D&D General Thread about fudging dice rolls

[payn]

I'm not even sure that skilled play is about identifying solutions falling outside of the boundaries of a resolution on a regular basis. Prodding dungeon floors with a 10 foot pole as you explore is a classic, skilled-play method of looking for pits and other triggered traps - but it's very much within the boundaries of what would be covered by searching for traps.
Quite often, it seems more that it's a case of a player fishing for the keywords the DM is looking for or the DM decides some described action is cool enough to let work.

When its works the GM and players are in tune with one another and it can be a fun and creative experience. When it doesnt (which seems to be most of the time) its like playing one of those 90's Sierra adventure games. You need to find the perfect syntax in order to proceed with the game.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But, what about the third option DM.

The DM that insists on a narration AND a die roll? Because, IME, that's generally what happens whenever someone calls for a check. The whole "well, if you naughty word your way through well enough, you won't have to roll" never seems to happen. And, again, I'm sorry, but, I simply don't care to make the DM "comfortable". That sort of Mother May I stuff just drives me up the wall. Particularly, again, this is my experience, no matter how detailed and "good" the narration is, it's always going to come down to a die roll anyway.

I don't doubt your experience at all. Because every DM does indeed sit on that 'improv'/'board game' number line at a different spot, so it's easily believable that you have played at tables that ask for narration and still want checks (and indeed most tables I suspect are in the middle of that number line where one will need to do both).

Now the tables I run tend to be much closer to the 'improv' side of the line, where the back-and-forth between players and DM push things along without needing very many checks at all (and in a lot of cases where I do ask for one, it's not to determine success or failure, but rather the degree of success). This is especially true during social interactions... I rarely ask for Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation checks because I just improvise the reactions of the NPCs based off of what the PCs say. And how much information I give is based on the arguments they make. But my tables are filled almost exclusively with community theater actors, so speaking "in-character" is pretty much par for the course, and how well they "act" in-character and the types of things and reactions they improvise will make my reactions come out of that. But I know I am very much an outlier on the far end of the number line.

It sounds as though you'd prefer to be closer to the 'board game' end of the line, where a lot of checks would be just that-- making checks for success and failure rather than narrating what you are trying to do. There are plenty of DMs out there that are very much mechanics-centric... unfortunately it just doesn't sound like you are playing with one of those (at least not to the extent which you would prefer). Not much I can say that is worthwhile towards that... other than I wish you best of luck potentially finding other tables with DMs who play more your speed, if indeed that is something you decide to try to do. They ARE out there... I just don't know how easy it is to find them.

 

[overgeeked]

Follow the dice. If you already know what result you want, don’t bother rolling. The purpose of the math rocks going clickity clack is to inject randomness. Let them.

 

[SableWyvern]

I was never fond of "skilled play". It was usually "how well do you know what the DM has in mind".

In my personal experience, it's more accurate to say it's about how well the table sets aligned expectations and forms a shared understanding as to how the world works.

If the players have access to all the relevant information and think something will work, then it's extremely unlikely I (edit: as GM) will disagree with them. "What I (as GM) had in mind," has little to nothing to do with it (it's entirely possible I hadn't put any thought into solutions, as that's the players' job, not mine).

 

[pemerton]

Skilled play isn't about knowing how to do the things in real life. It's about knowing how to circumvent random resolution systems by identifying solutions that fall outside their boundaries, and persuading the GM to allow you to succeed automatically.

I feel that this is at the more pejorative end of ways to describe skilled play!

Speaking a bit technically, I would say that skilled play, in the Gygaxian sense, is predominantly drama resolution where the GM narrates the outcome based on their adjudication of the character's fictional position and the player's account of what the character is doing. (I say "predominantly" because there might be bits of fortune in there - eg, if the player says that their character will break through the doors by pushing over the heavy statue so that it crashes into them, the GM might call for a roll to see if the character is able to heave the statue over.) And this is taking place in a context where what is valued, among the game participants, is demonstrations of problem-solving cleverness in the context of (ever more baroque) architectural obstacles.

A really good source of examples for discussing skilled play, in my view, is White Plume Mountain. The frictionless corridor with the super-tetanus-spiked pits is particularly noteworthy. This example shows that it's not about speaking "keywords" or finding the pre-determined solution to the puzzle: there can be multiple ways of getting through this challenge (eg some involving ropes, some involving "surfing" doors down the corridor, etc).

In this sort of play, when to call for a die roll is an important consideration: eg if the players come up with a rope-and-pitons solution to the frictionless corridor, should the GM also call for rolls to successfully hammer the pitons into the wall? I don't think there is a clear and unique answer to this question. Each table will have to come up with its own set of expectations and practices around what is reasonable and what is unfair.

 

[Maxperson]

What I do is determine if they're using magic or have discovered some other way to aid their search. Then it's a question of how thorough they want to be - leave no trace and a quick search or spend as much time as necessary and toss the room - so I can set a DC.

But the whole "I carefully pull out the desk drawer and measure the thickness of the base to determine if there's a secret compartment" ... nah. I don't require that any more than I expect the rogue to be able to express in detail how to pick a lock. I know some people enjoy that type of play, it's just something I've never cared for. Add some flavor and description if you have fun but don't expect me as a player to have the same expertise as my highly trained professional PC.

I don't require it, either. A roll can find that hidden compartment. That said, if a player wants to describe to me how he measures the drawer to see if there is space in there, it's going to be an auto success, even if the original investigation check failed.

 

[Knaves Quill]

I don't fudge dice but have on occasion shaved 2-3 hp off of a monster so that it dies, instead of dragging combat out another round.

Dice rolls, good or bad, have lead to some of the best events in my games; ones my players love, or at least remember well.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

When its works the GM and players are in tune with one another and it can be a fun and creative experience. When it doesnt (which seems to be most of the time) its like playing one of those 90's Sierra adventure games. You need to find the perfect syntax in order to proceed with the game.

There's a reason the term "pixel bitching" was created. And it wasn't just an imaginary thing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In my personal experience, it's more accurate to say it's about how well the table sets aligned expectations and forms a shared understanding as to how the world works.

If the players have access to all the relevant information and think something will work, then it's extremely unlikely I (edit: as GM) will disagree with them. "What I (as GM) had in mind," has little to nothing to do with it (it's entirely possible I hadn't put any thought into solutions, as that's the players' job, not mine).

The problem here is that, not only is your first sentence key, its extremely easy for the player and the GM's understanding of how real-world processes and practices the decision will be based on to differ. Sometimes radically. And that's even before you get into people's perceptions of genre conventions.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

The problem here is that, not only is your first sentence key, its extremely easy for the player and the GM's understanding of how real-world processes and practices the decision will be based on to differ. Sometimes radically. And that's even before you get into people's perceptions of genre conventions.

This recently happened to me. I was playing in a Warhammer Fantasy game and my character could hear the approach of some sort of hoofbeats. We had been fighting beastmen (basically minotaur critters) which had hooves. We also knew that horse riders would be approaching. So, I asked the DM if I could distinguish between the two. The answer was a flat no. Now, I've grown up around horses and cows. I know for a fact that you can easily distinguish between them when they run. They are as different as a diesel and a gasoline engine. Add to that the fact tha the riders are in armor, so they sound like a bag full of pennies being shaken and, in my mind, it would be virtually impossible not to be able to make the distinction.

Now the DM, who had grown up in a city and the nearest to a cow he'd ever been was at a supermarket absolutely refused to change his mind. It was extremely frustrating to be honest (and the final episode in a string of frustration). It's why I don't do that sort of thing as a DM anymore. I am honest enough with myself now that I now that if I have to make that judgement, I'll probably make frustrating calls.

So, now I let the dice dictate narration. "Can I tell the difference between these types of hoofbeats?" "Roll a (whatever the system asks you to roll to resolve something)" Get the result and then narrate based on that result.