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

[Olaf the Stout]

Several years ago I used to fudge rolls as a DM. Most often they would be in favour of the PCs (reducing damage from my hits, ignoring a crit against a player that may have killed them), but occasionally it would be against them (increasing HPs of bad guys or bumping up a saving throw in the interests of ensuring the climactic boss fight was a little interesting and not a complete cakewalk for the PCs).

I’m not sure what made me do it, but one day I just decided to just let the dice fall where they may. I found it to be very liberating as a DM. I got rid of my DM screen and, unless it was a roll I needed to keep secret (like a Search check to see if the PCs spotted a trap or not), I rolled in the open.

It definitely made the game more exciting for both myself and the players, especially when they were rolls made when the fight was in the balance. Everyone knew that there was no DM net to save them if the dice went against them. Some rolls would have everyone craning their necks across the table to see if the Blackguard rolled high enough for damage to possibly kill the badly injured fighter or if the Dragon made his save to avoid being Disintegrated by the Wizard PC. Those moments didn’t really happen when I fudged my rolls.

Yes, not fudging dice has resulted in some anti-climactic fights where the party has just rolled through an encounter I thought would be a difficult challenge. There has also been a few times where an encounter I thought was balanced has nearly resulted in a TPK. The number of PC deaths has definitely increased since I stopped fudging (there were almost no PC deaths when I fudged), but I definitely prefer my open rolling method and have never considered going back.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Only if it's to resolve the exact same action, with the exact same character in the exact same circumstance at the exact same point in time. So, well, no, you could never count on that. It could happen, even happen quite a lot, but you could never count on it. You couldn't even count on getting to roll.

Of course, other games, even other editions, have been more consistent.

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.

They're an optional part of the resolution system. The DM needn't ever call for a check. It'd be weird if he didn't, and players might feel a certain loss of agency and sense of participation, but it's technically possible.

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.

I'm hearing "the DM is just too 'Empowered' in 5e." I don't have a lot of ammunition to shoot down that opinion, it that's what you're getting at. As an opinion, FWIW.

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.

The DM isn't hiding the fact that he has dice.

And, in play, the DM reveals that map to the players.

The DM describes the environment to the players using the map as a reference. Not the same thing at all.

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.

You don't need to know when the DM fudges, plenty of DMs are fine letting you know that they do or might fudge in the interest of the game. Obviously, I wouldn't be having this discussion if I were trying to conceal it, for instance.

Oh, and calling someone dishonest is insulting. Calling someone who posts under their real name 'dishonest' from behind the anonymity of a forum handle brings a certain irony, as well.

In any other game this would be called cheating. EVERY game. But, for some reason, it's become acceptable in RPG's.

Most games just have players. Many also have referees. In Wargaming, the referee was often called a 'judge.' In D&D, the DM is both a referee and player, though a very different kind of player than those running PCs. Most other RPGs work about that way, too. Not many other games do.

I reject that.

Then you reject the concept of a DM.

 

[Nytmare]

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.

In any other game it would in some way be a contest between players. When I'm DMing, and I'm fudging, I am not a player competing against another player.

This actually takes me back to another aside I had started writing earlier in one of these two threads. I ran a 3rd Edition Ebberon "Blood of Heroes" campaign where the players were a sports team who had to juggle political intrigue and making it to a game once or twice a week. Between matches, during all the other parts of the game, I considered fudging to be the standard tool that I always used it for. During matches, specifically because my focus changed from creative to competitive, fudging a die roll wasn't something I ever considered doing.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Nope, that doesn't work. You said that we hid a thing because *the thing* would offend. It follows by that logic that we hide stat blocks because the stat blocks themselves would offend.

I'd suggest you not try to wriggle out of it. It was just a flatly incorrect statement. You'd be better served by abandoning it and moving on.

We don't tell players what's in room 23 in the dungeon because discovering that in play is the point of play.

That is only true for specifically *exploratory* play. Generally speaking, there are many agendas at the table, exploration is only one. We hide the adventure details from *all* of them.

 

[Maxperson]

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."

Occasionally B, mostly C.

C) "Roll [blank]." (player rolls, announces result) "Never mind. You succeed."

I don't generally explain that I didn't really want the roll.

I don't see how either A or B is fudging by the definition you provided there. Neither example involves secrecy. Even with example A, the roll is public and the DM ignoring it is public.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Occasionally B, mostly C.

Your C and my B are the same thing.

I don't see how either A or B is fudging by the definition you provided there. Neither example involves secrecy. Even with example A, the roll is public and the DM ignoring it is public.

You seem to be being intentionally obtuse. A is fudging because the DM has told the player their character succeeded, but is keeping the secret (or is at least trying to keep the secret) that the success was because the DM decided success was the only possible outcome, not because the die roll matched or beat the DC set by the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

You seem to be being intentionally obtuse. A is fudging because the DM has told the player their character succeeded, but is keeping the secret (or is at least trying to keep the secret) that the success was because the DM decided success was the only possible outcome, not because the die roll matched or beat the DC set by the DM.

You're assuming that the player doesn't know what the number needed is. If you were thinking that the player didn't know what was needed, you were unclear with your example.

 

[Hussar]

Nope, that doesn't work. You said that we hid a thing because *the thing* would offend. It follows by that logic that we hide stat blocks because the stat blocks themselves would offend.

I'd suggest you not try to wriggle out of it. It was just a flatly incorrect statement. You'd be better served by abandoning it and moving on.

Nope. No wiggling going on here. The actual stat block might be hidden, but the fact that it exists isn't. Nor is the fact that I'm using it. In fact, the expectation is that I will use that stat block and not start changing it after the character has entered play.

Changing stat blocks is generally considered a bad idea. If the player hits on a sixteen then misses on a sixteen most players would be pretty pissed.

That is only true for specifically *exploratory* play. Generally speaking, there are many agendas at the table, exploration is only one. We hide the adventure details from *all* of them.

Don't get hung up on the example. Different agendas don't change anything.

We don't tell the players who killed the king in an investigation scenario. We don't announce who the traitor is. All that comes out in play. It would be an extremely weird game if nothing was ever discovered during play.

 

[Hussar]

Then you reject the concept of a DM.

Unless you are arguing that dming requires fudging then I'm not sure what you are saying.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You're assuming that the player doesn't know what the number needed is. If you were thinking that the player didn't know what was needed, you were unclear with your example.

Max, no.