D&D General Should the DM roll in the open?

[Charlaquin]

That assumption is unproven, and at the least, unwise. The player really wanting to look the part of the hero while running a gauntlet with excessively hard skill checks, all to impress the significant other they adore in character isn't fudging the acrobatics check just for self-interest. They are doing it for the overall health of the game - to be able to play their character with their own agency. I mean, this is especially true if they know the "love connection" will be negated if they failed. This is the exact same thing as if the DM instantly lowered the standard to run the gauntlet, or worse yet, had the gauntlet roll opposing rolls, and fudged those rolls.
Either the DM and the player are fudging rolls for the overall health of the game they want to see run, or they are both doing it out of their own self-interest.
Again, people keep trying to piecemeal this or partition it with semantics. There are none. You are either fudging, and you like it that way. Or you don't like it that way so you keep the rolls out in the open.

To be blunt back, if a string of rolls creates a circumstance where an entire group, who has access to incredible feats, powers, and an abundance of game mechanics that prevent them from dying are killed off, you didn't do your work as a DM. (You as in a DM, not you personally.) Could one PC die. Sure. If that is unpalatable, then once again, you didn't discuss it during session zero like you were supposed to as a DM. So as DM, you didn't do your work you were supposed to.

You know, it’s funny cause while I am staunchly opposed to DM fudging and never do it myself, I mostly don’t really care if the players fudge when I’m DMing. Like, in theory players roll in the open, but I’m not actually bothering to look at the players’ dice to confirm that the numbers they’re reporting are shown on the die, because I don’t really care. If a player’s enjoyment of the game is so tied to their character’s success (or failure) that they’re willing to mis-report the results of their rolls to insure a specific desired outcome… I’m just going to let them have it.

I do think your heuristic of “if you wouldn’t be ok with the players fudging their rolls, maybe you shouldn’t fudge yours” is a useful one. But I think the reality is a bit more complex than “you’re either ok with fudging or you aren’t.” And that comes down to different roles and responsibilities between players and DMs. I suspect that folks who are ok with DM fudging but would not be with player fudging probably feel that way for the same underlying reason that I am opposed to DM fudging but not to player fudging. Specifically, that the DM bears a greater responsibility for the group’s fun than any individual player does. Pro-fudgers generally argue that fudging is a tool they can use to enhance everyone’s enjoyment of the game, whereas I as an anti-fudger am skeptical of that argument because I don’t think the DM should have unilateral authority to decide what is best for everyone’s enjoyment of the game. Both of those positions come from a place of recognizing that the DM has a great deal of power over the other players’ enjoyment of the game, and their decisions can make or break the experience for everyone else.

In contrast, while a problem player can ruin the game for everyone else, and a gracious player can enhance their fellow players’ experiences, we tend not to place the same responsibility for that experience onto players. A player who really makes your play experience better is something we may appreciate, but it’s not the typical expectation, and we tend to forgive a certain amount of disruptive behavior from players, until it crosses a certain line. And I think that’s also why player fudging feels different than DM fudging. To me, player fudging is less of a big deal than DM fudging, because the player doing it probably isn’t hurting anyone else by doing so, unless they do it so often and so blatantly as to strain other players’ sense of the game’s integrity. And likewise, I think to most pro-fudgers, player fudging would feel more problematic because they would perceive the fudging player as doing so only for their own benefit, rather than for the benefit of the group. We both recognize that the impact of a player fudging has a smaller scope than the impact of a DM fudging does. We just disagree about whether the impact of fudging is positive or negative.

 

[Scott Christian]

Because I didn't think it was relevant. My point was it was using "lie" in a way I thought was misapplied and overly broad.



I've made it abundantly clear I do not consider semantic distinctions trivial. "Lie" has a lot of semantic loading, and acting like it doesn't really doesn't seem to serve discussion well. As I said, no one would in any normal context describe a magic trick as a "lie".

You're right, most wouldn't describe a magic trick as lying - until you are at a poker table and the person performing the magic is taking other people's money. Then suddenly, that magician is a lying, cheating, (fill in the expletive).

The same is true for D&D. If the players expect the DM to be honest, and he is not - then he is lying. If they expect him to fudge rolls to increase dramatic tension - then he is being deceptive for game purposes.

One magician can be a liar and another a great entertainer. Just like one DM can be a liar and another a great storyteller.

 

[Hriston]

Yes, degrees of failure is what I was getting at.

For example on a DC 15 WIS(Survival) check, one might use the following:

11-14: the party has travelled 1 hour (or 1 hex) in the wrong direction
6-10: the party has travelled 4 hours (or 2 hexes) in the wrong direction
1-5: the party has travelled 8+ hours (or...) in the wrong direction

Or simply 1 hour for each point below 15

Or something else that makes sense for the specific campaign / travel sequence.

Thanks, I'll see if I can make something like this work for me. The complicating factor is I resolve overland travel in roughly half-day turns which is also the distance I make one hex, so the navigation check always covers that half day of travel into an adjacent hex, failure meaning it's not the hex you wanted. I keep the result hidden to avoid failure always prompting an immediate course correction or backtrack but allowing me to maintain the same rate of resolution. Hmm.

 

[Scott Christian]

You know, it’s funny cause while I am staunchly opposed to DM fudging and never do it myself, I mostly don’t really care if the players fudge when I’m DMing. Like, in theory players roll in the open, but I’m not actually bothering to look at the players’ dice to confirm that the numbers they’re reporting are shown on the die, because I don’t really care. If a player’s enjoyment of the game is so tied to their character’s success (or failure) that they’re willing to mis-report the results of their rolls to insure a specific desired outcome… I’m just going to let them have it.

I do think your heuristic of “if you wouldn’t be ok with the players fudging their rolls, maybe you shouldn’t fudge yours” is a useful one. But I think the reality is a bit more complex than “you’re either ok with fudging or you aren’t.” And that comes down to different roles and responsibilities between players and DMs. I suspect that folks who are ok with DM fudging but would not be with player fudging probably feel that way for the same underlying reason that I am opposed to DM fudging but not to player fudging. Specifically, that the DM bears a greater responsibility for the group’s fun than any individual player does. Pro-fudgers generally argue that fudging is a tool they can use to enhance everyone’s enjoyment of the game, whereas I as an anti-fudger am skeptical of that argument because I don’t think the DM should have unilateral authority to decide what is best for everyone’s enjoyment of the game. Both of those positions come from a place of recognizing that the DM has a great deal of power over the other players’ enjoyment of the game, and their decisions can make or break the experience for everyone else.

In contrast, while a problem player can ruin the game for everyone else, and a gracious player can enhance their fellow players’ experiences, we tend not to place the same responsibility for that experience onto players. A player who really makes your play experience better is something we may appreciate, but it’s not the typical expectation, and we tend to forgive a certain amount of disruptive behavior from players, until it crosses a certain line. And I think that’s also why player fudging feels different than DM fudging. To me, player fudging is less of a big deal than DM fudging, because the player doing it probably isn’t hurting anyone else by doing so, unless they do it so often and so blatantly as to strain other players’ sense of the game’s integrity. And likewise, I think to most pro-fudgers, player fudging would feel more problematic because they would perceive the fudging player as doing so only for their own benefit, rather than for the benefit of the group. We both recognize that the impact of a player fudging has a smaller scope than the impact of a DM fudging does. We just disagree about whether the impact of fudging is positive or negative.

I like the subtlety here. Maybe my view is too narrow. I did try to tie it to player/DM motives, as in they are fudging to improve the enjoyment of the game. Similar to how you view a player who fudges.
I do understand your point about why people have a problem with players fudging, but not the DM. I just happen to think those problems shouldn't exist. This is doubly-true for groups that have players that care about everyone's overall enjoyment of the game.

 

[Scott Christian]

4. About 4 of those deaths were DEAD DEAD. The rest were free raises due to faction pity, lose a magic item, group pay, or free resurrection between sessions. It depended on the season. And with the free respawn of the most recent changes, I have no pity for any one playing for over 6 months regularly.

Four out of 500+. I know you said you can't calculate the damage/intake/output/etc. But it sounds like you can very much. The fact that you have only had 1 TPK in over 500 sessions means you absolutely do the calculations quite well. Probably from all the experience.
It kind of reinforces my claim that fudging rolls is not necessary in D&D because of swingy dice.

In the end, it is a to-each-his-own type of game. People find the right table, and fortunately there are places that have Adventurers League where they can search for the right table. Or try new types of tables.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Thanks, I'll see if I can make something like this work for me. The complicating factor is I resolve overland travel in roughly half-day turns which is also the distance I make one hex, so the navigation check always covers that half day of travel into an adjacent hex, failure meaning it's not the hex you wanted. I keep the result hidden to avoid failure always prompting an immediate course correction or backtrack but allowing me to maintain the same rate of resolution. Hmm.

Ok - perhaps something that works like this:

DC 15 WIS(Survival) check
On a success, the party knows which hex to travel into next
On a failure, the trail has been lost/confused/obscured and so the party must now guess (or use some other means to determine) which hex to travel into next

They may guess right or not. They'll only know for sure upon the next successful WIS(Survival) check at the end of the next half-day.

No hidden roll necessary.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You're right, most wouldn't describe a magic trick as lying - until you are at a poker table and the person performing the magic is taking other people's money. Then suddenly, that magician is a lying, cheating, (fill in the expletive).

The same is true for D&D. If the players expect the DM to be honest, and he is not - then he is lying. If they expect him to fudge rolls to increase dramatic tension - then he is being deceptive for game purposes.

One magician can be a liar and another a great entertainer. Just like one DM can be a liar and another a great storyteller.

Sure. That's not what your first post said, however; it ascribed the GM as lying in both cases, which I think misrepresents one of the two cases in an important fashion.

Like a lot of things, context matters.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I like the subtlety here. Maybe my view is too narrow. I did try to tie it to player/DM motives, as in they are fudging to improve the enjoyment of the game. Similar to how you view a player who fudges.
I do understand your point about why people have a problem with players fudging, but not the DM. I just happen to think those problems shouldn't exist. This is doubly-true for groups that have players that care about everyone's overall enjoyment of the game.

I don't really disagree with this, but I'll just note "shouldn't" is doing some heavy lifting here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Four out of 500+. I know you said you can't calculate the damage/intake/output/etc. But it sounds like you can very much. The fact that you have only had 1 TPK in over 500 sessions means you absolutely do the calculations quite well. Probably from all the experience.
It kind of reinforces my claim that fudging rolls is not necessary in D&D because of swingy dice.

Modern D&D may well be more tolerant here than some past versions and/or offshoots are. I know I'm anything but blase about dice swings in 13th Age. That's probably an element of the damage output of opponents and hit points of PCs being a different ratio.

In the end, it is a to-each-his-own type of game. People find the right table, and fortunately there are places that have Adventurers League where they can search for the right table. Or try new types of tables.

Well, sometimes they do. Even in the days of remote play, people still in the face-to-face sphere sometimes have some serious constraints here.

 

[Hriston]

Ok - perhaps something that works like this:

DC 15 WIS(Survival) check
On a success, the party knows which hex to travel into next
On a failure, the trail has been lost/confused/obscured and so the party must now guess (or use some other means to determine) which hex to travel into next

They may guess right or not. They'll only know for sure upon the next successful WIS(Survival) check at the end of the next half-day.

No hidden roll necessary.

I realize it's my own rigidity that's creating the issue here, but it's a matter of aesthetic preference. The navigation check in my game isn't about knowing which way to go. It assumes you've chosen the direction that's desirable to you, and it's a test of whether you succeed in going that way or if you end up going in some other direction inadvertently. Figuring out which direction you should be going in the first place is another matter entirely.

Also, I'm not exactly happy with the failure result including "succeed by accident". I want failure to be you didn't go the direction you intended.

If you want to get further into this, I've included the relevant text of my house-rules which contain a mash up of stuff from the 5E and 1E DMGs:

Spoiler

3. Establish direction of travel. Unless the party is following a linear feature, like a road or something like it, they run the risk of becoming lost. The party navigator’s passive Wisdom (Survival) score is contested by a roll of the type listed on the Wilderness Navigation table. If the party is travelling at a slow pace, the navigator gains a +5 bonus on the check, and a fast pace imposes a -5 penalty. If the party has an accurate map of the region or can see the sun or stars, the navigator has advantage (+5) on the check. If no one chooses to navigate, treat the check result as 0 and apply modifiers for travel pace.

Wilderness Navigation

Terrain	d20 roll
Forest, marsh, mountains, or open sea with overcast skies and no land in sight	Advantage
Arctic, desert, hills, rough, scrub, or open sea with clear skies and no land in sight	Normal
Plain	Disadvantage

If the navigator’s Wisdom (Survival) check succeeds, the party travels in the desired direction without becoming lost. If the check fails, the party inadvertently travels in the wrong direction and becomes lost.

Direction of Movement

Terrain	Roll	Result	Direction
Plains, scrub, rough, desert, or hills	1d6	1-3 4-6	60° left 60° right
Mountains	1d8	1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8	60° right 120° right 120° left 60° left
Forest or marsh	1d6	1 2 3-4 5 6	60° right 120° right 180° 120° left 60° left

Procedure For Lost Parties:
As soon as the die roll indicates the party is lost, determine the direction. If it is onto a space which has previously been travelled over and mapped by the party, then they will recognize that they became lost. Tell them that they moved in X direction, rather than that which was desired, but they have seen landmarks and realize their error. If movement is into an area where the party has not already been and mapped, describe terrain as if they had actually moved in the desired direction, i.e. as if they had not been lost with regards to direction. This will, of course, result in the erroneous mapping of a space until corrected. If the party also becomes lost the following day, the procedure above is followed until they are no longer lost. At that point, they will realize that they have not been moving in the desired direction, or series of directions, but they will NOT know just where they became lost. They will have to back-track and attempt to locate the last space which they mapped correctly and go on again from that place.