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

[DEFCON 1]

At that point, I think it sort of depends on what you intended to do with the roll. Did you always intend for it to be a "do things get complicated?" roll, or did you intend for it to be a "can you do this at all?" roll and then switch to merely asking whether things get complicated? Because that certainly sounds like it meets the "I wasn't sure it would work, so I asked the dice to tell me. Then, when the dice told me something, I ignored it" criterion.

Though, when we get to that kind of thinking, I do more understand where the pro-fudging crowd is coming from (and this is saying a LOT, coming from me). That is, when the difference between "fudging" and "not fudging" is what you meant to do with a roll before it happened, the two seem more like slightly different shades of the same color, rather than orange-vs-blue.

And that's precisely why I do not and will not ever worry about fudging or failing forward or any other things along those lines at my table. Everything is flexible. Exceptions are always made based on the situation. And the lines between "fudging" and "reactive DMing" are often so nebulous, even between DMs in this thread... that I've just stopped worrying about the "purity" of the game/rules/job and just do whatever gives what I hope to be the best experience for my players.

 

[Cody C. Lewis]

Can I just chime in and say I love the feedback. Especially since the discussions have been very cordial.

I think the point here so far, is that the styles and reasoning behind each DM varies tremendously. Even if two DM reach the same conclusion, they may have taken a different path to that conclusion.

Also, people who never fudge are liars... hahahaha j/k

 

[iserith]

At that point, I think it sort of depends on what you intended to do with the roll. Did you always intend for it to be a "do things get complicated?" roll, or did you intend for it to be a "can you do this at all?" roll and then switch to merely asking whether things get complicated? Because that certainly sounds like it meets the "I wasn't sure it would work, so I asked the dice to tell me. Then, when the dice told me something, I ignored it" criterion.

Though, when we get to that kind of thinking, I do more understand where the pro-fudging crowd is coming from (and this is saying a LOT, coming from me). That is, when the difference between "fudging" and "not fudging" is what you meant to do with a roll before it happened, the two seem more like slightly different shades of the same color, rather than orange-vs-blue.

Stakes should be set before the roll in my view. Oftentimes, I say what they are aloud when asking for a check.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Stakes should be set before the roll in my view. Oftentimes, I say what they are aloud when asking for a check.

Not a bad policy at all.

Can I just chime in and say I love the feedback. Especially since the discussions have been very cordial.

I think the point here so far, is that the styles and reasoning behind each DM varies tremendously. Even if two DM reach the same conclusion, they may have taken a different path to that conclusion.

Also, people who never fudge are liars... hahahaha j/k

First: The bolded bits are just a tad ironic, don't you think?
Second: I can quite honestly say I have never fudged--because I've never been a DM. I've considered it, numerous times, but I am concerned I don't have the...staying power, if that makes sense.

 

[Cody C. Lewis]

First: The bolded bits are just a tad ironic, don't you think?

Yes. I do.

 

[Imaculata]

I only fudge rolls when extreme bad luck happens to the PCs. I'm okay with most random chance holding sway, but when those times of extreme luck hit and I'm rolling crit after crit, or the players are missing their 80% chance to hit 80% of the fight, I will fudge things a bit to even up the fight and give them a chance to survive. A TPK because the group had unavoidable bad luck is a no no in my book.

If the party gets in over their heads through bad decisions or bad tactics, no fudging will be had.

I agree with this. I've had similar situations where I kept rolling crits against the players, and it just wasn't very fair. So I changed a few crits to normal hits.

I never do the opposite though. I never change normal hits to crits.

 

[Hussar]

There are different kinds of failing forward. The kind where if you fail, you can find another route to success is not fudging. However, the kind where you either succeed or succeed with a cost is fudging. The die roll is success/failure, not success/success with cost. If you're going to change failure into something other than failure, you are fudging.

Now this I disagree with. When you add the option of success with a cost, you open up all sorts of design space. Heck what do you think save for half actually means? Lots of things aren't simple pass/fail.

 

[Maxperson]

Now this I disagree with. When you add the option of success with a cost, you open up all sorts of design space. Heck what do you think save for half actually means? Lots of things aren't simple pass/fail.

You can open up options with all kinds of things with optional rules. That doesn't mean that the game doesn't run ability checks, attacks and saves as success/failure. Save for half is an exception to the general rule.

When you take a success/fail roll and turn the failed roll into a success with a cost, it's functionally no different than someone fudging a roll. In both cases you've taken a roll and altered the outcome that the die roll indicated by the rules into something that isn't indicated by the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree with this. I've had similar situations where I kept rolling crits against the players, and it just wasn't very fair. So I changed a few crits to normal hits.

I never do the opposite though. I never change normal hits to crits.

Yeah. I don't change normal hits into crits, either. It's not about me winning or losing. It's about being fair to the players and/or providing a fun encounter experience.

 

[Hussar]

You can open up options with all kinds of things with optional rules. That doesn't mean that the game doesn't run ability checks, attacks and saves as success/failure. Save for half is an exception to the general rule.

When you take a success/fail roll and turn the failed roll into a success with a cost, it's functionally no different than someone fudging a roll. In both cases you've taken a roll and altered the outcome that the die roll indicated by the rules into something that isn't indicated by the rules.

The irony here considering how strongly you argued for altering the rules for success in the other thread is delicious.