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

[cmad1977]

This thread is an excellent example of why I use these forums for laughs and not for any real advice/input.

(The 'enhancing given adventure' threads are awesome though. Those guys are sharp.)

 

[Pickles III]

The DM acts as mediator between the rules and the players. He or she isn't bound by them. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Perhaps the influence of another edition of the game?

So if he's not bound by the rules he can't really fudge things? It may be a higher order rule she is "breaking" by ignoring dice (except he isn't cos he is the DM) but it's still one he is equally not bound by isn't it? Now confused.

As I have said I believe perception is usually the most important thing.

Also FWIW I do try to plan outs for encounters I feel may be too dangerous for the PCs - 3rd party rescue/interruption or capture not kill being the obvious ones. Either of these become unsatisfactory if over used but then they are not supposed to be used unless the dice go awry or I have messed up.

 

[rlor]

I never said it couldn't harm enjoyment. I said it can't harm enjoyment if the player doesn't know. That's a fact. If someone doesn't know, then the game is perceived no differently by that person than if no fudging happened. Therefore, his enjoyment cannot have been harmed.

What if by secretly changing the roll (from a crit to a normal hit), the DM changes a fight that would have come down to the wire to one where the PCs end up winning by a larger margin?

Or having the BBEG stay up a round longer only to have the party all miss their following round(s) of attacks and feel incompetent?

As a DM, I don't know what the next rolls will be or the next actions of the players. Maybe the next PC in initiative will roll amazing well (or poorly). Maybe if the party is on the ropes someone will have an inspired plan that will save the day. Lacking precognitive abilities, I wouldn't know at the time I was deciding to fudge or not what would transpire next so I could have made things less enjoyable. I'm not saying it is likely, but it is possible.

 

[iserith]

So if he's not bound by the rules he can't really fudge things? It may be a higher order rule she is "breaking" by ignoring dice (except he isn't cos he is the DM) but it's still one he is equally not bound by isn't it? Now confused.

As I have said I believe perception is usually the most important thing.

Also FWIW I do try to plan outs for encounters I feel may be too dangerous for the PCs - 3rd party rescue/interruption or capture not kill being the obvious ones. Either of these become unsatisfactory if over used but then they are not supposed to be used unless the dice go awry or I have messed up.

I will point you to [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]'s excellent definition upthread. Bottom line is that when the DM invokes the rules to resolve uncertainty, then ignores the outcome that is produced in favor of something else, the DM is fudging.

 

[Pickles III]

Fair enough but it's still seems just to be a special case of DM not being bound by the rules.

Not that I really disagree - I prefer to play by established rules including sticking to dice rolls. I just don't hate the occasional fudge if deftly done (or in AL, where I play a fair but, to "protect" a brand new player.)

DMs transparently playing poorly is just as annoying as dice fudging or more so if I can't detect them doing that

 

[Imaculata]

So...since I seem to be not at all thinking "fudging" means the same thing you do, how do you define it?

I define it as rolling for something, and then deciding after the roll that no, you won't use the roll, because the rolled result isn't what you want; or, alternatively, as providing information (whole or incomplete) that the players can and should act on if they're playing intelligently, and then later contradicting that information without giving the players any opportunity to correct their now-mistaken understanding.

My definition is a bit wider than yours. I consider fudging any situation where the DM is deliberately changing an encounter on the fly, to change the outcome. This includes having monsters behave in a way that is less likely to kill the players, focusing on other players in the middle of a fight (even if a player is downed and near death), but also adjusting a die roll after you've already made the roll.

I'm not above any of these modifications. I have on occasion turned the crit of a monster, into a normal hit. And I have also increased the hit points of a boss during a fight. But I never fudge to modify the roll of the players themselves. If a player succeeds at a skill check, I don't change the outcome. If a monster fails at a skill check, I don't change the outcome either. If the players hit the monster, then they hit the monster. And if the monster hits them, then that's what he does. I don't like fudging saves and attacks. But crits can sometimes be unpredictable, and lead to unfair situations for the players. Only then do I fudge things in their favor; when I feel the encounter is unfair for them.

My goal is always to make it fun, not necessarily to make the players win.

 

[Maxperson]

The DM acts as mediator between the rules and the players. He or she isn't bound by them. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Perhaps the influence of another edition of the game?

Nope. You're just confusing the ability given to the DM by the game to change the rules with the DM somehow being able to do whatever, whenever willy nilly. The rules require the players and the DM to play a certain way. Then they give the DM the ability to change rules. That ability doesn't mean that the rules don't have the requirement, or that somehow the DM isn't house ruling when he steps outside the rules and changes things.

The outcome absolutely is known, as I have explained and will again: We know that defeated characters are knocked out and robbed - them's the stakes, or more specifically, that's what's on the line if you fail.

This doesn't exist in D&D with ranged weapons unless you invoke a house rule. There is no provision in the rules that allows it.

We know the wizard has 1 hp. We know that even a single hit will drop the wizard to 0 hp which is sufficient to say he or she is knocked out.

We also know that the bow does 1d6 damage (I'm assuming a short bow for those goblins) and a critical does 2d6, as required by the rules. A crit can deal enough to kill the wizard outright. That means that we are in fact uncertain about the result of the attack. Anything else is a house rule by the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

What if by secretly changing the roll (from a crit to a normal hit), the DM changes a fight that would have come down to the wire to one where the PCs end up winning by a larger margin?

Or having the BBEG stay up a round longer only to have the party all miss their following round(s) of attacks and feel incompetent?

As a DM, I don't know what the next rolls will be or the next actions of the players. Maybe the next PC in initiative will roll amazing well (or poorly). Maybe if the party is on the ropes someone will have an inspired plan that will save the day. Lacking precognitive abilities, I wouldn't know at the time I was deciding to fudge or not what would transpire next so I could have made things less enjoyable. I'm not saying it is likely, but it is possible.

That's not a possibility with me, as I won't fudge until things get so extreme that a round of hits by the party won't help. I also doubt that a party that is kicking the arse of the BBEG is going to feel incompetent over missing a round of attacks. My players aren't bipolar.

 

[iserith]

Nope. You're just confusing the ability given to the DM by the game to change the rules with the DM somehow being able to do whatever, whenever willy nilly. The rules require the players and the DM to play a certain way. Then they give the DM the ability to change rules. That ability doesn't mean that the rules don't have the requirement, or that somehow the DM isn't house ruling when he steps outside the rules and changes things.

The DM is the Master of Rules - so, no, the rules do not require anything of him or her. A PC wants to do something, you decide if the outcome is certain or uncertain, and in the case of the latter invoke a rule and roll dice to resolve the uncertainty. That you decide the outcome is certain does not mean you're changing the rules of the game.

This doesn't exist in D&D with ranged weapons unless you invoke a house rule. There is no provision in the rules that allows it.

The rules of an RPG are largely descriptive, not prescriptive; that is, "use these rules to help determine an outcome when someone tries to do X, if you want," not "you can only do X."

We also know that the bow does 1d6 damage (I'm assuming a short bow for those goblins) and a critical does 2d6, as required by the rules. A crit can deal enough to kill the wizard outright. That means that we are in fact uncertain about the result of the attack. Anything else is a house rule by the DM.

They do that damage if I am not sure of the outcome, sure. But I am sure of it, at least in this example, so I don't need those rules and dice after the successful attack roll versus the 1-hp wizard - defeated PCs are knocked unconscious and robbed.

 

[rlor]

That's not a possibility with me, as I won't fudge until things get so extreme that a round of hits by the party won't help. I also doubt that a party that is kicking the arse of the BBEG is going to feel incompetent over missing a round of attacks. My players aren't bipolar.

A "Hail Mary" plan could still turn things around. Just because the DM doesn't see a way out of a situation doesn't mean that the players might not come up with a way out. I'd just find it very odd to think that a DM knows with 100% accuracy how things would have turned out if he hadn't fudged when the reason they're fudging in the first place is because things have veered wildly away from what they thought would happen.