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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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.

To be fair, in that situation the DM is presented with a number of options as to what to do, a couple of which are:

A) Say something along the lines of "Sorry everyone, disregard that roll, the die just pointed out to me that I [insert which mistake it actually was that lead to this; forgetting/being unaware a particular result was possible at all (like this one time I was running DCC and crit with a spell against the party only to find out that the spell was capable of preventing the entire party and everyone on their ship from having ever existed, no save), or putting a result that could conditionally become undesirable on your list of things that might happen according to random roll] and that's not at all cool, right? How about [insert different result here] instead?

B) Hope the players all miss the story told on your face when seeing the die result, registering what that result means as undesired, and then telling the players a result that is delivered with tone, body language, and facial expression that don't match, while you change the result without their input (and hopefully without their knowledge, especially since even the rule-book that says you can do this says not to let anyone know, ever) and without actually giving yourself an opportunity to learn from the mistake you made because you likely won't even remember this moment as being a mistake.

 

[Nagol]

To be fair, in that situation the DM is presented with a number of options as to what to do, a couple of which are:

A) Say something along the lines of "Sorry everyone, disregard that roll, the die just pointed out to me that I [insert which mistake it actually was that lead to this; forgetting/being unaware a particular result was possible at all (like this one time I was running DCC and crit with a spell against the party only to find out that the spell was capable of preventing the entire party and everyone on their ship from having ever existed, no save), or putting a result that could conditionally become undesirable on your list of things that might happen according to random roll] and that's not at all cool, right? How about [insert different result here] instead?

B) Hope the players all miss the story told on your face when seeing the die result, registering what that result means as undesired, and then telling the players a result that is delivered with tone, body language, and facial expression that don't match, while you change the result without their input (and hopefully without their knowledge, especially since even the rule-book that says you can do this says not to let anyone know, ever) and without actually giving yourself an opportunity to learn from the mistake you made because you likely won't even remember this moment as being a mistake.

I wholly agree.

 

[Imaculata]

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!

It seems like we definitely agree on a lot of points. I do support fudging in general, but I don't support all kinds of fudging (which is where we agree I think), and I think DM's should try and not fudge if they can help it.

Yet, I also feel that DM's should not behave like they are being held hostage by the rules of the game. This is a point that I've seen Iserith made all the time, but it deserves repeating: The DM's ruling comes first, and the game rules second.

A good friend of mine and fellow DM, Frank, taught me a lot about how to simply ignore the rules, and make rulings on the fly. Sometimes the rules just get in the way. Don't be afraid to put the rules aside, but be consistent in it. One of the best things that I've seen this friend of mine do is say: "How do you intend to do this?" rather than "You can't do that". He would improvise rules on the fly, and sometimes even ask his players what a fair way would be to rule a specific situation. This ensures that everyone agrees on how the rulings are being made. It also means that the game rules are always open to interpretation and discussion, which I like. He would say stuff like: "Well, the rules say you can't do that, but I disagree. So lets figure out a way to do this fair and square."

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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.

Actually, I think you could argue that pretty easily. I would certainly not be happy if the DM handed me the module and told me to read it before play. Players shouldn't know what's in the adventure because, largely, the point of playing, is discovering what's in the adventure. However, changing the results of die rolls is hardly the point of playing.

We don't tell players what's in room 23 in the dungeon because discovering that in play is the point of play. Is discovering that die rolls don't actually always mean what they are supposed to mean also the point of play?

 

[Nytmare]

Actually, I think you could argue that pretty easily. I would certainly not be happy if the DM handed me the module and told me to read it before play. Players shouldn't know what's in the adventure because, largely, the point of playing, is discovering what's in the adventure. However, changing the results of die rolls is hardly the point of playing.

We don't tell players what's in room 23 in the dungeon because discovering that in play is the point of play. Is discovering that die rolls don't actually always mean what they are supposed to mean also the point of play?

I think that a player focusing on discovering what the result of the die is is very different than a player focusing on discovering whether the task at hand is successful.

The contents of room 23, whether or not I kill the monster, and whether the cat in the box is alive or dead depend entirely on what the DM tells me, not what's in the book or what number is on the die.

 

[Hussar]

There is another issue to remember about the stat blocks or the adventure map. The DM isn't actually hiding the fact that he HAS these things. Everyone knows he has stat blocks and adventure text and maps. And, by and large, it's generally agreed that he isn't going to start changing these things after the fact. Again, changing adventure parameters to achieve a specific goal is railroading and is considered a bad thing.

Fudging, OTOH, is entirely hidden. We aren't supposed to know, or even ask, if the DM is doing it or when she is doing it or even why its being done. It's meant to be 100% secret, unlike monster stats or an adventure map, which will be revealed to the players in the course of play. Not telling your right now is not the same as never telling you at all.

Funny thing is, the reason I don't fudge is mostly from the DM side of things. I don't want to intrude my personal preferences into the game. I want to be as surprised as the players by the outcome of a session. It's one of my great pleasures in gaming. It's something that I had to come into over time as well. I used to fudge die rolls for exactly the same reasons [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] outlines. Ten, fifteen years ago, I would have argued, darn near word for word, exactly the same way.

Then I found a way that works better for me. And that is zero fudging and 100% transparency. It makes my games much better. I highly recommend it to everyone.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is discovering that die rolls don't actually always mean what they are supposed to mean also the point of play?

A read-through of even the basic PDF should make it fairly clear that dice rolls don't always (or even often) mean what you might expect them to. The die rolls, the numbers on your character sheet, none of them ultimately mean that much - they might generally point to something about your character, create an impression, but you can't count on them to deliver anything too specific at all consistently.

It's not that 'discovering die rolls don't always matter' is the point of the game, it's just that die rolls aren't the point of the game.

 

[Nytmare]

Then I found a way that works better for me. And that is zero fudging and 100% transparency. It makes my games much better. I highly recommend it to everyone.

Started out D and GMing without fudging, figured out my fudgable GMing style in college, now I flip back and forth depending on the game, the group, and my inclination. But my preference for D&D is to have it there as an option. I also prefer vanilla over chocolate, but that doesn't mean I'm going to say no to it.

 

[Hussar]

A read-through of even the basic PDF should make it fairly clear that dice rolls don't always (or even often) mean what you might expect them to. The die rolls, the numbers on your character sheet, none of them ultimately mean that much - they might generally point to something about your character, create an impression, but you can't count on them to deliver anything too specific at all consistently.

It's not that 'discovering die rolls don't always matter' is the point of the game, it's just that die rolls aren't the point of the game.

That's not entirely true though. If I roll X, and get result Y, and then roll X again, I should be able to guess that I will get the same result. Again, I realise there are differing results for differing situations. But, I agree, die rolls aren't the point of the game. They are the direction of the game. The die rolls tell you what happens. Viewed through the lens of the DM and the mechanics of course, but, it's still telling you what happens.

But, fudging changes this. The dice don't actually tell you what happens, now I'm being told what happens by the DM despite what the dice say. And this is something I don't like.

The argument was though, that there is no difference between a DM hiding and changing die rolls and the DM hiding his maps for his adventure. There are significant differences between these things. The DM hides the map, but not the fact that he HAS a map. And, in play, the DM reveals that map to the players. Fudging, OTOH, is 100% hidden and should never be revealed to the players. Not only am I not supposed to know if the DM fudged this particular roll, I'm not supposed to know that the DM fudges AT ALL. It's inherently dishonest.

In any other game this would be called cheating. EVERY game. But, for some reason, it's become acceptable in RPG's. I reject that. I don't believe it is acceptable and I have zero interest in playing at tables that do.

 

[Rhenny]

I think that a player focusing on discovering what the result of the die is is very different than a player focusing on discovering whether the task at hand is successful.

The contents of room 23, whether or not I kill the monster, and whether the cat in the box is alive or dead depend entirely on what the DM tells me, not what's in the book or what number is on the die.

This is interesting. I think it highlights the idea that there are corner cases for DMs where it may or may not be considered fudging depending on how you look at it.

Is it fudging if the party encounters a spellcaster in a room, and when the fighter attacks the foe the DM has the spellcaster throw up a shield spell to deflect the blow (even if the shield spell is not actually a spell that the stat block says is prepared). In a case like this, the DM is "cheating" to make the situation more difficult, but from a player perspective it would seem perfectly plausible that the caster had a shield spell prepared.

Here's another one..that I think is more improvisational play than fudging, but some may consider it fudging. Often, I keep 2 or 3 canned encounters on the side table ready to go if and when I want to use them. It is completely my decision as DM when and where to use them. It may not be written anywhere in an adventure or even in my planning sheet, but I may decide that after the PCs fight a particularly grueling battle and they try to rest, one of those encounters will interrupt their rest...or the next room they go into will trigger the alternative encounter, or a host of other possibilities. Most likely, players will never know that it wasn't planned (unless they read the adventure or played it before), but if it disrupts their rest and stops them from doing something they wanted to do, is it fudging?