, and you learn only after that the waiver everyone has to sign actually included a deeply-buried clause saying that the referees may move any piece on the board to any location on the board that they could have reached by a valid sequence of moves. Would that not still be considered "cheating" by most people watching that tournament, even though technically speaking the rules specifically allowed for it?

Technically speaking, it would not be cheating. One could criticise my wisdom in joining a tournament without knowing all the rules.

"Cheating" is not simply "breaking an explicit rule". It is to participate dishonestly in some way. That's why we use it for related things, like breaking fidelity with one's significant other, or illicitly acquiring the answers to an exam in advance.

While cheating might not be simply breaking an explicit rule, it certainly isn't following them!

The term for using a rule to gain illicit benefits by following it is "exploit"... but fudging, at least in the latest D&D text, isn't for the benefit of the DM. It's done only in service to players.

Given the book itself includes mention of not telling the players you do this, that would seem to be an admission that it is illicit--even if it is recommended by the book text, it is a violation of some kind, something worthy of the players' ire, should they discover it.

I don't take that meaning from the text. The text reads

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.​

On surface it doesn't offer a motive beyond "save a character's life". However it is a subsection "DM Die Rolling" in a section "Respect for the Players". The section is framed thusly

Your players need to know from the start that you’ll run a game that is fun, fair, and tailored for them; that you’ll allow each of them to contribute to the story; and that you’ll pay attention to them when they take their turns. Your players also count on you to make sure an adventure’s threats don’t target them personally. Never make players feel uncomfortable or threatened.​

​

The placement and framing strongly imply that fudging will be done out of respect for the players in order to let them contribute to the story, have fun, and enjoy a tailored experience in which they never feel uncomfortable or threatened. If you think those motives are better satisfied another way, then the rules offer an alternative

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

​

Although to my reading, the latest DMG leans more toward than against DM partiality toward the players. They ought to be fans of the characters, collectively. I take the text as an expression of that along traditional lines; without agreeing that it is the best means to that ends. I don't impute unethical motives where there is evidence to the contrary... rather I take the design to be concerned for the player experience (with reasoning @Enrahim has articulated.)

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree with this assertion.

Just because the books declare you can do it, doesn't mean it isn't cheating. Cheating is more than simply "did you follow the rules?" If someone developed a device that allows you to read other people's minds, and secretly used it in order to win at a poker tournament, do you think that they would not be classified as "cheating" just because the rules don't explicitly say that telepathy is cheating? Further, let's say you're in a chess tournament, and you learn only after that the waiver everyone has to sign actually included a deeply-buried clause saying that the referees may move any piece on the board to any location on the board that they could have reached by a valid sequence of moves. Would that not still be considered "cheating" by most people watching that tournament, even though technically speaking the rules specifically allowed for it?

"Cheating" is not simply "breaking an explicit rule". It is to participate dishonestly in some way. That's why we use it for related things, like breaking fidelity with one's significant other, or illicitly acquiring the answers to an exam in advance.

Given the book itself includes mention of not telling the players you do this, that would seem to be an admission that it is illicit--even if it is recommended by the book text, it is a violation of some kind, something worthy of the players' ire, should they discover it.

Yes, in fact if the books declare you can do it, it does mean that it isn't cheating. The players have access to the books. They have agreed to play a game where fudging is in the rules, so doing it is not dishonest in the slightest. By not speaking up and saying that fudging is absolutely unacceptable, they have agreed to let it happen secretly.

The book also doesn't use language that implies violation. It recommends not fudging behind the screens that often because the players might think the DM is playing favorite or that they can't die, not because they are going to feel lied to.

 

[MichaelSomething]

That depends upon the game.

It's stated in the game text that DM can alter rolls if they choose, so doing so cannot be cheating in D&D, just as altering adversaries midsession cannot be cheating in Daggerheart. On the other hand, it would be cheating in any game that places GM within the rules as a player and lacks such text.

D&D isn't a game to everyone. Some people treat it as fictional creation experience.