D&D 5E To fudge or not to fudge: that is the question

[iserith]

I understand that, but if you are just going to ignore the rules willy nilly, they really serve no purpose.

They do serve a purpose - to resolve uncertainty. There is no uncertainty in that example, however, if you are following the module text.

I disagree. The outcome is not certain. The only thing that is certain there is the intent of the goblins. The goblins, however, have no ability to stop the unplanned crit from happening, so despite their intent to knock out the PC, death occurs. Criminals accidently kill people they just intend to knock out all the time.

Edit: Never mind. I shouldn't post when tired. I forgot the knockout rules.

Knockout rules don't apply to ranged attacks, for the record. The goblins are chiefly ranged in that scene, though the example offered a few posts up doesn't say whether the wizard was hit with melee or ranged. But again, the rules serve the DM, not the other way around. The module text says, "In the unlikely event that the goblins defeat the adventurers, they leave them unconscious, loot them and the wagon, then head back to the Cragmaw hideout." So even if the wizard would, by the rules, be technically dying, the DM can simply say they're unconscious and robbed as per the module.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is one minor point of concession I am willing to make though. When rolling characters the point by system while adequate in most regards...ok, my players gone? See I cheat like I'm card shark in Vegas Baby! I fudge dice rolls(mostly by having 20 siders already behind my screen and if I need to cheat I just roll a die and act like the die I rolled is one of those that have been waiting behind my screen. I subtract hit point/add hit points lower and raise saves(I have a list of made up modifiers and reasons to choose from if it ever comes up) I write everything down as proof but I write so badly no one can ever really read what I wrote!

Okay so...you do realize that subtracting or adding hit points "because you feel like it" (whether or not you have justifications made up) is mathematically equivalent to fudging damage, right? They're literally exactly the same operation, just shifted to the opposite side of the equation. Reducing a player's damage dice is exactly the same thing as adding HP to an enemy after that player has attacked, and vice versa (increasing their damage roll is exactly the same thing as reducing HP). "[Roll] + bonus - penalty = target" is identical to "[roll] + bonus = target + penalty" in terms of the roller's success rate.

And replacing a die you rolled just now, with one you rolled at the start of the session, is still fudging. It's just fudging to a number you didn't have total control over.

I subtract whole encounters and make them up on the fly all to just keep my game fun.

Neither of which, in my opinion, is "fudging." Unless the players fore-know and expect the subtracted encounter to happen, it's not "real" until the "minis hit the map" (or...whatever terms would be appropriate for TotM)--and thus free game for the DM to change. And as long as the on-the-fly rewritten/bonus encounters don't break information the players already have or earned, it's no problem. For example, consider this situation: "Thanks to Rina the Rogue's quick moves while Polly the Paladin was running interference, we've got a copy of the duty roster for the guard shifts--we KNOW nobody's coming through here between midnight and the first bell." That's information they earned (successful Bluff or Diplomacy roll on Polly's part, successful Thievery roll on Rina's part), which they've then used to make a sound plan. Breaking their plans by adding an extra, unexpected guard shift is supremely unfair--a form of fudging in my book (even if it is meant to "balance out" their fantastic luck at making difficult Bluff and Thievery checks).

If the group gets real, genuine intel about things, the DM no longer has carte blanche to change them--unless there is a meaningful opportunity for the players to learn differently BEFORE the change is sprung on them. In the above example, as the group plots their infiltration, Wendy the Wizard might make a passive Investigation check to realize, "Hey...we actually STOLE this copy of the duty roster...even if they don't know it was us, they'll know it went missing. This info is a trap now!" I'd still call that a somewhat move on the DM's part, but at least it means the players can make new, properly informed choices--instead of choices based on wrong

I HATE to kill player characters off unless they are really asking for it, it spoils the fun so I just don't. I take them hostage, enslave them, feed them to some monster that is not yet hungry ect.. Lucky for me I have two players who get tired of playing the same character pretty often and once they start just asking for a good death by being foolhardy to the extreme I just arrange for the bloodiest nastiest pc death I can think of. If I can make it seem just unfair bum luck dice rolls while doing that...all the better.

Yeah I don't think any of this is really "fudging" either, unless you throw a nasty encounter at the whole group and try to prevent the death of someone *else* who *wasn't* ready to change characters. Though I do wonder what you'd do with someone like me, who will stick with a single character 'til kingdom come if there's still interesting stories to be told...

I will suddenly make the stable boy the real murderer and the man who threatened them a innocent who was set up on the turn of a dime. Whatever makes the game more fun.

This...well, again, as long as it's something the players could have actually learned during the course of play, I don't mind it at all. But if the threatening-guy really was the murderer a first, and they got actually correct evidence pinning the guilt on him, I wouldn't be okay with switching who the real murderer is. Adding a twist--"his shirtcuffs were bloody because he was trying to heal the victim!" or "he's been angry and weird because the 'poison' given to the victim is actually the potion he uses to control his werewolf transformation, which was stolen to frame him for the murder!"--is perfectly fine. Revealing that the evidence is actually fake--IF the players could actually learn this, somehow--is also fine. But a sudden ass-pull "woops, the guy you were correct to chase this entire time is ACTUALLY innocent" would HUGELY piss me off as a player--first because it comes out of the blue, second because we WERE right until the DM changed his or her mind.

My players really want this as well. When I try running a game and just let the dice fall where they fall the players quickly get upset. See they HATE CHEATING in ANY FORM as long as you know, they WIN. They want to beat the odds and win because they are awesome! When what actually happens most of the time is they do well for a bit and then roll sucky and die ending their fun. The few times for various reasons that we played like that, they had many issues with those games. So what they really want is the best of both worlds! They don't know about the cheating and so are AWESOME!

And this is precisely the kind of problem that I believe will solve itself, if the players stop to think about what they're doing. "Beating the odds" isn't a thing--happening to end up in the unusual upper (or lower) 5%, however, is. Being *aware* of the risks you're taking, making calculated risks, investigating and hedging and learning how to exploit the resources available to you is what allows you to warp the odds to be in your favor. And then there is no need for hidden cheating--if everyone, the DM and the players, is as well-informed as they can be, and exploits their resources to the fullest, then there need not be any cheating at all, as long as the other safety nets (removing or weakening as-yet-unseen encounters, using non-lethal interpretations of total-party knockouts, etc.) are in place.

What's happened, then, is that your players have been trained to think that their odds are a particular thing, that they will have success if they do X, because their past experience says it will. But their past experience is wrong. It won't lead to success--it only did because someone else (that is, you) ensured that success would result from plans that were either wrong-headed, overly-risky, or both. They have developed a mistaken idea of how to evaluate their situations, which means that even if they are well-informed, they can't make wise choices; the choice-making apparatus itself is busted. As I've said to others: can you really say that what you're doing is unequivocally "good" when you know you must take great pains to hide it from your players?

Obviously, you can and should continue to play in a way that makes you and your players happy. But, at least as I understand this situation, your own meddling is what has created the very situation that requires you to meddle again, and again, and again, constantly concealing and obfuscating the hand you had in "their" victory. My understanding of the situation has no bearing on what you should or should not do. I only offer it as another perspective on the situation, with the hope that it helps you game the way you like best (which may very well be the way you game now--but may also very well not be that way).

So besides that one little aspect of my game, no fudging EVER! THAT"S JUST NOT COOL!

As I read this, I can't help thinking it sounds an awful like, "So besides that one little steak on Fridays, no meat EVER! THAT'S JUST NOT COOL!" In other words, methinks the poster doth protest too much--and in fact actually fudges a fair amount, as long as nobody can find out. Which nobody can, because your "proof" is indecipherable scrawl, and nobody knows you use a hidden stock of pre-rolled dice!

 

[GameOgre]

Okay so...you do realize that subtracting or adding hit points "because you feel like it" (whether or not you have justifications made up) is mathematically equivalent to fudging damage, right? They're literally exactly the same operation, just shifted to the opposite side of the equation. Reducing a player's damage dice is exactly the same thing as adding HP to an enemy after that player has attacked, and vice versa (increasing their damage roll is exactly the same thing as reducing HP). "[Roll] + bonus - penalty = target" is identical to "[roll] + bonus = target + penalty" in terms of the roller's success rate.

And replacing a die you rolled just now, with one you rolled at the start of the session, is still fudging. It's just fudging to a number you didn't have total control over.



Neither of which, in my opinion, is "fudging." Unless the players fore-know and expect the subtracted encounter to happen, it's not "real" until the "minis hit the map" (or...whatever terms would be appropriate for TotM)--and thus free game for the DM to change. And as long as the on-the-fly rewritten/bonus encounters don't break information the players already have or earned, it's no problem. For example, consider this situation: "Thanks to Rina the Rogue's quick moves while Polly the Paladin was running interference, we've got a copy of the duty roster for the guard shifts--we KNOW nobody's coming through here between midnight and the first bell." That's information they earned (successful Bluff or Diplomacy roll on Polly's part, successful Thievery roll on Rina's part), which they've then used to make a sound plan. Breaking their plans by adding an extra, unexpected guard shift is supremely unfair--a form of fudging in my book (even if it is meant to "balance out" their fantastic luck at making difficult Bluff and Thievery checks).

If the group gets real, genuine intel about things, the DM no longer has carte blanche to change them--unless there is a meaningful opportunity for the players to learn differently BEFORE the change is sprung on them. In the above example, as the group plots their infiltration, Wendy the Wizard might make a passive Investigation check to realize, "Hey...we actually STOLE this copy of the duty roster...even if they don't know it was us, they'll know it went missing. This info is a trap now!" I'd still call that a somewhat move on the DM's part, but at least it means the players can make new, properly informed choices--instead of choices based on wrong



Yeah I don't think any of this is really "fudging" either, unless you throw a nasty encounter at the whole group and try to prevent the death of someone *else* who *wasn't* ready to change characters. Though I do wonder what you'd do with someone like me, who will stick with a single character 'til kingdom come if there's still interesting stories to be told...



This...well, again, as long as it's something the players could have actually learned during the course of play, I don't mind it at all. But if the threatening-guy really was the murderer a first, and they got actually correct evidence pinning the guilt on him, I wouldn't be okay with switching who the real murderer is. Adding a twist--"his shirtcuffs were bloody because he was trying to heal the victim!" or "he's been angry and weird because the 'poison' given to the victim is actually the potion he uses to control his werewolf transformation, which was stolen to frame him for the murder!"--is perfectly fine. Revealing that the evidence is actually fake--IF the players could actually learn this, somehow--is also fine. But a sudden ass-pull "woops, the guy you were correct to chase this entire time is ACTUALLY innocent" would HUGELY piss me off as a player--first because it comes out of the blue, second because we WERE right until the DM changed his or her mind.



And this is precisely the kind of problem that I believe will solve itself, if the players stop to think about what they're doing. "Beating the odds" isn't a thing--happening to end up in the unusual upper (or lower) 5%, however, is. Being *aware* of the risks you're taking, making calculated risks, investigating and hedging and learning how to exploit the resources available to you is what allows you to warp the odds to be in your favor. And then there is no need for hidden cheating--if everyone, the DM and the players, is as well-informed as they can be, and exploits their resources to the fullest, then there need not be any cheating at all, as long as the other safety nets (removing or weakening as-yet-unseen encounters, using non-lethal interpretations of total-party knockouts, etc.) are in place.

What's happened, then, is that your players have been trained to think that their odds are a particular thing, that they will have success if they do X, because their past experience says it will. But their past experience is wrong. It won't lead to success--it only did because someone else (that is, you) ensured that success would result from plans that were either wrong-headed, overly-risky, or both. They have developed a mistaken idea of how to evaluate their situations, which means that even if they are well-informed, they can't make wise choices; the choice-making apparatus itself is busted. As I've said to others: can you really say that what you're doing is unequivocally "good" when you know you must take great pains to hide it from your players?

Obviously, you can and should continue to play in a way that makes you and your players happy. But, at least as I understand this situation, your own meddling is what has created the very situation that requires you to meddle again, and again, and again, constantly concealing and obfuscating the hand you had in "their" victory. My understanding of the situation has no bearing on what you should or should not do. I only offer it as another perspective on the situation, with the hope that it helps you game the way you like best (which may very well be the way you game now--but may also very well not be that way).



As I read this, I can't help thinking it sounds an awful like, "So besides that one little steak on Fridays, no meat EVER! THAT'S JUST NOT COOL!" In other words, methinks the poster doth protest too much--and in fact actually fudges a fair amount, as long as nobody can find out. Which nobody can, because your "proof" is indecipherable scrawl, and nobody knows you use a hidden stock of pre-rolled dice!

It's hard to joke on the net because you can't hear my funny as all get out voice! That post basically said" Yes I cheat any and all ways but I try to not get caught".

As far as me causing this issue, I will accept some of the blame but they behave in this fashion with just about everything. When we play diablo it's HARDMODE 100% of the time and we are going to beat the game! HECK YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then like 20 hours later it's we keep getting killed and this isn't fun...lets just play normally and maybe even on easy? Beat Game.

Shrug, it doesn't bother me. I can play and have fun with any game or house rules as long as I can role play I'm gonna have fun. I just learned what they had the most fun doing and DMed towards that type of game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's hard to joke on the net because you can't hear my funny as all get out voice! That post basically said" Yes I cheat any and all ways but I try to not get caught".

It's not cheating when you're DMing. In fact, /not/ making rulings and resolving actions in defiance of what the RAW & Dice Gods decree, is cheating - cheating your players of the best possible gaming experience. ;P

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's not cheating when you're DMing. In fact, /not/ making rulings and resolving actions in defiance of what the RAW & Dice Gods decree, is cheating - cheating your players of the best possible gaming experience. ;P

"Making rulings" =/= "resolving actions in defiance of...the dice"

If you explicitly choose, "I don't know for sure whether this will succeed, so I leave it to the dice," or "I don't know which result will be more interesting, so I leave it to the dice," and then the result comes and now suddenly DO know which result works be more interesting or preferable, that is your problem, not the dice. You (generic), as DM, need to learn when to call for the dice and when to just Say Yes (or no, but usually it's "say yes or roll the dice"). Fudging--cheating--is thus denying *you* opportunities to refine your DMing skills, skills which have actual practical significance for someone who likes DMing (or needs to because no one else will).

Note that I do NOT consider it "fudging" to simply fiat declare an action a success/failure when a die roll would normally be called for. That's a ruling any DM can make in any situation, regardless of the ruleset in question. It's when you engage the mechanics, when you invest the numbers and dice with meaning and importance, *and then* say "y'know what? No I didn't actually want that, I've changed my mind and by God the world WILL bend to my will, even if it means deceiving my players and invalidating the info they've gained thus far." That's "fudging." And it's not something to be proud of, in my not-so-humble opinion. If it were, DMs wouldn't take great pains to conceal it from their players, nor admit that revealing it would cause hurt feelings or even player revolt.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Making rulings" =/= "resolving actions in defiance of...the dice"

If you explicitly choose, "I don't know for sure whether this will succeed, so I leave it to the dice," or "I don't know which result will be more interesting, so I leave it to the dice," and then the result comes and now suddenly DO know which result works be more interesting or preferable, that is your problem, not the dice.

Heh. What about "I want to maintain an illusion of drama, because narrating the result arbitrarily would disappoint my players?" Some players can handle their action succeeding or failing for story reasons, but some can't help but interpret it as reflecting PC competence rather than fate. They need to the shield of perceived randomness to protect their immersion.

Note that I do NOT consider it "fudging" to simply fiat declare an action a success/failure when a die roll would normally be called for. That's a ruling any DM can make in any situation, regardless of the ruleset in question.

I'd consider 'fudging' a special case of that. You decide on the resolution, but don't share the fact that it's arbitrary. It's like using a magician's force to keep the plot moving when no player decisions are needed, but the players seem to need to feel that they're making decisions.

When you get right down to it, the whole RP experience is either a cooperative shared storytelling exercise in which a separate DM role is barely called for at all, or it's an illusion orchestrated by the DM. In the former, sure, fudging would be 'cheating' and the DM's role is pretty carefree and player-like. In the latter, the DM takes on a lot of privilege and responsibility. 5e isn't robust enough for the former mode of play, it's ideal for the latter.

If it were, DMs wouldn't take great pains to conceal it from their players, nor admit that revealing it would cause hurt feelings or even player revolt.

'Fudging' is not something you do if you're playing 'above board,' for that reason. But, it's fine for those games where the DM conceals information from the players in an attempt to put them more into their character's shoes. It's part and parcel of trying to engineer 'immersion,' while still getting a genre story to emerge from it. That whole style take experience & a deft hand, or it can degenerate in all sorts of ways.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Heh. What about "I want to maintain an illusion of drama, because narrating the result arbitrarily would disappoint my players?" Some players can handle their action succeeding or failing for story reasons, but some can't help but interpret it as reflecting PC competence rather than fate. They need to the shield of perceived randomness to protect their immersion.

I'd consider 'fudging' a special case of that. You decide on the resolution, but don't share the fact that it's arbitrary. It's like using a magician's force to keep the plot moving when no player decisions are needed, but the players seem to need to feel that they're making decisions.

Oh, well that's...rather a different situation than what people have presented thus far. That is, every example as I've understood it is "Player did something cool/awesome/interesting, I set a DC, they rolled, and missed" (sometimes with an added "by one" at the end). Your example is, "I've already decided they succeed/fail, no randomness will apply, but their enjoyment COMPLETELY hinges on it being probabilistic, so I pretend to roll the dice but never even care what value it shows." I don't, actually, consider that at all the same thing as "fudging." Because you've decided, before you even lift the die, that the die doesn't matter--it's just for show. In other words, I see the rolling of the die as being equivalent to deciding to give your NPCs foonee akzents: it's purely presentational fluff, which matters a huge amount for some people and not at all for others. Admittedly, this does still include the "deceiving the player" side of things...but the deception has nothing to do with their ability to make informed choices, nor with their ability to progressively improve their decision-making skills. It's purely theatrics, and doesn't involve you "changing your mind" after you've already "committed" to employing the probabilistic resolution system.

Of course, I also think that a player that DESPERATELY NEEDS to have dice hit the table in order to feel any pleasure whatsoever in their successes...is being ridiculously demanding and petty. But since it doesn't hurt anyone else's fun, requires merely a minor physical action on the DM's part, and has minimal to zero effect on the player's informed-ness and choice-making ability, sure, whatever. A ridiculous but harmless and trivial demand is acceptable.

When you get right down to it, the whole RP experience is either a cooperative shared storytelling exercise in which a separate DM role is barely called for at all, or it's an illusion orchestrated by the DM. In the former, sure, fudging would be 'cheating' and the DM's role is pretty carefree and player-like. In the latter, the DM takes on a lot of privilege and responsibility. 5e isn't robust enough for the former mode of play, it's ideal for the latter.

'Fudging' is not something you do if you're playing 'above board,' for that reason. But, it's fine for those games where the DM conceals information from the players in an attempt to put them more into their character's shoes. It's part and parcel of trying to engineer 'immersion,' while still getting a genre story to emerge from it. That whole style take experience & a deft hand, or it can degenerate in all sorts of ways.

Well, firstly I don't actually think it's such an either-or (which you might not have meant to imply, but you definitely did imply it). Those are certainly two points in the "aim-space" of D&D. But not only can games lie on any point on the line between those points, they can also lie in places other than those two points--all while still remaining in the realm of RP.

I do not, at all, think that DMs need to "play with their cards face up." It's perfectly fine for the DM to make decisions about future events, unseen locations, or whatever else, without immediately and thoroughly explaining those things to the players. But--and this is crucial--I believe it is essential for the DM to be honest, when information is "earned." What does that mean, though, to "earn" information? Well, to use a Dungeon World example, the Spout Lore move: "When you consult your accumulated knowledge about something, roll+INT [read: 2d6+Int mod]. On a 10+, the GM will tell you something interesting and useful about the subject relevant to your situation. On a 7-9 the GM will only tell you something interesting--it's on to you to make it useful. The GM might ask you, 'How did you know this?' Tell them the truth now." Getting a complete success (that is, your total result is 10 or higher) is equivalent to having earned, from the dice, good information. Acquiring information without needing to roll at all, because the idea is just sound or the proposal just makes sense--something DW puts great emphasis on--also counts as "earning" your information.

I see that "earned" information as something that "belongs" to the players no less than their gear, their gold, or their moves; simply taking it away from them because you decided things would be more interesting that way is just as much a dick move as deciding that things will be more interesting if a rust monster suddenly appears and eats the Fighter's gear. That is: a huge dick move that would need enormous justification--and may not be justifiable at all, much of the time.

However, if it is not possible that they could have accurate information about the event in question, then until that information does become something they could know, it's okay to change it. Re-writing or ditching an encounter before it happens, because the party's rolled poorly and might not be able to take the beating you'd prepared? Totally kosher, unless they somehow KNOW precisely the enemies they're about to face (e.g. that guard duty roster I mentioned). Spicing things up with an unexpected but plausible encounter because the party is tossing crits like they're going out of style? Perfectly fine--again, as long as the party doesn't have good, reliable information that such an unexpected encounter won't happen (in other words, it's not a plausible encounter), e.g. they've taken down literally ALL the guards listed on the roster, partially through lucky combats, partially through clever plans, so you don't get to add extra guards just because.

But there are ways to build justifications for this. I gave one example above: letting a particular player (or the whole group, via speaking openly to that player) know that because they stole the duty roster, the guard may be heightened or changed. Telling the players, in advance, that the corrupted druid grove they're headed to is in the middle of an old, old forest, with links to both the Feywild and Shadowfell--many are the myths that talk of someone getting lost in the forest for days or weeks at a time and coming back "touched" by the other planes, or worse, running into something that wandered into our world from...elsewhere. Giving them opportunities to seek out knowledge about these surprises, IF the players take them. That is: making sure they know that, when time isn't an extremely pressing concern, taking a moment to think and observe and reconnoiter is a good idea. If they're new to the concept, give them subtle (or, y'know, not so subtle) hints to do it, and slowly wean them off the hints until they start seeking out this information themselves, if it's in-character to do so (and it may not be for everyone, but surely it will be for somebody in the party...)

You thus empower them to take charge of their own level of informed-ness, while retaining most of the benefits of changing the world around them. It's not seamless, and it's a certain level of work, remembering what information you've allowed them to acquire and avoiding changes that conflict with that unless you give them a chance to learn about the change (whether or not they take it). But I see that as being hardly different from expecting an author to avoid creating contradictions in their stories, either by not saying contradictory things in the first place, or by providing the reader with sufficient information (subtly or bluntly) to resolve the contradiction themselves.

 

[Maxperson]

Knockout rules don't apply to ranged attacks, for the record. The goblins are chiefly ranged in that scene, though the example offered a few posts up doesn't say whether the wizard was hit with melee or ranged. But again, the rules serve the DM, not the other way around. The module text says, "In the unlikely event that the goblins defeat the adventurers, they leave them unconscious, loot them and the wagon, then head back to the Cragmaw hideout." So even if the wizard would, by the rules, be technically dying, the DM can simply say they're unconscious and robbed as per the module.

Okay. If they were ranged attacks, then the attacks were absolutely uncertain, regardless of the intent of the goblins. They have no ability to choose not to do lethal damage and a crit will kill a PC under the circumstances provided in the other post even if the text of the module says they want to knock the PCs out.

The DM who doesn't kill the wizard PC under those circumstances is not invoking the "Not uncertain" rule. He's fudging die rolls. That's fine, but call it what it is.

 

[iserith]

Okay. If they were ranged attacks, then the attacks were absolutely uncertain, regardless of the intent of the goblins. They have no ability to choose not to do lethal damage and a crit will kill a PC under the circumstances provided in the other post even if the text of the module says they want to knock the PCs out.

The DM who doesn't kill the wizard PC under those circumstances is not invoking the "Not uncertain" rule. He's fudging die rolls. That's fine, but call it what it is.

In the example of the wizard with 1 hp, if I roll the damage dice, don't like the result, then change it, I'm fudging.

If I never roll the damage dice at all and declare that the successful attack roll (crit or otherwise) takes down but doesn't kill the PC, then I'm not fudging.

Again, the rules serve the DM, not the other way around.

 

[Maxperson]

Fudging--cheating--is thus denying *you* opportunities to refine your DMing skills, skills which have actual practical significance for someone who likes DMing (or needs to because no one else will).

Fudging has never been cheating, because the DM literally can't cheat. The rules give the DM the power to alter rules, add rules, subtract rules from the game, or bend rules as he sees fit. Nothing he does is cheating. It's all, including fudging, part of the rules.

That doesn't mean he can't be a bad DM and make the game unfun with certain uses of that power, but it's not cheating when he does it.