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

[EzekielRaiden]

"Keep it a secret" is not a requirement for it to be fudging, simply a preference that is added on. The same as International espionage. Just because you get caught stealing country secrets does not mean it is no longer spying. If you get caught fudging, or tell your players you fudged, it is still fudging, just not a secret anymore.

Perhaps, then, "trying to keep it a permanent secret"?

I admit, it's a somewhat fuzzy requirement. But it's definitely something I consider a part of it--a very troubling part, in fact. If the DM is 100% open and honest about the action--"guys, I was really hoping this monster could actually get to act, I worked very hard to make it interesting and it just folded over like a wet paper bag, can we give it another round?"--then it's very difficult for me to classify that as "fudging," even if it means altering or outright ignoring the results. By that same token, I have exactly 0 problems with the DM keeping (frex) Perception rolls secret, because it's fantastically difficult for me to keep that kind of knowledge out of my decisions (I have said, not on this forum IIRC, that I cannot "un-know" something I've learned, unless I learn something else that supersedes it).

So a secret roll, free of any manipulation on the DM's part? No problem. Not fudging.
A roll or set of rolls, whether open or secret, which the DM openly expresses dismay about and asks for group approval to change? No problem. Not fudging.

Furthermore, neither of these things has any effect on the players' ability to make informed decisions and learn from past experiences, which is a huge deal for me. The latter also means the DM is willing to admit mistakes and listen to feedback, which is all to the good. Making mistakes and learning from them is a Good Thing.

So...yeah. I definitely absolutely feel that "secrecy" is, in some sense, meaningfully related to fudging. And, despite my vehement denunciation of fudging, I would have no problem accepting a group decision/agreement to change a particular result, even if I didn't want to change it myself.

 

[Nagol]

"Keep it a secret" is not a requirement for it to be fudging, simply a preference that is added on. The same as International espionage. Just because you get caught stealing country secrets does not mean it is no longer spying. If you get caught fudging, or tell your players you fudged, it is still fudging, just not a secret anymore.

Sure, but announcing the result, saying you don't like it and soliciting input as to what it should be changed to isn't fudging.

If the DM rolls the dice announces the result to the group and also announces what is going to happen instead, it may be fudging, but the group at least gets data as to what are results the DM can tolerate and can make an informed decision to negotiate the house rules in play.

 

[Hussar]

"Keep it a secret" is not a requirement for it to be fudging, simply a preference that is added on. The same as International espionage. Just because you get caught stealing country secrets does not mean it is no longer spying. If you get caught fudging, or tell your players you fudged, it is still fudging, just not a secret anymore.

Throughout this thread and others, it has been repeatedly stated that fudging is to be kept from the players. If you are telling the players what you are doing, in the open, then it isn't fudging anymore.

 

[Maxperson]

Reading through the last few pages, I got to wondering why the example of taking death off the table doesn't particularly bother me. After all, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is right - the DM is changing the outcome of the scenario outside of the established rules. Then it hit me. This example doesn't qualify as fudging.

Throughout this thread, fudging has come down to not one, but two criteria:

• Changing results.
• Keeping it a secret

And the example under discussion, while it does meet the first requirement, doesn't meet the second. If the DM simply fudged combat results so that the PC's didn't die, he would not tell the PC's (keeping fudging a secret has been strongly established). But, in this case, the DM does tell the PC's. Granted he does so after the fact, in that the PC's wake up stripped of gear and not dead. But, there is no secrecy here. It's in the open.

Fudging, according to everyone in this thread, must be kept secret. Even the advice in the DMG says to keep it from the players. But, again, this isn't kept from the players. If they die, they will not be actually killed, but will wake up instead. At that point, the players are told what happened.

In order for this to actually be fudging, the DM would instead manipulate the dice, leaving the PC's perhaps unconscious, but, not dead. And the players should never know that the DM did this.

As has been noted, fudging does not require secrecy. It's just most often used that way, much the same way as dungeon maps are most often used in secret behind the DM screen, but don't have to be. Changing the results is all that is required for fudging to happen.

 

[Maxperson]

Throughout this thread and others, it has been repeatedly stated that fudging is to be kept from the players. If you are telling the players what you are doing, in the open, then it isn't fudging anymore.

Fudging works best when secret, but secrecy is not required.

 

[Hussar]

Fudging works best when secret, but secrecy is not required.

Umm, didn't you just say that you would boot a player for asking if you fudge?

And don't those pieces of advice in the DMG that you've been quoting not specifically say to keep it from the players?

Now, suddenly, after umpteen pages, keeping it secret isn't a requirement? When did that change happen?

 

[Maxperson]

Umm, didn't you just say that you would boot a player for asking if you fudge?

Yep, which has NOTHING to do with fudging whatsoever. It would be for lack of trust, which can come for a ton of different reasons.

And don't those pieces of advice in the DMG that you've been quoting not specifically say to keep it from the players?

Yep, but not relevant. They give advice on how they would use it. They don't have any sort of authority to declare fudging can only be used secretly. Fudging pre-dated the 5e rules and isn't limited to the D&D brand.

I use it secretly. You might use it semi-secretly and let the players know you fudge, but not when. Iserith might not use it secretly at all and announce, "I fudged a roll." when he does it.

Now, suddenly, after umpteen pages, keeping it secret isn't a requirement? When did that change happen?

Never. It has never been a requirement. Umpteen pages ago people said they fudged and let people know whenever they did. Umpteen pages ago people said they let people know that they fudged, but not exactly when. If you think this happened "suddenly", you haven't been paying attention to the thread.

What you are doing is declaring that because I fish with live bait, people who use lures and flies aren't fishing.

 

[Rhenny]

Fudging works best when secret, but secrecy is not required.

I don't fudge often...but when I do....

For DMs, I've always found that it is best to maintain the illusion that everything is planned and part of the grand scheme of things even when it isn't. Of course, in a group of players who like improv and want their game to be more of an improv theater experience, it's probably better to let them know that you have no idea what's happening next. lol.