D&D 5E Would you change a monster's hit points mid-fight?

[Umbran]

I doubt you have ever played D&D, but that said, I am not surprised by your pathetic reply.

And protect people from you.

And this is about enough of that. Someone here will be taking some time off. Carry on as if he was not present, please.

 

[Umbran]

If your position here is that games on either pole of the continuum are extremely anomalous, I'm not so sure that is true.

My major point is actually that the poles (and perhaps even the idea of a straight line between them) do not constitute a representative picture of play, in general.

2) due to the nature of long term, campaign play, the implications of a single use of GM Force is not in a vacuum. One moment of Force has the capacity (I would almost say tendency) to snowball and change, not just the present moment, but the trajectory of play for some time to come (if not longer).

You know what? GMs are not like time-travelers, desperately trying to not impact the future. Fudging may impact the trajectory of play, yes. But so does every other ruling or rules-decision made by the GM. Not to mention how the adventure-design and encounter-design decisions by the GM impact play. The whole idea that somehow the GM needs to avoid changing trajectory of play is kind of illogical. Even as a rules-strict referee, the GM has impact, as anyone who watches professional sports can attest.

So, really I find this to be a non-issue. As a GM, you *will* influence the course of play. I already accept that. If you do not, then there isn't much more we can discuss. If you do accept it, we now only quibble over what tools are acceptable for what groups.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So, really I find this to be a non-issue. As a GM, you *will* influence the course of play. I already accept that. If you do not, then there isn't much more we can discuss. If you do accept it, we now only quibble over what tools are acceptable for what groups.

Well yes. I figured that was a given?

I think it is unacceptable for a DM to intentionally lie to her players, when asked a direct question. The DM can say, "I can't answer that," or (especially if it's a "TELL ME THE PLOT NOW!!" question, whether obvious nor not) "Why don't you find out by playing?" But if a player directly asks the DM a question of method--e.g. not having anything to do with the narrative content itself, which "whether the DM fudges" is not narrative content--I would consider it a MASSIVE breach of trust for the DM to intentionally lie about it.

The fact that almost everyone in this thread recognizes that telling the players you've fudged would upset the players--regardless of whether you did it in their favor or not--is still something I cannot get past. If you KNOW that an action you're taking would be offensive, even potentially group-breaking, if it were done openly, why is it such a perfectly okay thing to do? Why is the behavior suddenly okay if you add deception to the mix?

Now, again, this situation is completely different if the DM is honest about it. If he or she openly says: "I may fudge rolls, or several other factors, if I think it will make for a better or more entertaining story," then I have very little problem with it. I'd probably not be interested in participating, but hey, if the players buy into it, more power to them. If a player asks a direct question and the DM answers honestly, I respect that as well. If it were *my* DM, I'd be pretty upset and would feel I had been deceived, but I would still (rationally) appreciate the honesty of the answer. If the DM were further willing to have a conversation about it and try to come to an agreement with the group, all the better; I'd be more likely to stick around if they did, too.

The biggest and most important part of this discussion, for me, has been the explicit commitment to lying to the players about the DM's actions. I consider trust one of the most important aspects of ANY relationship I have with other people. When someone breaks that trust (to a significant degree, I mean), I feel genuinely hurt, and will thoroughly reevaluate my relationship with that person. I would consider an overt lie, about something I distinctly care about (whether dice are fudged or not), to be a significant breach of trust. How can I play with a DM I don't trust?

 

[Agamon]

Something happened in my game Monday night that made me think of this thread.

I roll in the open when I run games, have for a few years now after the longest time of rolling behind a screen. The PCs encountered a roper while traversing the Underdark. The fight did not go well for the party rogue. Down to 2 hp, he was attacked again, and if he took 17 hp or more damage, he was dead. The bite connected and did 16 points of damage.

Now I've DMed for this group for 15 years, and one of the players has gamed with me since the beginning in the 80's, so there's trust there. But if I rolled that behind the screen, I know that if I was a player, I'd wouldn't be able to help but wonder if maybe there was a fudge involved. But the dice were there for the players to see, variance was on his side. Instead of players wondering if the DM manufactured a fake "phew" moment, it turned out to be quite dramatic.

Just an observation.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Something happened in my game Monday night that made me think of this thread.

I roll in the open when I run games, have for a few years now after the longest time of rolling behind a screen. The PCs encountered a roper while traversing the Underdark. The fight did not go well for the party rogue. Down to 2 hp, he was attacked again, and if he took 17 hp or more damage, he was dead. The bite connected and did 16 points of damage.

Now I've DMed for this group for 15 years, and one of the players has gamed with me since the beginning in the 80's, so there's trust there. But if I rolled that behind the screen, I know that if I was a player, I'd wouldn't be able to help but wonder if maybe there was a fudge involved. But the dice were there for the players to see, variance was on his side. Instead of players wondering if the DM manufactured a fake "phew" moment, it turned out to be quite dramatic.

Just an observation.

Oh yeah! Those tense moments when everything is on the line and the shadow of death narrowly misses a character are so much more memorable and exciting if the players know that luck was truly with them rather than it just being the DM trying to manufacture some drama. As a player, one can only wonder about how many of those tense moments are actually the results of play when they cannot trust the DM.

 

[Relax]

I think there's been a major miscommunication in this thread. While I certainly can't speak for all on the "pro fudge" side, it has always been my experience that fudging is not synonymous with lying. I don't want to assossiate with people that willfully and maliciously lie, and I doubt many others do either.

I've asked my players about fudging, or changing things on the fly, and they all looked at me incredulously and said, "You're the DM, of course you should do that."

It also isn't something I do often. I'll even let characters die if that's what the dice decide. I only intervene if I feel the situation warrants it.

I agree that tense moments can be created by rolling publicly, but far, far too often I've seen greater "tragedies" occur due to the vaguery of dice. When I first started playing 35 years ago I used to let the dice roll as the would, but over the years I've learned far more fun is to be had for all if I don't allow good play to lead to random death or errors in my planning lead to boring, boring, boring encounters.

All that being said, if you want to play a game where all outcomes are decided entirely randomly and no errors in planning can be corrected once put down on paper then more power to you. I can understand the appeal of such a method of play. All we fudgers ask is that the rest of you find it in your hearts to accept that there are other perfectly valid methods of play...

 

[ExploderWizard]

I've asked my players about fudging, or changing things on the fly, and they all looked at me incredulously and said, "You're the DM, of course you should do that."

If you are conducting the game in this way with the knowledge and approval of your players then there isn't anything wrong happening. My entire position in this thread has been solely about honesty in the way the game is conducted and treating players with respect. It sounds like you did that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think there's been a major miscommunication in this thread. While I certainly can't speak for all on the "pro fudge" side, it has always been my experience that fudging is not synonymous with lying. I don't want to assossiate with people that willfully and maliciously lie, and I doubt many others do either.

Fudging without telling the players about it every time - or even while denying it - is no more lying or dishonest than not showing other players your hand when playing cards, or bluffing when playing poker. D&D - at least, most editions of it, including 5e - does not assume that the DM tells the player everything that's going on behind the screen.

 

[Umbran]

Well yes. I figured that was a given?

Clearly, it was not. Manbearcat felt the need to raise the point.

 

[Manbearcat]

My major point is actually that the poles (and perhaps even the idea of a straight line between them) do not constitute a representative picture of play, in general.



You know what? GMs are not like time-travelers, desperately trying to not impact the future. Fudging may impact the trajectory of play, yes. But so does every other ruling or rules-decision made by the GM. Not to mention how the adventure-design and encounter-design decisions by the GM impact play. The whole idea that somehow the GM needs to avoid changing trajectory of play is kind of illogical. Even as a rules-strict referee, the GM has impact, as anyone who watches professional sports can attest.

So, really I find this to be a non-issue. As a GM, you *will* influence the course of play. I already accept that. If you do not, then there isn't much more we can discuss. If you do accept it, we now only quibble over what tools are acceptable for what groups.

I'm not really sure how we go from my post (which is specifically about GM subordinating player agency through the application of force) to your post (which asserts the trivially obvious; that GMs are inevitably going to have an impact on the trajectory of play due to all that goes into being a Games Master - reading players', hopefully, telegraphed cues of their thematic interests, framing of conflicts, playing the PCs' adversity, sorting out the fallout, making rulings in corner cases, etc) as a rebuttal. I mean no one would disagree with that general position. But just because GMs will inevitably have an impact on the trajectory of what emerges at the table, it doesn't mean that one can't qualitatively assess the immediate, and potential, impact of force upon player agency.

There are two main types of player agency as I see it. The type that @ExploderWizard is advocating for and is present in all games of D&D. This is strategic/tactical player agency. The right to make informed strategic and tactical decisions and have play outcomes authentically be driven by them.

Then there is thematic player agency. The right of a player to advocate for their PC's thematic interests/protagonism, whatever flavor that might take, and to make decisions/answer the bell when those thematic interests/that protganism is challenged during play...and have relevant play outcomes emerge authentically as a result of the player advocating for their PC.

In either case, if the system's play procedures mandate that some form of fortune resolution is required to derive the outcome, then it is handled without force/manipulation. This ensures that the player's strategic/tactical/thematic agency in that particular situation is intact. That whatever immediate fallout, and latent knock-on fallout down the line, accrues (good or bad) is driven/earned by the player's capacity/will to act (rather than the GM's suspension of that capacity/will and imposition of their own in its place).

Again, back to my example of my Dungeon World game. If the system was less transparent from a play procedure persoective and/or had the GM rolling some of the dice, I could have covertly subordinated the player's agency to my own desires (for whatever reason). I could have turned their earned "dragon as ally" into "dragon as enemy". That application of force would have triggered immediate fallout (now you're fighting an ancient dragon and maybe dieing or securing its hoard!) and that immediate fallout (driven by my overwriting of player agency with "my script") would have rippled, dynamically and potently, throughout the rest of foreseeable play. A certain part of the signal of their future agency (if it wasn't removed because they're now dead!) would be irrevocably impacted by the noise of my application of force in that one situation.

Any other "player agency-neutral" role that I might play as GM isn't of my concern in this specific situation.

---

Quick relevant aside (because it was brought up). In sports, the issue of team/player agency is an enormous one. For instance, 3rd and 15 and the defense gets off the field forcing a punt. But wait! Flag on the field! The refs have just called a brutally tickey tack/questionable illegal contact, maybe even away from the play (yay!) on a receiver right at 5 yards (or perhaps the receiver may have initiated the contact). Boom. 1st down + field position + defense still on the field and demoralized + other team maintains momentum. There is no getting around it. That is a huge, huge, huge call in that game after the defense (and their fans surely!) feels that they rightly earned the ball back for their offense. Same thing goes for "hit on a defenseless receiver", "roughing the QB", or the ridiculously nebuluos "make a football move" garbage that was written in the rules after they screwed up the Calvin Johnson catch a few years back (and then went on to screw others such as the Dez Bryant catch these last playoffs). Of course this is where the "let them play (!)" meme comes from. It is all about players/teams/fans decrying the subordination of the teams' on-the-field efforts to a referees (mis) judgement (specifically where nebulous rules are involved)...and having outcomes infected by it or outright derived from it.