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

[Sacrosanct]

Two points:

If you feel a need to avoid fudging, you're forgetting rule zero: the GM is always right. Dice are what's needed only when the GM doesn't have a good answer. .

I strongly disagree with this. The GM was originally called a referee. Yeah, it's his or her campaign, but the GM has to be fair above everything else. Otherwise good luck finding players who want to keep playing with you. If the only time you think dice are needed is when you don't have a "good answer", then you might as well just narrate the whole game and not roll for anything. I would also even go as far to say it's not fair to the players if you make them adhere to random chance but you just dictate everything you want. To me, that just sounds like you want to dictate your story how you see it, and the players are just there for your whim.

I'm a pretty old school DM, and I totally believe in rulings over rules, but the game shouldn't become one where the DM just dictates everything whoever they think is best for everyone. Sometimes rolls go against what I want, but that's life in an RPG. Fairness is one of the most important things you can be as a DM.

 

[DEFCON 1]

From a game standpoint, if you already know that the players ARE going to win, and shuffle numbers around so that it happens when you think it most most appropriate, then you have already robbed the players of their victory.

Without a possibility of defeat, there can be no victory with any meaning.

You're arguing a different thing. The possibility of "defeat" was already long past.

Imaculata said that when the situation has come up that the players are going to win (like for example the monster has already lost 180 of 200 hit points and the party itself is fine)... if the way the battle is going might be more fun for the fight to end in a particular way for the players... delaying that final blow by tacking on some extra HP is not robbing them of anything, it's potentially helping form the story results of the fight. Like for example, if this monster was the Big Bad for a particular PC's background and history... and that PC is "on deck" for his turn right after another PC... if the first PC did enough damage to kill the Big Bad, I know that I (and I would imagine perhaps Imaculata) would have no problem tacking on a few extra HP to it so that it gives the player for whom this guy was the culmination of their story the chance to deliver the killing blow. Because it'd be more fun and (most likely) a better overall story for everyone to do so.

Now... doing this does not guarantee the story ending exactly as I'm thinking it will. If the PC then whiffs on a couple attacks to take the Big Bad out, so be it-- the next guy or the guy after probably will do it (in other words, I myself wouldn't bother delaying the death the entire next round just to give the PC another "chance" at delivering the killing blow.) But for incredibly minor situations like this? Sure! Why not? There's no harm in it if your particular game world does not require absolute simulation.

For some DMs and players, that simulation is critical. I understand completely. And that's cool. But it's definitely not a requirement for every game and every table.

 

[billd91]

As the DM, I reserve the right to edit anything going on with my side of the DM's screen - and that includes die rolls. I don't do it often - probably just a handful of times a year - I usually don't need to. But I will do it if I think the results of the roll are too much/not right for the situation at hand. Usually this happens if I roll an unusually strong crit, roll a result that will negate a lot of clever or hard work on the part of the PCs, or if the dice have been really harsh just because of luck.

 

[JeffB]

Never fudge to the detriment of the players/benefit of the opposition . But do to their benefit when something goes wonky.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You're arguing a different thing. The possibility of "defeat" was already long past.

Imaculata said that when the situation has come up that the players are going to win (like for example the monster has already lost 180 of 200 hit points and the party itself is fine)... if the way the battle is going might be more fun for the fight to end in a particular way for the players... delaying that final blow by tacking on some extra HP is not robbing them of anything, it's potentially helping form the story results of the fight.

I don't think so. I might be misreading this. Let me clarify specifically what I was responding to:

As a storyteller, I am secretly on the side of the players. The monsters are there to die, and they are all living on borrowed time.

That doesn't sound like a referee running a fair game to me. Perhaps you see it differently, but such a statement is fairly definitive of GM style to me. To me it sounds like the fix is in for the players right from the start.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That doesn't sound like a referee running a fair game to me. Perhaps you see it differently, but such a statement is fairly definitive of GM style to me. To me it sounds like the fix is in for the players right from the start.

Well, I'm not seeing it necessarily as black-and-white, maybe that's where we're differing. I mean... I understand where Imaculata is coming from and agree with him, mainly because I don't run my games in the sandbox style of "Everything is out there as-is, don't go to X location if you aren't high enough level to defeat the monsters because you *will* get killed."

So in my games, I am "on the side of the players" in that the adventures I design that they go on are usually appropriate for the characters involved. The encounters are designed such that most of the time the party is going to win. I mean... that's the whole reason for having CRs in the first place... so that DMs know the relative power level of the encounters to be somewhat certain of how the party might fare.

From the way you made your opinion sound... a DM "playing fair" doesn't actually take the party into account when designing encounters. If the DM has built their world such that at a particular point an Ancient Red Dragon feels the need to attack and raze a small village (wherein the six level 3 party members are found)... oh well. The story and world was designed for the dragon to do that action, and it's not "fair" if the DM decides "You know what... maybe I don't need to throw an Ancient Red Dragon against the party"?

Granted... "Ancient Red Dragon vs level 3 party" is an exaggeration on my part for effect, but the point stands. Do you consider designing encounters that are "appropriate" for the party to face (rather than arbitrarily placing monsters on the game board of your world and if the PCs happen to go there, sucks to be them) to be not a "fair" game on the part of the DM?

No judgement either way... I've seen enough DMs on the boards here who absolutely play that way and if it works for them, great... but I'm sure you can certainly see how many other DMs do not build their adventures (as opposed to their "worlds") in that way.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That doesn't sound like a referee running a fair game to me. Perhaps you see it differently, but such a statement is fairly definitive of GM style to me. To me it sounds like the fix is in for the players right from the start.

I know everyone has different preferences, but as a player, I would not want to play in a game where I know I'm bound to succeed pretty much no matter what. It takes the suspense and risk out of it. And I'd feel like I'm coddled; that the DM is protecting me. To be honest, I find that condescending. I'm a big boy and I know the risks an adventurer takes. If there was no risk, every commoner would be doing it.

Well, I'm not seeing it necessarily as black-and-white, maybe that's where we're differing. I mean... I understand where Imaculata is coming from and agree with him, mainly because I don't run my games in the sandbox style of "Everything is out there as-is, don't go to X location if you aren't high enough level to defeat the monsters because you *will* get killed."

So in my games, I am "on the side of the players" in that the adventures I design that they go on are usually appropriate for the characters involved. The encounters are designed such that most of the time the party is going to win. I mean... that's the whole reason for having CRs in the first place... so that DMs know the relative power level of the encounters to be somewhat certain of how the party might fare.

From the way you made your opinion sound... a DM "playing fair" doesn't actually take the party into account when designing encounters. If the DM has build their world such that at a particular point an Ancient Red Dragon feels the need to attack and raze a small village (wherein the six level 3 party members are found)... oh well. The story and world was designed for the dragon to do that action, and it's not "fair" if the DM decides "You know what... maybe I don't need to throw an Ancient Red Dragon against the party"?

Granted... "Ancient Red Dragon vs level 3 party" is an exaggeration on my part for effect, but the point stands. Do you consider designing encounters that are "appropriate" for the party to face (rather than arbitrarily placing monsters on the game board of your world and if the PCs happen to go there, sucks to be them) to be not a "fair" game on the part of the DM?

No judgement either way... I've seen enough DMs on the boards here to absolutely play that way and if it works for them, great... but I'm sure you can certainly see how many other DMs do not build their adventures (as opposed to their "worlds") in that way.

Not to speak for EW, but that's pretty much how I design game worlds (exaggerations aside). I design game worlds to be living worlds in ways that make as much sense as you can make them when there are monsters involved. The PCs have full ability to go and do anything they want. If they're level 3 and decide to go investigate the dragon attacks over there in Whoville? Well, that's on them. They could have followed up on rumors of of the orc raids in Smallville instead.

When I design individual adventures, yeah they are designed with a certain level range in mind and most monsters would fit within that level range. but they still act organically, and I won't neuter an area just because the players decided to do something really dumb.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I know everyone has different preferences, but as a player, I would not want to play in a game where I know I'm bound to succeed pretty much no matter what. It takes the suspense and risk out of it. And I'd feel like I'm coddled; that the DM is protecting me. To be honest, I find that condescending. I'm a big boy and I know the risks an adventurer takes. If there was no risk, every commoner would be doing it.




Not to speak for EW, but that's pretty much how I design game worlds (exaggerations aside). I design game worlds to be living worlds in ways that make as much sense as you can make them when there are monsters involved. The PCs have full ability to go and do anything they want. If they're level 3 and decide to go investigate the dragon attacks over there in Whoville? Well, that's on them. They could have followed up on rumors of of the orc raids in Smallville instead.

When I design individual adventures, yeah they are designed with a certain level range in mind and most monsters would fit within that level range. but they still act organically, and I won't neuter an area just because the players decided to do something really dumb.

Right, so you go both ways... which is how I suspect it is with many of us. It's not black-and-white.

So when Imaculata says "As a storyteller, I am secretly on the side of the players. The monsters are there to die, and they are all living on borrowed time." I think we should all understand that Imaculata is showing us the tendencies of how their game is run, and NOT a black-and-white statement that the players are *always* winning everything and will NEVER fail. It's nuance. And an understanding that when someone says "I do X", it really should be interpreted as "I USUALLY do X, but could change depending on the situation." and we only write it the first way to save time because we think the reader can understand the nuance.

 

[iserith]

For me, I'm overtly on the side of everyone having fun and creating an exciting, memorable story during play. This doesn't mean I'm on the side of the characters. When the rules need to be applied, I apply them fairly and consistently. When I decide the dice are needed to resolve uncertainty, then I abide by what they tell me.

 

[Valador]

Fudging rolls - No. ALL rolls in the open, including the DM's.

Fudging Creature HP - Yes. To lengthen/shorten combat for various purposes. If a player does an amazing dramatic attack and the creature is 1-3 HP from death and facing certain death regardless, then I'll just kill it off. Using different HP for similar creatures in a group makes combat feel more realistic and harder for players to gauge the enemies toughness or weakness. Also if the encounter is horribly skewed due to my mistake or horrible encounter building guidelines in the books, I can make adjustments on the fly. It also gives me the ability to let all the players shine by letting everyone get a chance of the kill rather than just the crazy damage dealers.