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

[MichaelSomething]

The real response by me now.

Fudging gives the situation a different feel than changing things out in the open does. I'm not talking about deception, per se. Rather, that even if all the players are on board with being saved if the dice gods come out and smite them hard, while supporting me immensely and they didn't do anything wrong, it would still feel like the DM saved them which alters the feel. They want to and agree that saving is warranted, but it still feels weird.

This is similar to real life where I think we've all been in situations where we couldn't and wouldn't do something differently, but still feel bad about how things turned out.

Fudging is the above situation, but it also avoids the weird feelings of an impartial DM not being impartial, even though the partiality is warranted in that situation. The saving should be done, as should sparing the awkwardness.

If you're not willing to TPK your party to maintain impartialness, then you really weren't impartial in the first place.

That's not a bad thing; but you gotta be honest with yourself and with your players.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

"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."

It's in the "Respect For The Players" section.

I will say I'm still somewhat annoyed to find out my GM has admitted to fudging rolls on rare occasions to keep us from dying. Although admittedly, the "healing yoyo" is also kind of obnoxious. So... I dunno.

 

[Rystefn]

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

Honestly, I'm vastly more okay with the players doing it than the GM. D&D, like nearly all ttRPGs, is a cooperative game, not a competitive one. Coming from a place of trying to "win" is missing the point a bit, but you literally aren't hurting anyone else at the table by it. You aren't snatching victory from someone who earned it and making them lose. You're only snatching the challenge away from yourself. It's playing on easy mode. If you want to play on easy mode, no skin off my teeth. If you look at a die roll of 14 you know missed and call it a 16 to make it hit, I don't see that as fundamentally different from going on the internet before the game to look up how to build a character with that +2 already on the sheet. It's just different flavors of playing on easy.

When the GM does it, now you're snatching the challenge away from other people. To extend the video game analogy, if player dice cheating is like using mods to make the game easier, GM dice cheating is like the game turning down the difficulty by itself when you get close to failing. Pretty much everyone would be pretty upset if they found out the game they're playing was coded that way.

I haven't used a screen in over twenty years, and in that time, I've only become more convinced that this is the best way to play. All the dice rolls happen in the open for everyone to see. I've said it many times, and I stand by it: If you aren't willing to look the other players in the eyes while reaching across the table to physically turn the die over to the number you want it to be, then you clearly don't actually feel strongly enough about it to warrant fudging that roll.

 

[Faolyn]

I agree, and see that work as also falling on the game designers. For example, games often now incorporate death moves that relieve GM from worrying about critical hits, or are structured to mitigate or even obviate overtuning in prep.

I do notice Daggerheart has this

When planning your session (or even midsession), you can adjust an existing adversary’s stat block to fit the needs of your battle.​

​

(Emphasis mine.) Is re-tuning adversaries midsession fudging?

I'd say technically yes, but otherwise you may have a very bland or far too difficult fight, and neither of those are really good for the game.

Even in a game that relies on strict mathematical formulas for determining adversary strength, there's no way to ever be truly accurate since it can't take the party's abilities or the GM's cleverness/ruthlessness into consideration. In 5.14, the CR calculations took damage, AC, and the ability to inflict conditions into account, and that's it, in a way that meant that a pixie that could spam wish would still be CR 1/4. (Actually, I tell a lie: I did the math and if a pixie used wish to continually cast Abi-Dalzim's horrid wilting, since that's one of the more damaging 8th-level spells, the CR would increase to 3, maybe 4.)

And then you have Daggerheart, which only barely has a way to determine monster level--a tier 4 minion still has 1 hp and 1 stress. They can usually inflict more damage and have stronger abilities and require higher resistance rolls, but still.

So yeah, technically fudging, but for the sake of the game being better, this is definitely a case where I'd say why not? You're not actively nerfing or babying the PCs, which is the important thing, IMO.

 

[Enrahim]

I'd say technically yes, but otherwise you may have a very bland or far too difficult fight, and neither of those are really good for the game.

Even in a game that relies on strict mathematical formulas for determining adversary strength, there's no way to ever be truly accurate since it can't take the party's abilities or the GM's cleverness/ruthlessness into consideration. In 5.14, the CR calculations took damage, AC, and the ability to inflict conditions into account, and that's it, in a way that meant that a pixie that could spam wish would still be CR 1/4. (Actually, I tell a lie: I did the math and if a pixie used wish to continually cast Abi-Dalzim's horrid wilting, since that's one of the more damaging 8th-level spells, the CR would increase to 3, maybe 4.)

And then you have Daggerheart, which only barely has a way to determine monster level--a tier 4 minion still has 1 hp and 1 stress. They can usually inflict more damage and have stronger abilities and require higher resistance rolls, but still.

So yeah, technically fudging, but for the sake of the game being better, this is definitely a case where I'd say why not? You're not actively nerfing or babying the PCs, which is the important thing, IMO.

I have a radical suggestion for that situation: Speak up! Point out that you messed up royal, you now realise that this encounter stinks, and ask if it is ok for the players that you retroactively fix up some stuff so you can actually get to have some fun.

My guess is that most players would approciate that honesty, and be more than happy to have you reset the entire thing once you realised you were way off the mark. Or maybe just skip to some desired outcome.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The bolded words led me to speculate about how it would carry over to other games those GMs decided to play? Which led to thinking about more broadly about whether GM ought to feel any broad obligation to keep play healthy for players that would lead to intervening in live processes?

I suspect, at least for a time, the same GMs did the same things in other games. Once you've got in the habit, I can see it being a hard one to break even if you've decided its a bad idea. This can't be but speculation, of course.

Say Addy the player were going to lose a finger unless I pressed the emergency stop button on the machine I had thought was safe for Addy to use? Suppose Addy were going to feel it unfair and suffer some dismay unless I compensated for down an overtuned foe in live play? Should I do so, or should Addy just toughen up?

I think this is kind of an extreme comparison, and don't really know how to answer it.

(Keep in mind, these days if its a severe mistake I'll just tell people "I think I goofed this up and am going to fix it." I don't find maintaining the illusion a good enough reason to be coy there).

Reflecting on sorts of questions above it seems right to observe that GM can make mistakes, in prep as much as anywhere else, and GM is allowed to care about players' enjoyment of the game. (One might even feel that GM ought to care about players' enjoyment.)

That makes me wonder if the question is not whether GM ought to intervene in live play, but only how? I think there may also be a difference between openess about deciding to intervene, and openess about enacting the intervention.

Well, you also have to account for the possibility that any intervention at all is going to harm the players enjoyment either directly or in potential. I've noted before I'd rather be smacked sticking within the rules than protected ignoring them, and I think there's at least one other poster in this thread who feels the same.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Either at ENworlds, or at all other RPG forums, I have never seen anyone defending a player fudging die rolls as something positive.

Well, the truth is there's a perception that players are much worse at taking the Big Picture in a game than GMs and as such, fudging on their part is liable to be, at worst selfish, and at best, exhibiting tunnel vision that doesn't do the game as a whole any favors.

I think the automatic assumption this is the case is, itself, exhibiting blind spots, but its not entirely unfounded, either.

As such, the two cases aren't entirely parallel in most games. This doesn't mean I think GMs automatically get a pass here.

 

[Maggan]

My guess is that most players would approciate that honesty

Sure, my players would do that, certainly.

They also accept that I sometimes design encounters or challenges that won't be a good fit for the current situation, and that I adjust (fudge) them on the fly to keep things flowing.

I believe that my group would rather I adjust on the fly, making the most of the precious gaming time we have, than bringing play to a halt, resetting and starting again.

EDIT: Might be because our philosophy is that the encounter/adventure as written is only a guideline, not a text that must be followed in slavish detail. Playing the same adventure again might have different outcomes, and we as a group are ok with that.

 

[Enrahim]

Sure, my players would do that, certainly.

They also accept that I sometimes design encounters or challenges that won't be a good fit for the current situation, and that I adjust (fudge) them on the fly to keep things flowing.

I believe that my group would rather I adjust on the fly, making the most of the precious gaming time we have, than bringing play to a halt, resetting and starting again.

EDIT: Might be because our philosophy is that the encounter/adventure as written is only a guideline, not a text that must be followed in slavish detail. Playing the same adventure again might have different outcomes, and we as a group are ok with that.

The real value of stoping the world when you are making adjustments is that if you make a habit out of that, the players will recognise that when you are not stopping the world, things are actually going the way the dice tells. That can do wonders in terms of tension and the feeling of achievement when overcoming a challenge they can feel pretty certain was not tampered with

It also makes the threshold for making changes slightly higher.

And maybe most importantly it gives the players a chance to say - no, we are fine. We recognised we got ourself into a mess, and we are ready to face the consequences. Bring it on!

 

[Maggan]

The real value of stoping the world when you are making adjustments is that if you make a habit out of that, the players will recognise that when you are not stopping the world, things are actually going the way the dice tells.

Sure. But there is no guarantee that stopping the encounter and then restarting it, hoping it will play better, actually results in it playing better. And then I'd might have to stop it again.

Changing on the fly takes us through the encounter and I can then analyze it to learn how to tweak it better, in my own time, not stressing over game time being wasted.

There are advantages to both methods, and disadvantages to both methods. I lean towards not stoppning play, and that will inform my actions.