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

[Maxperson]

I've been thinking about my games and I realized that I have in fact fudged player rolls. Openly, too. Occasionally I'll call for a roll and when the roll is done, I realize that I shouldn't have called for that roll and it should have just been successful. If the roll is a failure, I've told them to disregard and treated it as a success. So far nobody has taken it poorly, and they have in fact appreciated it. I haven't had anyone all up in arms because I ignored the result of the die roll.

 

[wedgeski]

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 would prefer the player declare that he's going to try to "hold back on the follow through" and look to me for resolution (which I would happily allow and encourage in this case). It's better drama, it showcases the action to the rest of the table, and it puts the decision where it belongs, with the DM, who after all knows way more about what's going on than the player (perhaps the monster in question opened itself to the crit deliberately for some reason).

 

[iserith]

But there's no practical difference. In one case, you fudge the dice so they deal less damage. In the other case, you roll an attack, hit, look at the PC's HP, see that it is one, and decide that instead of dealing 10 damage the attack will knock the PC unconscious.

Both are changing the rules on the fly as it suits the DM. I do not think that this is wrong, I think it's great. But there's no difference between that and fudging rolls. The effect is exactly the same. Unless the monster stat block says that the attack made by the monster cannot ever kill a character, only knock them unconscious. But then that's a monster design, and the issue would never occur in the first place.

I think the disconnect is the belief that the rules come first. They do not. The DM's judgement comes first, then the rules come into play IF the DM finds there is uncertainty as to the outcome. I don't advocate changing the rules. I do advocate living with the result that comes from using the rules when you bring them into play. Bring the rules and dice into play to resolve uncertainty and then ignoring the result they produce is what fudging is in my view.

 

[rlor]

The player can also physically punch someone. Being able to do something physically doesn't make it okay.

Players can cheat. The DM can't. Players have limitations built into their role in the game. The DM doesn't. They don't have the option to intentionally violate the rules without DM permission.

Which is one of the reasons this topic has been so hotly discussed. Few would say the DM does not have the ability to fudge, they argue that they shouldn't. The DM has the power to turn D&D into "Sunshine Boulevard - The Secret Lives of Serial Killers... and Dragons" and they wouldn't be breaking a rule to do so. Obviously the two are at opposite ends of the scale on severity in going against expectations.

I have a bit more moderate view. I don't fudge, I did when I first started DMing because that is how I thought it was supposed to work. Over the years I changed my mind. There was no moment of a player calling me out either, I just came to have a different viewpoint.

I think there are tables where it is a bad idea to fudge because the people sitting at them would vastly prefer the dice to fall where they may, are prepared and even excited to deal with the consequences, and are fairly observant people. There are probably a significant amount of tables where the players would expect the DM to fudge to save their character they've grown attached to as well. I'm probably never going to be at the same table as you or vice versa so it really doesn't affect me if you fudge or not. When talking about every table though, I think there are those where fudging is going to be a bad idea yet their game will still be enjoyable without it.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I've been thinking about my games and I realized that I have in fact fudged player rolls. Openly, too. Occasionally I'll call for a roll and when the roll is done, I realize that I shouldn't have called for that roll and it should have just been successful. If the roll is a failure, I've told them to disregard and treated it as a success. So far nobody has taken it poorly, and they have in fact appreciated it. I haven't had anyone all up in arms because I ignored the result of the die roll.

I have to ask for clarification: In this instances of asking for a player to roll, then realizing you didn't want them to roll because they should just succeed, do you simply tell them their attempt was successful no matter what the resulting roll was, or are you telling them that you didn't actually want them to roll? Basically, are you doing A or B below?

A) "Roll [blank]." (player rolls, announces result) "You succeed."
B) "Roll [blank]." (player rolls, announces result) "Wait, disregard that I didn't actually want to ask for a roll, you just succeed."

I have to ask because A is fudging and B isn't since fudging is by definition secret, and B is in fact exactly the kind of thing that I encourage DMs to do instead of fudging. Specifically because players, in my experience, really appreciate it when their DM can say "Nope, I made a bad call - let's fix that."

 

[Noctem]

I have to ask for clarification: In this instances of asking for a player to roll, then realizing you didn't want them to roll because they should just succeed, do you simply tell them their attempt was successful no matter what the resulting roll was, or are you telling them that you didn't actually want them to roll? Basically, are you doing A or B below?

A) "Roll [blank]." (player rolls, announces result) "You succeed."
B) "Roll [blank]." (player rolls, announces result) "Wait, disregard that I didn't actually want to ask for a roll, you just succeed."

I have to ask because A is fudging and B isn't since fudging is by definition secret, and B is in fact exactly the kind of thing that I encourage DMs to do instead of fudging. Specifically because players, in my experience, really appreciate it when their DM can say "Nope, I made a bad call - let's fix that."

Yep, agree with you 100%. B is not fudging and I would recommend to all DM's that they be open enough with the rest of the group to do it that way.

 

[FarBeyondC]

But there's no practical difference. In one case, you fudge the dice so they deal less damage. In the other case, you roll an attack, hit, look at the PC's HP, see that it is one, and decide that instead of dealing 10 damage the attack will knock the PC unconscious.

Is the attacker trying to kill the PC in this case?

 

[Umbran]

Note, there is more to that part than that single point.

Hussar, whether or not you intend it, you're effectively moving the goalposts.

The section you are quoting presents a number of options, not just carte blanche for fudging.

You asked a pretty simple question. He answered that question, just as simply, with a direct quote. The rules *do* allow it. You *did not* ask if the game said that all GMs should fudge blithely and frequently. You didn't ask whether fudging was the only option presented. These things are not mitigation on the point that the rules note this is an option for the GM.

Even in the DMG advice, the idea of distorting die rolls comes with caveats and limitations - keep it a secret and don't do it too often.

Yes, and? Has anyone in the discussion claimed they didn't follow those caveats? Has anyone argued that they are running the game in a way inconsistent with what the book says? If not, the book is not a help to your point.

You only hide stuff that you know players would object to.

This is factually incorrect. Badly so.

You hide your maps and stat blocks from the players, don't you? Surely, the vast majority of GMs do not publish these things to their players. Do we do so because they'd "object" to the stat blocks, or because knowledge of those would have a detrimental impact upon play? We all recognize that there is game content and information that players don't get to know.

I ask my players before campaign play begins if they have a problem with fudging. If they answer they do not, I am assured they won't object to it. I *still* generally don't tell them when it happens, because, like the stat blocks of my monsters, that's mechanical information that the players should not have, and for similar reasons.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Do we do so because they'd "object" to the stat blocks, or because knowledge of those would have a detrimental impact upon play?

Or is it possible that DMs that hide maps and stat blocks are doing so only because some guy said that you have to do that for reasons that basically read as "you can't trust your players to play the game in good faith", and because this guy is "supposed" to know what he is talking about took it as truth and never thought to test it?

I mean, I don't force my players to look at my maps or read the Monster Manual, but I don't stop them from doing so and there has been zero detrimental impact upon play.

Heck, if knowing stuff about the game was inherently detrimental, I'd never be able to enjoy playing a character in someone else's D&D game unless they made sure to not use any monster published in a Monster Manual or Creature Collection.

 

[Imaculata]

I think the disconnect is the belief that the rules come first. They do not. The DM's judgement comes first, then the rules come into play IF the DM finds there is uncertainty as to the outcome. I don't advocate changing the rules. I do advocate living with the result that comes from using the rules when you bring them into play. Bring the rules and dice into play to resolve uncertainty and then ignoring the result they produce is what fudging is in my view.

I agree. I'm against changing the outcome of a roll, after bringing the rules into play. For example, a DM saying the player succeeds without calling for a roll, that's not fudging. As a DM, it is your call if a roll is needed or not, and whether there is any doubt about the outcome or not. But if a DM first asks for a roll, and after that roll he decides to change the outcome... that does not sit right with me.

Once you start using the rules, you should stick to them. If you throw an evil wizard at the players, and he starts casting Icestorm, then you roll what ever damage is stated for that spell in the book. That wizard should be using what ever spells are appropriate for his level, and I think the rolls for those spells should be made openly. Its quite possible that you'll deal way more damage to the players than you intended, and it's also quite possible that the damage will be very underwhelming. But it is important that once you start rolling those dice, you respect their outcome. Otherwise you shouldn't even be rolling those dice to begin with.

But there are in my opinion other ways to fudge, that are perfectly valid. You could for example decide to lower the hit points of the evil wizard if he seems unreasonably tough, or have him cast other spells than the ones that are most effective at dealing damage, if his damage rolls happen to fall unreasonably high. You could even reduce his level, if you really messed up the challenge rating. But that may cause other complications regarding his saves and such. If he's dying too fast, maybe he casts a spell that you didn't originally put on his spell list? But if it makes for a better fight, who cares? And if you feel that he should die a round earlier, then that's entirely your call. Sometimes fights drag on for way too long, and I think it is good for any DM to realize when on-the-fly adjustments may be called for. I've also on occasion changed the crit of a monster against the players into a normal hit, but never the other way around, and I've never changed the crits of players against monsters into normal hits either.