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

[Tony Vargas]

To my reading this discussion has been more on "do you think it is 'ethical' and 'good for the game' instead of 'do the rules support it'" so I asked my question with that in mind.

Whether it's good for the game depends upon the game, so the role of player vs the role of DM seems relevant, and, in 5e, they're /very/ different roles. The DM's job includes making rulings and judgements about what's best for the game, the players' is primarily making decisions for his character. The former could easily/legitimately include 'fudging,' among many other things. The latter not so much.


But, the degree to which it's 'ethical' seems pretty trivial, or, maybe I should say, seems to trivialize more important ethical concerns. Implying it's 'dishonest' for instance, is overblown. I'd also say it's inaccurate, that when you take something behind the screen, it's implicit that you're keeping the option open, so not deception, merely limited information-sharing that's consistent with 5e DM/Player responsibilities.

 

[rlor]

Whether it's good for the game depends upon the game, so the role of player vs the role of DM seems relevant, and, in 5e, they're /very/ different roles. The DM's job includes making rulings and judgements about what's best for the game, the players' is primarily making decisions for his character. The former could easily/legitimately include 'fudging,' among many other things. The latter not so much.


But, the degree to which it's 'ethical' seems pretty trivial, or, maybe I should say, seems to trivialize more important ethical concerns. Implying it's 'dishonest' for instance, is overblown. I'd also say it's inaccurate, that when you take something behind the screen, it's implicit that you're keeping the option open, so not deception, merely limited information-sharing that's consistent with 5e DM/Player responsibilities.

I'd say it is a form of deception just like when I bluff while playing cards. A big difference in cards is everyone is expected to bluff and is on equal footing.

As a DM I never do it, but if you have a table full of people that are all really attached to their characters and don't want them losing or dieing because that would kill the enjoyment of the game for them, then I could see the DM having a good reason to fudge the crit into a normal hit because that table will have more fun. I'd personally seek to use a different tool by changing the stakes of the combat.

If you have a table of mixed playstyles where some people who are perfectly fine with their characters losing or dieing are present and they get annoyed that the DM fudges dice, then fudging to me is not a good idea. If the DM were to say "I'll sometimes fudge things, deal with it or don't play" then they can make an informed choice before play. Or the DM can use any other number of options, some which have been said by iserith in this thread, to reduce the chance of sad times without annoying others.

From my personal experience I have encountered more DMs that have a mixed table and incorrectly think they have a table full of the former (and this is even if I discount my own personal view from the tally). Added on to that most are not the best at bluffing and so while you certainly wouldn't catch them every time, or even most of the time, they have fairly obvious tells even if you're not looking for them. And once a player feels pretty sure, then they're not going to trust any convenient roll after that.

I guess what I don't like when these threads come up is normally the people responding that are pro-fudge seem like they are going to do it regardless of the table they DM for and while for their current table it may be accepted as good practice, I don't think that would be the case all the time.

 

[billd91]

A question for those in favor of fudging:

Would it be wrong in your mind for a player to decide on their own that they don't want to crit the monster because they want it to stay up longer or give someone else the kill, so they bluff that they rolled a 19 (or a miss) instead of a natural 20?

I don't think anyone would want a player making false claims about rolling a critical when they didn't, but if they're intentionally weakening themselves and bluffing it was the dice for the purpose of improving the game is that wrong in your eyes?

I think it depends on the downside of rolling that 20 (if there are any - and there may be times there are). For most cases, bumping a crit down to a normal hit or a hit to a miss would probably be OK. I also wouldn't oppose a player taking 5 (or 1) instead of 10 when Take 10 would otherwise be an appropriate course of action. I don't have any more problem with those than with someone intentionally blowing a saving throw.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd say it is a form of deception just like when I bluff while playing cards. A big difference in cards is everyone is expected to bluff and is on equal footing.

The latter is the big difference. In 5e, DMs and players are not on remotely equal footing. Calling it 'deception' is a silly exaggeration, though. I'm 'lying' to you about something I'm making up out of whole cloth to begin with? Hardly. I'm just not sharing all the details of the whole resolution process.

If you have a table of mixed playstyles where some people who are perfectly fine with their characters losing or dieing are present and they get annoyed that the DM fudges dice, then fudging to me is not a good idea.

It's players like that, who would be annoyed by 'DM force', that call for 'fudging,' rather than just making rulings, changing rules or 'stakes,' or what-have-you, openly. You can cater to the mixed attitudes of such a table by keeping things behind the screen and keeping up some plausible deniability.

If the DM were to say "I'll sometimes fudge things, deal with it or don't play" then they can make an informed choice before play.

If there's a DM screen up, it's a very real possibility, that should be obvious.

 

[rlor]

The latter is the big difference. In 5e, DMs and players are not on remotely equal footing. Calling it 'deception' is a silly exaggeration, though. I'm 'lying' to you about something I'm making up out of whole cloth to begin with? Hardly. I'm just not sharing all the details of the whole resolution process.

It's players like that, who would be annoyed by 'DM force', that call for 'fudging,' rather than just making rulings, changing rules or 'stakes,' or what-have-you, openly. You can cater to the mixed attitudes of such a table by keeping things behind the screen and keeping up some plausible deniability.

If there's a DM screen up, it's a very real possibility, that should be obvious.

A card player doesn't require seeing the other person's cards to strongly suspect that they're bluffing. The DM screen doesn't provide any special protection over playing cards with someone. A tactic that involves never being strongly suspected of something you do more than once over an extended period of time doesn't have the odds in your favor.

As for it being obvious, that is a paradox I wonder on. If it is obvious to players that a DM with a screen is likely to fudge things, but yet some people (including those on the pro-fudge side) believe that it is important that the DM never be suspected of fudging because then it reduces the player's enjoyment on later encounters. I don't see how that is resolved in favor of fudging behind a DM screen.

It seems it would be better to just roll in the open with hard to read dice, use some other tool, or seek a buy-in from all the players at the beginning that fudging will happen.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A card player doesn't require seeing the other person's cards to strongly suspect that they're bluffing. The DM screen doesn't provide any special protection over playing cards with someone.

If you're playing cards, you don't know what the other guy is holding, that's the point. If you have a DM screen, your players can't see what you're rolling or what notes you have or are making. Also the point. Both equally obvious. There's information that's not being shared.

The difference is that the DM & players are not equal participants in the game, the DM's position is much more responsible.

As for it being obvious, that is a paradox I wonder on. If it is obvious to players that a DM with a screen is likely to fudge things, but yet some people (including those on the pro-fudge side) believe that it is important that the DM never be suspected of fudging because then it reduces the player's enjoyment on later encounters.

'Suspect' all you want, you can't know for sure. Just like dice provide uncertainty, so does bringing more of the resolution process behind the screen. You just have more control over the uncertainty. When the DM & player roles are highly divergent, it makes a lot of sense. The more the DM is like another player, the less sense it makes, and the more 'above board' makes sense.

It seems it would be better to just roll in the open with hard to read dice, use some other tool, or seek a buy-in from all the players at the beginning that fudging will happen.

Of course, it's always easier if you have a group of players who are all bought into exactly the same style. Not common, but easy.

 

[rlor]

If you're playing cards, you don't know what the other guy is holding, that's the point. If you have a DM screen, your players can't see what you're rolling or what notes you have or are making. Also the point. Both equally obvious. There's information that's not being shared.

The difference is that the DM & players are not equal participants in the game, the DM's position is much more responsible.

'Suspect' all you want, you can't know for sure. Just like dice provide uncertainty, so does bringing more of the resolution process behind the screen. You just have more control over the uncertainty. When the DM & player roles are highly divergent, it makes a lot of sense. The more the DM is like another player, the less sense it makes, and the more 'above board' makes sense.

Of course, it's always easier if you have a group of players who are all bought into exactly the same style. Not common, but easy.

In your opinion is the goal of fudging to primarily make the game more enjoyable for everyone involved? Or is that secondary to the DM having more control over the situation (though table enjoyment still playing a significant part)? Or some other reason?

It just seems like sometimes fudging is treated as a hammer that doesn't always fit the former goal from the discussion we've had. If it is the latter, then while I don't agree with it, I can understand the logic. If it is some other reason then I'd like to know what it is.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In your opinion is the goal of fudging to primarily make the game more enjoyable for everyone involved?

Yes. Such is very much the DM's responsibility, and to a much greater degree than the players.' And, yes, having more control over the players' uncertainty about/experience of the imagined world is part of the powerful toolkit 5e gives its Empowered DMs.

It just seems like sometimes fudging is treated as a hammer that doesn't always fit the former goal

Any tool can be misused, and the more powerful the tool, the greater the consequences of screwing up with it. 5e DM Empowerment gives us some powerful tools, indeed. Fudging can be one of the subtler ones.

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe under a 'Rule 0' or 'Golden Rule' philosophy, under 5e Rulings not Rules, though, it makes perfect sense. The Empowered 5e DM simply has primacy over the rules. He can change them formally, if he likes (house rules, modules), but he can still make rulings notwithstanding them.

My understanding about "Rulings over rules." is not that the DM can just ignore the rules as if they weren't there, but rather than when confronted with something vague, that the rules don't cover, or a situation where the rules doesn't make sense, he is encourage to make a ruling for that situation rather than just blindly follow the letter of the rule.

 

[Maxperson]

A question for those in favor of fudging:

Would it be wrong in your mind for a player to decide on their own that they don't want to crit the monster because they want it to stay up longer or give someone else the kill, so they bluff that they rolled a 19 (or a miss) instead of a natural 20?

I don't think anyone would want a player making false claims about rolling a critical when they didn't, but if they're intentionally weakening themselves and bluffing it was the dice for the purpose of improving the game is that wrong in your eyes?

Your question is irrelevant. A player is not the DM. The roles and powers of the player don't allow the player to do many things that the DM can. You might as well ask if it would be wrong in the minds of DMs in favor of making encounters if it would be wrong for the players to decide to make encounters.