Oof. The first post didn't seem too bad - sure, maybe the DM made a mistake or some overpowered trap, oh well - but the second post just screams that he's a super-controlling DM...
I mean this with all sincerity then: you possess limited understanding of what good DMing is. The game is set up with different expectations: Players roll dice in the open and accept the results, and DMs (have the option to, but should always) roll in secret and accept the results unless doing otherwise enhances drama or fixes a problem we have created.
Agreed Hawksmoor. Especially since lizard likes to bring up Gygax. he should've known that in the 70's the DM's fudged rolls more then anyone else did. if we even rolled to begin with. which you didn't knew about since the DM was behind a curtain instead of a small dm screen.
In my opinion, both positions here have some valid points. Perhaps a middle position somewhere between the extremes is a more practical approach?
<Only My Opinion>
In my opinion, the GM has the right to, and in many cases should, tweak the results to fix issues with the game. In any case, it is undeniable that the GM can do this and get away with it.
Players know we do ( or at least can ) fudge dice, or tweak results, or otherwise present results that they didn't expect ( like a plot twist ) - and for the most part, they accept that, since they trust that we're doing it for acceptable reasons which facilitate the story or game. Most Players accept this. Hardcore "game as simulation" Players may not.
This breaks down when the manipulation becomes so obvious that it breaks the Players' ability to ignore, or it's targeted or malicious and thus breaks Player trust - this is the point where it becomes a problem (and seems to be the issue with the OP poster).
Some GM's who would veer more into the "game as simulation" camp refuse to exercise this option as they see it as cheating, or they adhere to dice-as-rolled to absolutely ensure that they are being impartial, even on a subconscious level. That's not inherently wrong, it's a stylistic choice.
The GM is always responsible. They always have the de facto ability to decide to save a Character, or kill a Character. The GM fudging a die roll is no morally different than deciding an NPC will intervene to save a Character, or that the BBEG will teleport out in order to preserve them for a later showdown, or deciding who the Dragon would target with their breath attack. If your NPCs behavior isn't being governed by randomly rolled personality tables, or some other mechanic, you are one responsible for the unfolding of the Game. It doesn't matter if you fudge die rolls or not, you still have enough control over events that you are always responsible.
Most of the time the GM chooses to not act one way or another, and allows the mechanics & dice to play out impartially, but that doesn't negate the fact that they have that ability, and thus that responsibility.
Both extreme approaches lead to a pathological breakdown of the game.
A freeform "GM fiat all the time" that's pushed in the Players' face leads to a breakdown in a belief in Player agency, and/or a belief that the GM is targeting Characters out of spite. If the GM is being an *******, you can't point to the fact the GM has the right to warp the results as an excuse. This seems to be the issue with the OP poster.
A rigorous - even slavish - adherence to the rules, and the randomness of the dice, leads to likewise to breakdowns at the table because the rules are not perfect, and have areas where they break down. This is why you have a referee. The Rules & Rolls fail the Players when the Party fails at their adventure, or low level monsters slaughter the Party, for no other reason than because of statistical fluctuations in the die rolling. You can't point to the openly made GM rolls, and expect your Players to suddenly feel that getting TPK'd by a bunch of Kobolds was a dramatically satisfying and fitting end to their Heroes. This is not a case where "you can succeed if you play well, or you can fail and lose horribly if you don't" - this is a case where Players, making sound and reasonable choices and "play[ing] well', still fail because no one can roll over an 8 tonight. This is telling your Players that it doesn't matter how well they play - random chance can still wipe them out.
The rules, and even the mechanics, are not holy writ. They are a tool to an end. They are tools to facilitate the unfolding of the Game in an impartial, consistent, and plausible manner, so that the Players can make reasonable and informed choices in the Game, and have reasonable expectations of the results.
Players also desire an illusion of verisimilitude.
The GM's role is to provide human judgement and oversight over the game, for those situations where the Rules are incomplete or flawed, or gameplay breaks down. Otherwise, why not program it all into a computer?
We use dice to ensure a measure of impartiality, but the random behavior of dice sometime breaks local consistency over the short term ( no one can roll over an 8 tonight ), and can lead to implausible results ( the 7th level Party just got TPK'd by Kobolds ).
The GM who allows anomalous statistical behavior of the dice, or design flaws in the rules, to cause the Party to fail in an implausible and dramatically unsatisfying manner is failing at their role.
The GM who intervenes for reasons of personal ego, or because of an adversarial stance toward the Players - breaking impartiality - is being petty and unfair.
The GM being overly obvious about their fudging of results erodes Player illusion of verisimilitude, and erodes their belief that they can have reasonable expectation of the results of their actions.
I'd really recommend watching that Matt Colville video about fudging dice, and how it quickly became the norm of the best and most capable referees in one of the world's first serious military simulation, the Kriegsspiel.
</Only My Opinion>
As a side note, maybe we can refrain from the "attack the messenger, not the message" tactic in this thread? It's not like any of us are running for political office this year.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
The GM fudging a die roll is no morally different than deciding an NPC will intervene to save a Character, or that the BBEG will teleport out in order to preserve them for a later showdown, or deciding who the Dragon would target with their breath attack.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Fudging a roll on either side is cheating, period. If a DM decides a roll is warranted, then the outcome is the outcome. If there is a liberty a DM would like to take, the DM should take it, it's the prerogative of the DM to do so. If you want an NPC to intervene or the BBEG to teleport out, then have it happen. If you have someone roll or you roll as a DM yourself, you are saying that whatever the outcome of the roll is, it will be used. Fudging breaks trust with your players and can potentially cheapen the experience. Robbing a game of a character death, an epic failure, a goblin that just wreaks havoc, or a BBEG that is just barely missing, the risk of a TPK that could define them or the game itself and the emotion is why we play. Otherwise just ask what the DM would like the outcome to be, say that's what happened and just go home.
Hmmm ... I think that's very finely splitting hairs, but we might not disagree all that much?
If I understand what you're saying is that if you need to warp probability, don't roll at all, just make the call, and announce it as GM fiat? I can see that point: if you're going to do it, own it.
I think it might have problems with the Player illusion of verisimilitude, however. Players who really want to feel that it is the World they are interacting with, and not the mind of the GM, don't want to see the overt hand of the GM in the game. They need some assistance with their willing suspension of disbelief. Yes, they know - at least on some level - that the DM is probably futzing with the results, but a) they trust the DM is doing it for acceptable reasons ( and not being an ******* ), and b) they don't want to think about it.
I lie to my Players all the time. Don't tell them, but there really is no Dragon, and it's not really in a Dungeon. They know that (obviously) but they accept it, though - because they want to accept it.
Theoretically, I can accept your position. But I think it gets messier when you start factoring in Player psychology.
Oddly enough, you can do this only when your Players trust you. It's not a violation of that trust, it is enabled by that trust, and is semi (subconsciously?) consented to by the Players: do it, I trust you're doing it for good reasons, I don't want to know about it.
This is the reason for the "fake die roll" - not to make the DM feel better about doing something wrong (they're not if they doing it to rectify a failure in the rules, or in probabilities) but to facilitate the plausible deniability for the Player.
It's less the actions of a con-man (who is out to rob you), and more of a stage magician (who is out to entertain you). Both are lying to you, but in one case it's being done for your benefit, and with your tacit consent.
When either the benefit, or the consent, fail - that's when it's a problem.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I have played with a fudging DM and haven't played under him since. We all felt like the rolls would be fine as long as the outcome was what he wanted and that we really had no chance to effect our own destiny outside of what he deemed was acceptable. I would caution anyone against fudging, ever. As you can see with just a few people discussing, there are very different opinions and I can tell you for sure that your players will differ as well. Safe bet, don't do it. If you want to make a ruling outside the roll, don't roll and explain what you are doing and why you are doing it. You may be the fairest person on earth and only have good intentions, but as soon as you fudge at my table or with the people that I play with you lose trust and the experience suffers.
You'll never be accused of cheating or ruining a game if you just don't do it.
That's a problem with trust, and with the Social contract, not with the approach as a whole.
I'm sorry for your personal experience - but you can't extrapolate your one personal experience anecdote into a general moral imperative for everyone else to follow.
A more reasonable approach is to discuss it with your Players - make your approach clear in your Session Zero, and get their opinions, and work out what works for your table as a whole.
You'll never be accused of cheating or ruining a game if you follow what everyone has agreed to - regardless of what that stance is.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
The worst way yo get someones true opinion is to ask for it.
"Does this dress make me look fat?"
If you bring it up in open session "hey guys, do you mind that if on some rolls I just fudge a bit during the game" as a DM, they may say ok or heck no, they may also feel that if everyone agrees to no that there is still a chance it could happen. If you just don't fudge, don't bring it up, and just play rule as written then there is no discussion to be had. There is not moral question if you don't pose it. A roll is not evil nor is it good, it's just a roll of chance. Fudging has a morality that could be seen different ways, possibly good or bad. Why have there even be a question of integrity?
DM's roll behind a screen to keep the mystery of what the attacker's bonus to hit it, what it's con modifier is for a save, how many damage dice and of what type are being rolled. It's not there to hide the result. I have had players question nat 20's as a you gotta be kidding me type more than a you are lying question and I usually invite them back to look at my super awesome Wyrmwood dice tray to see it. They have complete trust in me that my rolls are legit and that we are all on the same team to have a great time and let chance take us where it may. If a player fudged a roll, I'd kick them out of the game and I expect the same treatment for a DM.
Fudging is cheating, player or DM. You may disagree, but you can't argue with a roll.
Only if you manipulatively ask loaded questions, and/or you don't trust your Players to be honest with their answers, and/or never talk about it again. My Players actually communicate clearly, and if their opinions change, or it isn't working the way we'd hoped, we discuss that. It's called being an adult. I find that increases the odds of everyone at the table being happy with the results.
Your Players might not be able to argue with the fact that their 7th level Party just got smoke by Kobolds because the DM didn't roll less than a 17 all night - but I'd be very doubtful that they had fun with that scenario: "Woohoo! We all got implausibly slaughtered, and lost Characters we put years of effort into building, but at least the die rolls were impartial! Yay!".
Reading dice, looking up rules, and cross-referencing tables is the easy part. Being human oversight and curator of the game experience, and adjusting the game when the rules or probability don't work as intended, is the hard part, and the reason GMs aren't just computer code. If you're only willing to do the first part, the table doesn't need you; pre-published adventures and some computer code applying the rules would suffice.
Personally, any GM who is willing to sacrifice their Players' experience and fun, in order to hold onto some personal ideological stance that not all their Players may agree with (and apparently isn't even willing to ask them about), is not one I'd play with.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
My opinion is only on fudging, there is no opinion on using dice rolls. That's the only point I am trying to make. I am quite capable of adulting in case that was some shade you were trying to throw my way. If the rules aren't working as intended or something is going way wrong, it is your duty as the DM to adapt and make things fun for everyone, on that we can totally agree. It's how you go about doing it that is the issue. One way can be construed as cheating, immoral, and deceptive, the other cannot.
Love the TNG link lol!
I can tell you that some conversations we still have are about a vegi-pygmy that was damn near a jedi ninja in ToA. I was just a player but my DM had just some insane rolls on that little sucker and he was completely wrecking things. Sometimes the improbable rolls that you may want to fudge to move the main story along could take your game into an area that is totally off script and insanely fun. There's always time later for some NPC help or being captured and revived for interrogation to bring things back on track. If there is no fear of loss or hope of success in a certain situation the game feels less alive.
Just my opinion on things, not an absolute for sure. You can absolutely run your table however you like and I hope everyone has great time. I'm just giving a bit of perspective on the fudge you may or may not have considered.
In the end, I can only reiterate, "any GM who is willing to sacrifice their Players' experience and fun, in order to hold onto some personal ideological stance that not all their Players may agree with (and apparently isn't even willing to ask them about), is not one I'd play with".
If you're the kind of DM who clings to the rules of the game as if they're some form of objective reality (it's a game people, not even a simulation, a game), and are willing to degrade your Players' experience, or make them unhappy in order to preserve some misguided sense of "personal integrity", and beat your Players' down with it because it's "the right thing to do", then I want nothing to do with your table, and happily, I do not.
If your entire set of Players believe as you do - then you're justified in running a table this way, and in such a scenario, I would as well. That's the best experience for that table.
But outside of that scenario, who are you to decide what kind of experience your Players should be finding fulfilling, or make assumptions about they do find fulfilling? Don't tell me "It's a far better story that the player characters all died to a bunch of kobolds" - you don't get to determine what is a far better Player experience for them. Ask them about it. And if they are the kind of Players who would derive the most enjoyment from the game to see "the most dramatically satisfying things happen" over the "the most statistically consistent thing to happen", then you beating them down with die rolls to the refrain of "the roll is the roll!" is just being a jerk.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
You really are trying to defend your position as if it's unassailable objective reality for everyone, aren't you?
OK - congratulations - you win. You're right. Gold star.
Won't make a damn bit of difference to my Players, or how I run the game, or whether they're finding the game personally fulfilling ( and we do discuss the game out of the actually play a good deal ) - but you won! Congratulations.
You can get in one more post so you can have the last word, and we'll call it good. Suits?
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Not sure why this devolved into name calling and being offended, I’m surely not triggered by an opposing point of view. I don’t think following the rules of a game makes you a jerk at all nor does it suck the fun out of a game as you describe above. If fudging works at your table, then fudge away! Like the OP, a lot of players and DM’s find fudging or cheating to be detrimental to gameplay and don’t want it in our games. I have witnessed it as a player from a GM and at a few tables in stores for AL and conventions in which those offenders were either removed or not invited back.
I believe we all have good intentions here and should be above name calling and stomping out views especially when they pertain to rules. What’s good at a homebrew table doesn’t mean it’s good for the majority.
I haven't read every single post, but I got halfway through page 2 and have this to say:
If I let my player's party TPK purely because of dice probabilities, OR because I created an encounter that turned out to be WAY TOO HARD and held to the premise that the game mechanics have to be upheld to maintain 'trust', then I would probably still be welcome to play D&D, but I would never be chosen to DM again.
I think this thread has nothing more to say, and I am certain that many who have participated in it or just read some of it agree. Can a Mod lock it down now so we can move on to more important topics like Alignment, Use of Optional Rules, and other click-baity topics.
Two points, I DM'ed my first game (Dragon of Icespire Peak) with a table of new players last week (game two tomorrow night).
We are all new to D&D, in the final battle of their quest as level 1 characters, two of the 3 characters encountered the Mimic. It grappled one, and the second player moved in to remove the advantage on attack rolls.
In that fight, which should have had at least some difficulty, the Mimic never landed a single attack in the 6 rounds it took to die. I played it as the dice rolled, and plan to do this as I learn and they learn on our way to max level. I feel that fight would have been a lot more enjoyable for the players if they were at least attacked once. And from a narrative point of view would have actually made sense... you are grappled (he never wanted to pull away from the grapple). It was a consideration at the time, "allow it a single attack, its not going to change the outcome of the fight, but would add some enjoyment for the PC's". I decided against it, but its something I have had on my mind all week, I could have made it a touch more enjoyable for that final fight. They did all enjoy the session, which makes me very happy and makes me want to continue DM'ing for them.
Second point, 3 out of the 4 of us at the table are playing a campaign of a different game system, with a very experienced GM. In a pod cast with some of his fellow players he said that he has at times saved characters with a fudged roll for the sake of the story (he did once in our campaign). As a player of his, it really doesn't bother me. And the same can be said by the rest of us at the table.
I think the reason we don't mind is that for us its more about the story, the puzzles, the adventure than the combat. Both sides of the coin make sense, and as someone said... it really comes down to players and what THEY want to get out of the game. If what they want is 100% dice based combat, then that's what the game should be. If what they really want is an adventure then that is what they should receive. (Worth noting, we have had sessions with no combat at all, and we have loved it)
From those advocating fudging rolls, I am reading that its not a case of "make up all the rolls", its a case of "this combat is boring for the player, they should at least take a hit here". But if the fudging changes the outcome of something then I can see the argument that it could be taken too far. Its a fine line and one that each and every DM needs to make for their own game, style of play and their players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oof. The first post didn't seem too bad - sure, maybe the DM made a mistake or some overpowered trap, oh well - but the second post just screams that he's a super-controlling DM...
Sorry you have to play with a guy like that.
I mean this with all sincerity then: you possess limited understanding of what good DMing is. The game is set up with different expectations: Players roll dice in the open and accept the results, and DMs (have the option to, but should always) roll in secret and accept the results unless doing otherwise enhances drama or fixes a problem we have created.
Agreed Hawksmoor. Especially since lizard likes to bring up Gygax. he should've known that in the 70's the DM's fudged rolls more then anyone else did. if we even rolled to begin with. which you didn't knew about since the DM was behind a curtain instead of a small dm screen.
you throw around way to many unfounded assumptions
as since you're coming from a player view. don't assume what is a good or bad dm.
In my opinion, both positions here have some valid points. Perhaps a middle position somewhere between the extremes is a more practical approach?
<Only My Opinion>
I'd really recommend watching that Matt Colville video about fudging dice, and how it quickly became the norm of the best and most capable referees in one of the world's first serious military simulation, the Kriegsspiel.
</Only My Opinion>
As a side note, maybe we can refrain from the "attack the messenger, not the message" tactic in this thread? It's not like any of us are running for political office this year.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Fudging a roll on either side is cheating, period. If a DM decides a roll is warranted, then the outcome is the outcome. If there is a liberty a DM would like to take, the DM should take it, it's the prerogative of the DM to do so. If you want an NPC to intervene or the BBEG to teleport out, then have it happen. If you have someone roll or you roll as a DM yourself, you are saying that whatever the outcome of the roll is, it will be used. Fudging breaks trust with your players and can potentially cheapen the experience. Robbing a game of a character death, an epic failure, a goblin that just wreaks havoc, or a BBEG that is just barely missing, the risk of a TPK that could define them or the game itself and the emotion is why we play. Otherwise just ask what the DM would like the outcome to be, say that's what happened and just go home.
The roll is the roll!
Hmmm ... I think that's very finely splitting hairs, but we might not disagree all that much?
If I understand what you're saying is that if you need to warp probability, don't roll at all, just make the call, and announce it as GM fiat? I can see that point: if you're going to do it, own it.
I think it might have problems with the Player illusion of verisimilitude, however. Players who really want to feel that it is the World they are interacting with, and not the mind of the GM, don't want to see the overt hand of the GM in the game. They need some assistance with their willing suspension of disbelief. Yes, they know - at least on some level - that the DM is probably futzing with the results, but a) they trust the DM is doing it for acceptable reasons ( and not being an ******* ), and b) they don't want to think about it.
I lie to my Players all the time. Don't tell them, but there really is no Dragon, and it's not really in a Dungeon. They know that (obviously) but they accept it, though - because they want to accept it.
Theoretically, I can accept your position. But I think it gets messier when you start factoring in Player psychology.
Oddly enough, you can do this only when your Players trust you. It's not a violation of that trust, it is enabled by that trust, and is semi (subconsciously?) consented to by the Players: do it, I trust you're doing it for good reasons, I don't want to know about it.
This is the reason for the "fake die roll" - not to make the DM feel better about doing something wrong (they're not if they doing it to rectify a failure in the rules, or in probabilities) but to facilitate the plausible deniability for the Player.
It's less the actions of a con-man (who is out to rob you), and more of a stage magician (who is out to entertain you). Both are lying to you, but in one case it's being done for your benefit, and with your tacit consent.
When either the benefit, or the consent, fail - that's when it's a problem.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I have played with a fudging DM and haven't played under him since. We all felt like the rolls would be fine as long as the outcome was what he wanted and that we really had no chance to effect our own destiny outside of what he deemed was acceptable. I would caution anyone against fudging, ever. As you can see with just a few people discussing, there are very different opinions and I can tell you for sure that your players will differ as well. Safe bet, don't do it. If you want to make a ruling outside the roll, don't roll and explain what you are doing and why you are doing it. You may be the fairest person on earth and only have good intentions, but as soon as you fudge at my table or with the people that I play with you lose trust and the experience suffers.
You'll never be accused of cheating or ruining a game if you just don't do it.
That's a problem with trust, and with the Social contract, not with the approach as a whole.
I'm sorry for your personal experience - but you can't extrapolate your one personal experience anecdote into a general moral imperative for everyone else to follow.
A more reasonable approach is to discuss it with your Players - make your approach clear in your Session Zero, and get their opinions, and work out what works for your table as a whole.
You'll never be accused of cheating or ruining a game if you follow what everyone has agreed to - regardless of what that stance is.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
The worst way yo get someones true opinion is to ask for it.
"Does this dress make me look fat?"
If you bring it up in open session "hey guys, do you mind that if on some rolls I just fudge a bit during the game" as a DM, they may say ok or heck no, they may also feel that if everyone agrees to no that there is still a chance it could happen. If you just don't fudge, don't bring it up, and just play rule as written then there is no discussion to be had. There is not moral question if you don't pose it. A roll is not evil nor is it good, it's just a roll of chance. Fudging has a morality that could be seen different ways, possibly good or bad. Why have there even be a question of integrity?
DM's roll behind a screen to keep the mystery of what the attacker's bonus to hit it, what it's con modifier is for a save, how many damage dice and of what type are being rolled. It's not there to hide the result. I have had players question nat 20's as a you gotta be kidding me type more than a you are lying question and I usually invite them back to look at my super awesome Wyrmwood dice tray to see it. They have complete trust in me that my rolls are legit and that we are all on the same team to have a great time and let chance take us where it may. If a player fudged a roll, I'd kick them out of the game and I expect the same treatment for a DM.
Fudging is cheating, player or DM. You may disagree, but you can't argue with a roll.
Only if you manipulatively ask loaded questions, and/or you don't trust your Players to be honest with their answers, and/or never talk about it again. My Players actually communicate clearly, and if their opinions change, or it isn't working the way we'd hoped, we discuss that. It's called being an adult. I find that increases the odds of everyone at the table being happy with the results.
Your Players might not be able to argue with the fact that their 7th level Party just got smoke by Kobolds because the DM didn't roll less than a 17 all night - but I'd be very doubtful that they had fun with that scenario: "Woohoo! We all got implausibly slaughtered, and lost Characters we put years of effort into building, but at least the die rolls were impartial! Yay!".
Reading dice, looking up rules, and cross-referencing tables is the easy part. Being human oversight and curator of the game experience, and adjusting the game when the rules or probability don't work as intended, is the hard part, and the reason GMs aren't just computer code. If you're only willing to do the first part, the table doesn't need you; pre-published adventures and some computer code applying the rules would suffice.
Fine - it's clear your have a strong, dogmatic opinion on this. Repeating your view over and over as a dogmatic universal imperative, doesn't make it true for everyone, or applicable in every situation - but you run your table how you like.
Personally, any GM who is willing to sacrifice their Players' experience and fun, in order to hold onto some personal ideological stance that not all their Players may agree with (and apparently isn't even willing to ask them about), is not one I'd play with.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
My opinion is only on fudging, there is no opinion on using dice rolls. That's the only point I am trying to make. I am quite capable of adulting in case that was some shade you were trying to throw my way. If the rules aren't working as intended or something is going way wrong, it is your duty as the DM to adapt and make things fun for everyone, on that we can totally agree. It's how you go about doing it that is the issue. One way can be construed as cheating, immoral, and deceptive, the other cannot.
Love the TNG link lol!
I can tell you that some conversations we still have are about a vegi-pygmy that was damn near a jedi ninja in ToA. I was just a player but my DM had just some insane rolls on that little sucker and he was completely wrecking things. Sometimes the improbable rolls that you may want to fudge to move the main story along could take your game into an area that is totally off script and insanely fun. There's always time later for some NPC help or being captured and revived for interrogation to bring things back on track. If there is no fear of loss or hope of success in a certain situation the game feels less alive.
Just my opinion on things, not an absolute for sure. You can absolutely run your table however you like and I hope everyone has great time. I'm just giving a bit of perspective on the fudge you may or may not have considered.
In the end, I can only reiterate, "any GM who is willing to sacrifice their Players' experience and fun, in order to hold onto some personal ideological stance that not all their Players may agree with (and apparently isn't even willing to ask them about), is not one I'd play with".
If you're the kind of DM who clings to the rules of the game as if they're some form of objective reality (it's a game people, not even a simulation, a game), and are willing to degrade your Players' experience, or make them unhappy in order to preserve some misguided sense of "personal integrity", and beat your Players' down with it because it's "the right thing to do", then I want nothing to do with your table, and happily, I do not.
If your entire set of Players believe as you do - then you're justified in running a table this way, and in such a scenario, I would as well. That's the best experience for that table.
But outside of that scenario, who are you to decide what kind of experience your Players should be finding fulfilling, or make assumptions about they do find fulfilling? Don't tell me "It's a far better story that the player characters all died to a bunch of kobolds" - you don't get to determine what is a far better Player experience for them. Ask them about it. And if they are the kind of Players who would derive the most enjoyment from the game to see "the most dramatically satisfying things happen" over the "the most statistically consistent thing to happen", then you beating them down with die rolls to the refrain of "the roll is the roll!" is just being a jerk.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
You really are trying to defend your position as if it's unassailable objective reality for everyone, aren't you?
OK - congratulations - you win. You're right. Gold star.
Won't make a damn bit of difference to my Players, or how I run the game, or whether they're finding the game personally fulfilling ( and we do discuss the game out of the actually play a good deal ) - but you won! Congratulations.
You can get in one more post so you can have the last word, and we'll call it good. Suits?
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Not sure why this devolved into name calling and being offended, I’m surely not triggered by an opposing point of view. I don’t think following the rules of a game makes you a jerk at all nor does it suck the fun out of a game as you describe above. If fudging works at your table, then fudge away! Like the OP, a lot of players and DM’s find fudging or cheating to be detrimental to gameplay and don’t want it in our games. I have witnessed it as a player from a GM and at a few tables in stores for AL and conventions in which those offenders were either removed or not invited back.
I believe we all have good intentions here and should be above name calling and stomping out views especially when they pertain to rules. What’s good at a homebrew table doesn’t mean it’s good for the majority.
Have fun guys!
I haven't read every single post, but I got halfway through page 2 and have this to say:
If I let my player's party TPK purely because of dice probabilities, OR because I created an encounter that turned out to be WAY TOO HARD and held to the premise that the game mechanics have to be upheld to maintain 'trust', then I would probably still be welcome to play D&D, but I would never be chosen to DM again.
And THAT is a cold hard truth for MY table.
I think this thread has nothing more to say, and I am certain that many who have participated in it or just read some of it agree. Can a Mod lock it down now so we can move on to more important topics like Alignment, Use of Optional Rules, and other click-baity topics.
This is why I roll the majority of my rolls in front of the screen so to speak. Proves I'm not fudging the dice.
Two points, I DM'ed my first game (Dragon of Icespire Peak) with a table of new players last week (game two tomorrow night).
We are all new to D&D, in the final battle of their quest as level 1 characters, two of the 3 characters encountered the Mimic.
It grappled one, and the second player moved in to remove the advantage on attack rolls.
In that fight, which should have had at least some difficulty, the Mimic never landed a single attack in the 6 rounds it took to die. I played it as the dice rolled, and plan to do this as I learn and they learn on our way to max level.
I feel that fight would have been a lot more enjoyable for the players if they were at least attacked once. And from a narrative point of view would have actually made sense... you are grappled (he never wanted to pull away from the grapple). It was a consideration at the time, "allow it a single attack, its not going to change the outcome of the fight, but would add some enjoyment for the PC's". I decided against it, but its something I have had on my mind all week, I could have made it a touch more enjoyable for that final fight. They did all enjoy the session, which makes me very happy and makes me want to continue DM'ing for them.
Second point, 3 out of the 4 of us at the table are playing a campaign of a different game system, with a very experienced GM. In a pod cast with some of his fellow players he said that he has at times saved characters with a fudged roll for the sake of the story (he did once in our campaign). As a player of his, it really doesn't bother me. And the same can be said by the rest of us at the table.
I think the reason we don't mind is that for us its more about the story, the puzzles, the adventure than the combat. Both sides of the coin make sense, and as someone said... it really comes down to players and what THEY want to get out of the game. If what they want is 100% dice based combat, then that's what the game should be. If what they really want is an adventure then that is what they should receive. (Worth noting, we have had sessions with no combat at all, and we have loved it)
From those advocating fudging rolls, I am reading that its not a case of "make up all the rolls", its a case of "this combat is boring for the player, they should at least take a hit here". But if the fudging changes the outcome of something then I can see the argument that it could be taken too far. Its a fine line and one that each and every DM needs to make for their own game, style of play and their players.