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

[billd91]

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.

Personally, I find this a largely pointless distinction. The act of rolling the die and seeing the result can spark additional ideas in the resolution even if you decided that the attempt was, in the main, going to be successful. A really good roll and I'll describe a particularly spectacular success - a poor one and I'll describe a lower degree of success, barely scraping by, perhaps even add a complication. The point of either - whether declaring a success without a roll or declaring one regardless of the result of the roll - is using my powers as a GM to adjudicate the attempt and, when the die is rolled, using that die roll to inform the result.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...and, when the die is rolled, using that die roll to inform the result.

What you are describing here is the opposite of fudging.

Fudging is when you roll a die and then decide that roll has absolutely no impact upon the results (in effect, it has been rolled only to produce the sound of a die being rolled - not because it is actually being used as a part of the determination of results).

 

[Imaculata]

Personally, I find this a largely pointless distinction. The act of rolling the die and seeing the result can spark additional ideas in the resolution even if you decided that the attempt was, in the main, going to be successful. A really good roll and I'll describe a particularly spectacular success - a poor one and I'll describe a lower degree of success, barely scraping by, perhaps even add a complication. The point of either - whether declaring a success without a roll or declaring one regardless of the result of the roll - is using my powers as a GM to adjudicate the attempt and, when the die is rolled, using that die roll to inform the result.

What you are describing is entirely different from what was discussed.

What was under discussion, is the act of asking for a skill check, and then reconsidering whether there was any doubt over the outcome. In example A, the DM does not admit any mistake, and simply narrates the outcome, even though the skill check was pointless. And in example B, he informs his players that he made a mistake, and that the roll result can be ignored.

I don't have a problem with either. I don't think A is any less honest than B. But I think a DM should teach himself to not always ask for skill checks. I think too many DM's and players automatically assume a skill check, when it should be up to the DM to decide if there is any doubt over the outcome to begin with.

Now what you are describing is entirely different: The act of narrating the level of success or failure based on the exact roll result. I do this as well. A player can barely succeed, barely fail, or succeed or fail gloriously. In the case of a glorious success (usually a 20+ result) I often ask the player to describe to the other players what he does. In the case of an amazing failure (usually a 1), I often add further complications on top of the attempt going horribly wrong. But this has nothing to do with fudging. It is simply a different way to adjudicate.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Personally, I find this a largely pointless distinction. The act of rolling the die and seeing the result can spark additional ideas in the resolution even if you decided that the attempt was, in the main, going to be successful. A really good roll and I'll describe a particularly spectacular success - a poor one and I'll describe a lower degree of success, barely scraping by, perhaps even add a complication. The point of either - whether declaring a success without a roll or declaring one regardless of the result of the roll - is using my powers as a GM to adjudicate the attempt and, when the die is rolled, using that die roll to inform the result.

Deciding that the action will succeed, but wondering what the degree of success will be, is not fudging--in my book at least. You still care what precisely the die says; you are not asking for the die and then disregarding it.

I'm talking about "using [your] powers as a GM to adjudicate the attempt and, when the die is rolled," NOT "using that die roll to inform the result." Having the die take exactly 0 part in informing how it is used.

With, as I have said elsewhere, an allowance made for a "placebo die"--one you roll behind a screen, to create a feeling of suspense. I don't *like* placebo rolls, but rolling just for the "special effects" when you never intended to use the die for any other reason is...tolerable.

Edit: Ninja'd. Dang you guys are quick!

 

[Nagol]

What you are describing here is the opposite of fudging.

Fudging is when you roll a die and then decide that roll has absolutely no impact upon the results (in effect, it has been rolled only to produce the sound of a die being rolled - not because it is actually being used as a part of the determination of results).

To be fair, the DM may roll expecting to use the result then realise the actual result (often "too remote a chance to consider actually occurring") conflicts with his desires and so he substitutes a different result on the fly.

 

[Imaculata]

I agree though, even though we ninjas the response. I don't like the "placebo die". Where the DM secretly rolls behind his screen, but the result is already set in stone, and not affected by what is rolled what so ever. Either you roll and accept what is rolled, or you don't roll at all.

If you've decided that the assassin sneaks up on the players unnoticed, then what is the point of rolling fake stealth checks behind you screen to maintain the illusion of the rules? Just narrates what happens, and leave the dice in their box. Besides, I think it creates suspense to roll dice out in the open. When I roll for the attacks of my monsters, I do so out in the open, and my players dread the outcome. There are huge bursts of laughter when the monster rolls poorly, or great shock when the monster rolls good. I don't like the idea of changing the outcome after rolling.

Now suppose the players stumble upon an npc trapped in a cage, and they fail to pick the lock? The npc needs to be freed for the story to continue, but the players keep rolling 1's and failing their checks. What do you do? Not all DM's are good at improvising alternate scenarios, and maybe they really want that npc to get saved by the players. Yes, its railroading, which I'm not a fan of, but it is not a crime either. So what do you do?

I think it is okay to admit that you made a mistake as a DM, and that given enough time the players eventually manage to open the lock. But it is of course better to never ask for those skill checks to begin with, if your intention was all along for the npc to get saved. Don't make them roll first, and then double back on the outcome. Just tell them they succeed, and don't ask for a roll.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

It seems to me like the DM is given primacy over the rules even in that sense. I'm not even sure "Rulings not Rules" is actually in a book somewhere, it's something Mearls has said to sum up the whole philosophy.
Anyway, 5e rules are written in natural language, so you can probably find a pretext to rule one way or another if you like, but who judges whether the rules are vague enough to require a ruling? Why, the DM, of course.

I agree though, even though we ninjas the response. I don't like the "placebo die". Where the DM secretly rolls behind his screen, but the result is already set in stone, and not affected by what is rolled what so ever. Either you roll and accept what is rolled, or you don't roll at all.

If you've decided that the assassin sneaks up on the players unnoticed, then what is the point of rolling fake stealth checks behind you screen to maintain the illusion of the rules?

That illusion can be important to some players, or, less charitably, there are players who will draw conclusions from what they observe at the table that their characters have no basis for. If you roll, the assumption is that the thing you're rolling for isn't entirely out of their league, where if you don't they might assume that it is. If what's really happening is that you decided for narrative reasons that an enemy who might or might not succeed, did in that instance, you'd be telegraphing the wrong in formation. Of course, you might also not want to telegraph the right information.

Now, that's only true of some systems and some players. With a different system and players who are up for it, you can have everything out in the open. Or you can merely keep less behind the screen. It's a matter of system, styles, preferences, and what works for the DM, at his table, possibly even moment to moment. There are times, for instance, when, even though you generally keep things behind the screen, you make a roll in the center of the table, or you tell the players a statistic off the monster's stat block. Running 5e requires a lot of DM judgement and is at least as much art and feel as 'science' or system.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree though, even though we ninjas the response. I don't like the "placebo die". Where the DM secretly rolls behind his screen, but the result is already set in stone, and not affected by what is rolled what so ever. Either you roll and accept what is rolled, or you don't roll at all.

It's been so funny, reading your posts as the discussion progresses. You said you supported fudging, I said I didn't--and yet it seems we feel exactly the same about it, or perhaps just a hair different. Just goes to show how easy it is to accidentally talk past someone!

If you've decided that the assassin sneaks up on the players unnoticed, then what is the point of rolling fake stealth checks behind you screen to maintain the illusion of the rules? Just narrates what happens, and leave the dice in their box. Besides, I think it creates suspense to roll dice out in the open. When I roll for the attacks of my monsters, I do so out in the open, and my players dread the outcome. There are huge bursts of laughter when the monster rolls poorly, or great shock when the monster rolls good. I don't like the idea of changing the outcome after rolling.

Now suppose the players stumble upon an npc trapped in a cage, and they fail to pick the lock? The npc needs to be freed for the story to continue, but the players keep rolling 1's and failing their checks. What do you do? Not all DM's are good at improvising alternate scenarios, and maybe they really want that npc to get saved by the players. Yes, its railroading, which I'm not a fan of, but it is not a crime either. So what do you do?

Solidly agreed. If something needs to happen for the game to continue--just let it happen, don't leave it up to the whims of chance. If you've already decided something like "the assassin will sneak past," don't put up a pretense of rolling. If, on the other hand, your players know you're about to roll something, and they just super duper ultra HAVE to believe that you're deciding randomly rather than "railroading" them or whatever, I don't really mind fulfilling their deeply-seated need. I just consider that need a little...sad. Especially if it "ruins the fun" or whatever when that need isn't met--that's just being petulant. I don't know that I've actually gamed with someone who felt that way though, so I'm a little skeptical that such intense NEED for the DM to *always* roll *everything* is actually real.

I think it is okay to admit that you made a mistake as a DM, and that given enough time the players eventually manage to open the lock. But it is of course better to never ask for those skill checks to begin with, if your intention was all along for the npc to get saved. Don't make them roll first, and then double back on the outcome. Just tell them they succeed, and don't ask for a roll.

100% agreed. If X must happen for the adventure to continue...there's no point in making X possibly fail. That means the adventure possibly grinds to a halt, which is silly. Just say it happens; maybe give the players a shot at causing it on their own, but if it starts to seem like it ain't gonna happen, just state it and move on. Holding the game hostage to a roll, just so you can then fudge the roll, is just...I don't get it.

Now, that's only true of some systems and some players. With a different system and players who are up for it, you can have everything out in the open. Or you can merely keep less behind the screen. It's a matter of system, styles, preferences, and what works for the DM, at his table, possibly even moment to moment. There are times, for instance, when, even though you generally keep things behind the screen, you make a roll in the center of the table, or you tell the players a statistic off the monster's stat block. Running 5e requires a lot of DM judgement and is at least as much art and feel as 'science' or system.

Ech...in my experience, and informed by what others (particularly you) have told me, I'd say it's not "at least as much art and feel as 'science' or system," and more "90% art and feel, 9.9% conflating with past editions/house rules, 0.1% 'science' or system." But I'm a 5e critic, so perhaps that's to be expected.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ech...in my experience, and informed by what others (particularly you) have told me, I'd say it's not "at least as much art and feel as 'science' or system," and more "90% art and feel, 9.9% conflating with past editions/house rules, 0.1% 'science' or system."

I'm trying to stay positive, here.

 

[iserith]

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.

I would consider much of this to be fudging on the grounds of changing that which was established and thus I would not do it. I show hit point bars to the players on Roll20, so they at least know proportion of hit points remaining. I also don't care about challenge rating or "balanced" encounters. I roll in the open, so I can't change a crit to a hit (nor would I want to). If a challenge takes longer to overcome, that's okay because the duration of a challenge should little bearing on how engaging it is - other factors are at play when a challenge is seen as being too short or too long in my view.

It seems to me like the DM is given primacy over the rules even in that sense. I'm not even sure "Rulings not Rules" is actually in a book somewhere, it's something Mearls has said to sum up the whole philosophy.
Anyway, 5e rules are written in natural language, so you can probably find a pretext to rule one way or another if you like, but who judges whether the rules are vague enough to require a ruling? Why, the DM, of course.

Lots of people take "ruling" to mean whatever DM lays down when the rules don't quite cover a situation or where the rules outright fail.

My take is that anything the DM says (especially with regard to adjudicating and narrating the result of an action described by a player) is a ruling and those things may be based on the rules or other considerations. Players should play the game based on the rulings that the DM makes which is, ideally in my view, reasonably consistent and reliable. Under that definition, "rulings not rules" makes a whole lot more sense to me.