There's a thread currently about fudging die rolls, but there's actually a bunch of types of encounter fudging, so I'm curious how people feel about them all. Types I can think of:
Ability Fudging (Additive)
Give the monster new powers in mid-encounter. Usually used to prevent the PCs from winning with unexpected tactics.
Ability Fudging (Subtractive)
Ignore one of the monster's abilities, because using it would make the encounter harder than intended.
Bad Tactics
The monster does something stupid, or at least suboptimal.
Die Roll Fudging
Ignoring die rolls to achieve a more preferable result. Requires rolling secretly.
Schrödinger's Villain
Some monsters might show up as reinforcements. Or they might not. Depending on how easily the fight is going for the PCs.
Stat Fudging
Adjusting monster statistics in mid-encounter. Most commonly done with hit points, because changing things like armor class is usually obvious.
Unexpected Allies
If the PCs are doing poorly, some form of help arrives to rescue the PCs.
So, which, if any, of these types of fudging do you consider acceptable?
First, I commend you on "Schrodinger's Villain." It made me smile.
I think everything listed can be situationally appropriate, but then again, I don't mind the occasional fudge. Of all of them, I am least fond of Unexpected Allies and I don't think I've ever done it. It feels a little too hamfisted for my taste, and I never create scenarios that my players can't run from anyway. If they're too stubborn or stupid to capitalize on their escape opportunities, that's on them. I'm not having the city watch or a beloved NPC save them. Not only is it a bad precedent to set, it also feels like I as DM become the hero of the hour. I'm not. I'm just the worldbuilder, and I'd like to keep it that way.
As for adding abilities, I've done it when I homebrew encounters on the spot and have a cool idea a little late (shoutout to my fellow seat-of-our-pants DMs) or when I've realized that I forgot to use those abilities earlier in the combat. I've never added abilities to a monster as a calculated reaction to my players' choices, and I'm not sure I would. I'm also pretty open with my players about when I forget stuff, just so they know I'm not abusing my authority to "win." If I found out my DM had improv'd an ability specifically to counter something smart I did in combat, I'd be upset. But if I never found out? Ignorance is bliss, I guess...
I wouldn't rule out any tactic completely. But! I've learned over the years that most of them aren't necessary. As DMs, it's easy to worry too much that you aren't making the best story imaginable every moment. But the players usually aren't nearly as hard of critics as we are to ourselves. And if you just have a little faith to let the dice fall where they may, the game will often surprise you with fun results.
So I answered these more like - how likely am I to employ them, if I do, relative to each other?
Ability Fudging (Additive)
Give the monster new powers in mid-encounter. Usually used to prevent the PCs from winning with unexpected tactics.
1 - Not likely - this one is pretty lame. If the PCs get creative, awesome! Let them win. There is always another fight later. I never run out of monsters. But player fun is precious. I want them to cheer at their clever wins, not groan at my spontaneous evolving super goblins.
Ability Fudging (Subtractive)
Ignore one of the monster's abilities, because using it would make the encounter harder than intended.
3 - Moderate - Is usually better to just use the breath weapon and let a few PCs drop. They are frequently more resilient than you think. But this one can be handy from time to time in very dire situations.
Bad Tactics
The monster does something stupid, or at least suboptimal.
5 - More Likely - a lot of monsters just are stupid. They certainly don't know as much as I do about the party's strengths and weaknesses. Battles are hectic and confusing for the people in them. They don't have the God view that we do and minutes to plan actions. If a monster just charges the nearest character, that's not unreasonable from a verisimilitude perspective.
Die Roll Fudging
Ignoring die rolls to achieve a more preferable result. Requires rolling secretly.
1 - Not likely - this one is very tempting to new DMs especially, but usually the worst option. It can lead to a lot of mistrust, and trust is vital. I usually just roll in the open. Not from any firm principle. More just from ease of play. And it usually turns out just fine. After level 1, this trick is almost never necessary.
Schrödinger's Villain
Some monsters might show up as reinforcements. Or they might not. Depending on how easily the fight is going for the PCs.
3 - Moderate - it can add to the tension and immersion because it's a real risk that could happen. I don't normally need to adjust this way, but at least it's feasible. Normally I already have reinforcements planned in advance. And I give some indication they are coming, like sounds of clanking armor coming their way a few turns earlier. It gives them a chance to get out if they are feeling overwhelmed.
Stat Fudging
Adjusting monster statistics in mid-encounter. Most commonly done with hit points, because changing things like armor class is usually obvious.
5 - More Likely - I don't double HP or anything that drastic. If I misjudged the combat that badly I'll just let them have it. But HP is given as a range in the stat block for a reason. If an extra 10 HP prevents the fight from ending with one round of smites, it might be worth it just so the other players can have some fun too.
Unexpected Allies
If the PCs are doing poorly, some form of help arrives to rescue the PCs.
1 - Not likely - yuck, I personally hate this one. The PCs are the heroes, not my NPCs. Sometimes this could be part of the plan from the beginning. Like the PCs know if they can hold off the orc army until dawn, their allies will arrive to help them. But that's more like... expected allies. Swooping in on an eagle from out of nowhere because I screwed up an encounter is very unsatisfying for everyone. If I could rate this a 0 I would haha.
Honestly, it depends. I am guilty of using pretty much all of these, but I try to use them as a last resort and different things work in different situations. I think that sometimes DM should intervene, especially if it makes for a better story, or prevents a really lame one:) The beauty of TTRPGs is that we do not have to blindly follow the rules like the computers. But if the rules are ignored all the time, it is not fun either, so it needs to be done carefully and not taken lightly.
Here is my take on the various tactics. However, keep in mind that any of these are usually not needed and in my experience I use them extremely rarely if ever. There isn't much point in having die rolls if random good and bad events can't occur. If a situation develops into an unexpected TPK (which shouldn't usually happen) then usually I'd use a post combat narrative adjustment to explain why the opponents took prisoners rather than just killing the characters outright.
Ability Fudging (Additive) - Give the monster new powers in mid-encounter. Usually used to prevent the PCs from winning with unexpected tactics.
Never - if the characters are winning let them use their abilities and enjoy an easy win.
Ability Fudging (Subtractive) - Ignore one of the monster's abilities, because using it would make the encounter harder than intended.
Rarely - if an ability would make an encounter harder than intended then why was the monster or ability included in the first place? On the other hand, if the creature has an ability that could be used again later in a fight that is going badly, I might choose to not use it as if it had not recharged.
Bad Tactics - The monster does something stupid, or at least suboptimal.
Sometimes - every creature can make sub-optimal decisions but it is more likely for an orc than a lich. One of the most common "bad tactics" I use is NOT killing a character once they hit zero hit points. Two hits on that character at zero hit points and they will never get up again. There are so many ways to get a character up and fighting again from zero hit points in a D&D world that making sure opponents stay down would tend to be a standard tactic. However, most opponents don't do that unless they have seen a character get back up in the current combat - then intelligent opponents will sometimes start to target unconscious but not dead opponents.
Die Roll Fudging - Ignoring die rolls to achieve a more preferable result. Requires rolling secretly.
Never - I don't think there should be any need to fudge die rolls (the only exception would be when running a game for someone who would be very sensitive to bad die roll results - like playing with some younger people - I would tend to cushion negative effects unless I was sure it would not bother the player).
Schrödinger's Villain - Some monsters might show up as reinforcements. Or they might not. Depending on how easily the fight is going for the PCs.
Sometimes - this may get used if the original encounter was intended to have reinforcements that make sense for the narrative. However, the number of reinforcements can be adjusted a bit depending on how the fight is going (the last wave might not show up for example). I would extremely rarely use this spontaneously since if the players get an easy win because things go in their favor, I have no issue with it. It is good for the players to sometimes feel that their characters are powerful.
Stat Fudging - Adjusting monster statistics in mid-encounter. Most commonly done with hit points, because changing things like armor class is usually obvious.
Sometimes - hit points is the most obvious. AC is another option. One example is a stat block for a creature with a long sword showing both one and two handed swings and an AC of 18 from chain and shield. Depending on the fight, I might click the two handed attack option and drop the AC to 16 (which the stat block should include but doesn't) since the drop in AC is far more significant than the 1 hit point increase in average damage. I've occasionally also adjusted save modifiers for specific creatures (in advance of the fight) to make the fight more interesting given the party abilities.
Unexpected Allies - If the PCs are doing poorly, some form of help arrives to rescue the PCs.
Extremely rarely - I'd never randomly throw in an unexpected ally. However, depending on the narrative, allies might be something that could show up and in such a case, if it made logical sense to the story then I wouldn't have an issue with some sort of ally showing up but only if it was a reasonable story element.
Some of the choices are not fudging to me, they are DM's choice to use some ability or not, bring reinforcements as wel as enemies opting to flee or surrender etc...
Fudging to me is originally using a statblock, roll etc and mid-way during use, change it on the fly. That goes for rolls, monsters stats, AC, HP, Traits or Actions etc.
Some of the choices are not fudging to me, they are DM's choice to use some ability or not, bring reinforcements as wel as enemies opting to flee or surrender etc...
I'm using a broad definition of fudging as "things you do to adjust encounter difficulty after it has already started to produce a desired outcome".
Some of the choices are not fudging to me, they are DM's choice to use some ability or not, bring reinforcements as wel as enemies opting to flee or surrender etc...
I'm using a broad definition of fudging as "things you do to adjust encounter difficulty after it has already started to produce a desired outcome".
Then yeah following your broad definition there's things i'm open to do to adjust encounty difficulty as DM with monsters reaction, tactics and others i'm not, especially if it involves cheating or modifying pre-established datas during use ☺
For monster statblocks, i prefer to homebrew them ahead of time then on the fly during an encounter, same for houseruling PCs abilities, i prefer not during session unless absolutely necessary. For rolls, well i roll in the open when playing in-person and make my rolls public during online play, that includes ability checks, attack rolls, saving throws, recharge check as well as revealing traits or feature upon activation.
Ability Fudging (Additive): 4. I'm OK with giving monsters more abilities within reason. If they're desperate such as being backed up against the wall, they might get multiattack or some bonus to damage with a penalty to hit. But if I made the encounter too easy, I'll take my lumps and keep the lesson in mind for next time. Maybe the next encounter.
Ability Fudging (Subtractive): 4. See above: when enemies are cocky and confident in their abilities, they don't need to use everything on their stat block. They won't exert themselves too quickly.
Bad Tactics: 3. Depends on the monster, and ultimately they're fallible beings. Some bandits will have read The Art of War before raiding caravans, and some wizards know spells but hasn't got a strategic bone in their body.
Schrödinger's Villain: 3. I don't pull reinforcements out of the blue, but I do keep track of where monsters are in dungeons. They're not static, they frequently go on patrols, rest, and set up defences. This goes especially for intelligent or wise creatures. So regardless of how the fight's going, if the adventurers or monsters do something to attract others' attention... they'll come running (or groggily, depending on their state).
Stat Fudging: 1. I don't like fudging anything. If something's too easy, that's on me to learn for next time. I find most of my encounters undertuned, not overtuned, to play things safely. And if I can set the precident of running away being a valid choice, all the better. If the party ignores me flat out saying 'you could attempt to flee', that's entirely on them.
Unexpected Allies: 2. Much as I dislike this trope, I appreciate it can be necessary and can have interesting consequences: sometimes the monsters think they can join the winning side, or sometimes the allies may want the favour repaying. It's a way of introducing new characters and factions the party may (or may not) want to become involved with in future. As a player I dislike this because it's essentially kill-stealing and I'm not afraid of losing characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
I think as long as the fudging is in service of fun, things are all good.
Take the Sleep spell. I had a player end a boss encounter by rolling the exact number of hit points on sleep that the enemy had just before the caster was loading up a spell that would have wiped them all out. Total hail mary play, and the wizard was clearly waiting for the moment to let that spell out.
Made a better moment than failing by 1hp if the he had rolled 1 point less, right?
I also had a big bad get just curb stomped by a low initiative roll in the first round, but he had hostages in his tentacles and he was a homebrew interdimensional abberation. So I Ability Fudged (additive) and drained the life from some hostages to replenish him. I've never seen experienced players so happy, excited, and terrified at the same time. Secretly I already knew they'd win one way or another since they took out his original hp, but I could at least make it entertaining for them and myself.
At the same time, I had a group where some players canceled at the last minute, so I ability fudged (subtractive) to keep the difficulty in check, namely a resistance to non-magical weapons. The point of the fight wasn't to kill them all, just to burn off some hp and resources for the encounters later anyway.
I don't think fudging is bad, provided you are coming at it from the right perspective.
1: I have added or amended abilities mid-fight because they needed to work differently. This is usually homebrew, because I have not playtested my own creations (this fight being the playtest) and I realise that DC 10 is way too low, or that a massive monster hitting with 2d8 damage is too weedy, or that holding your breath lasts for goddamned ever)
2: I have removed or amended abilities as well. This is either because I've missed them and it would feel unfair to add them in now (EG player 1 gets hit, then player 2 gets hit next turn and oh it does paralysis I forgot that), or because it's homebrew ad I realise a DC18 save to avoid 10d6 damage is actually waaay too much.
3: Bad tatics, it depends on how smart the monster is and whether the players are doing something to provoke it. Having the dumb monster which follows movement chase the tank because the tank is moving and the wizard is not is bad tactics, but believable. I'll never have smart enemies just become idiots to make the PCs win a fight they shouldn't have picked.
4: Dieroll Fudging, I have done it on occasion. One of note was when I rolled exclusively 5's and 6's on a bunch of D6 for a breath weapons damage. To avoid outright killing half the party, I dropped it to average damage plus a little instead. I have also done similar when a monster is rolling very poorly in a fight for damage. I see no issue as a DM with rolling and if it doesn't fit the story, using the average instead - for example, a character was picked up in a dragons mouth and flung through a wall. I rolled 2 1's for damage, so added an impromptu "+3" to the damage or being flung through a wall, so that it meant something!
5: Schrödinger's Villain, I tend to plan reinforcements only in fights which are meant to be climactic and epic, and tend to gauge it on whether anyone has dropped. I don't want to make it so difficult as to TPK, but I also won't make it so nobody dies!
6: Stat Fudging, Only the HP really, and only for important exposition rather than challenge. Chief example, the party met a giant fisherman who they attacked. They "killed" him in one round, but I upped his HP so he lasted long enough to grab the fishing rod and try to lure something huge in. He didn't attack any more, and they killed him after the boat started getting pulled, but if he'd dropped when he hit 0, then the encounter would have been a bit more jerky than it was!
7: Suddenly, allies? Nope. Not unless it has a good reason for happening - an example being if the party is waiting for Bob the NPC Paladin to meet them on a hill, and they find themselves attacked by zombies, then holding on for Bob to arrive with his full contingent of knights of the paladin order of Bobbing is a good goal for the encounter. For random encounters and the like? No, not unless there's a bloody good reason for it. As others have said, it makes it feel like without you, they would have died, and they want to be heroes.
I tend to agree with all the options, when applicable, to keep the narrative and engagement at proper levels and to make it fun for everyone. Monster HP, Extra Abilities, Reinforcements, all come into play when I see the party is going to easily overwhelm what I want to be a meaningful encounter. Drag it out a little longer, using one or several means, to get the impact needed for the encounter. As I have DM'd my party more, I find I need to intervene less as I am better at balancing the encounters, using plain rules with no adjustments. On rare occasions, dice gods take a tantrum one way or the other, skewing things badly, b those occasions are really rare. Usually I retool an encounter because they are a little better damage dealers (my players) against this set of foes than I expected.
I find it's more common in 1-4 level range than anywhere else. Usually past level 4 something stupid isn't going to really blow the encounter in a round.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's a thread currently about fudging die rolls, but there's actually a bunch of types of encounter fudging, so I'm curious how people feel about them all. Types I can think of:
Ability Fudging (Additive)
Give the monster new powers in mid-encounter. Usually used to prevent the PCs from winning with unexpected tactics.
Ability Fudging (Subtractive)
Ignore one of the monster's abilities, because using it would make the encounter harder than intended.
Bad Tactics
The monster does something stupid, or at least suboptimal.
Die Roll Fudging
Ignoring die rolls to achieve a more preferable result. Requires rolling secretly.
Schrödinger's Villain
Some monsters might show up as reinforcements. Or they might not. Depending on how easily the fight is going for the PCs.
Stat Fudging
Adjusting monster statistics in mid-encounter. Most commonly done with hit points, because changing things like armor class is usually obvious.
Unexpected Allies
If the PCs are doing poorly, some form of help arrives to rescue the PCs.
So, which, if any, of these types of fudging do you consider acceptable?
First, I commend you on "Schrodinger's Villain." It made me smile.
I think everything listed can be situationally appropriate, but then again, I don't mind the occasional fudge. Of all of them, I am least fond of Unexpected Allies and I don't think I've ever done it. It feels a little too hamfisted for my taste, and I never create scenarios that my players can't run from anyway. If they're too stubborn or stupid to capitalize on their escape opportunities, that's on them. I'm not having the city watch or a beloved NPC save them. Not only is it a bad precedent to set, it also feels like I as DM become the hero of the hour. I'm not. I'm just the worldbuilder, and I'd like to keep it that way.
As for adding abilities, I've done it when I homebrew encounters on the spot and have a cool idea a little late (shoutout to my fellow seat-of-our-pants DMs) or when I've realized that I forgot to use those abilities earlier in the combat. I've never added abilities to a monster as a calculated reaction to my players' choices, and I'm not sure I would. I'm also pretty open with my players about when I forget stuff, just so they know I'm not abusing my authority to "win." If I found out my DM had improv'd an ability specifically to counter something smart I did in combat, I'd be upset. But if I never found out? Ignorance is bliss, I guess...
I wouldn't rule out any tactic completely. But! I've learned over the years that most of them aren't necessary. As DMs, it's easy to worry too much that you aren't making the best story imaginable every moment. But the players usually aren't nearly as hard of critics as we are to ourselves. And if you just have a little faith to let the dice fall where they may, the game will often surprise you with fun results.
So I answered these more like - how likely am I to employ them, if I do, relative to each other?
Ability Fudging (Additive)
Give the monster new powers in mid-encounter. Usually used to prevent the PCs from winning with unexpected tactics.
1 - Not likely - this one is pretty lame. If the PCs get creative, awesome! Let them win. There is always another fight later. I never run out of monsters. But player fun is precious. I want them to cheer at their clever wins, not groan at my spontaneous evolving super goblins.
Ability Fudging (Subtractive)
Ignore one of the monster's abilities, because using it would make the encounter harder than intended.
3 - Moderate - Is usually better to just use the breath weapon and let a few PCs drop. They are frequently more resilient than you think. But this one can be handy from time to time in very dire situations.
Bad Tactics
The monster does something stupid, or at least suboptimal.
5 - More Likely - a lot of monsters just are stupid. They certainly don't know as much as I do about the party's strengths and weaknesses. Battles are hectic and confusing for the people in them. They don't have the God view that we do and minutes to plan actions. If a monster just charges the nearest character, that's not unreasonable from a verisimilitude perspective.
Die Roll Fudging
Ignoring die rolls to achieve a more preferable result. Requires rolling secretly.
1 - Not likely - this one is very tempting to new DMs especially, but usually the worst option. It can lead to a lot of mistrust, and trust is vital. I usually just roll in the open. Not from any firm principle. More just from ease of play. And it usually turns out just fine. After level 1, this trick is almost never necessary.
Schrödinger's Villain
Some monsters might show up as reinforcements. Or they might not. Depending on how easily the fight is going for the PCs.
3 - Moderate - it can add to the tension and immersion because it's a real risk that could happen. I don't normally need to adjust this way, but at least it's feasible. Normally I already have reinforcements planned in advance. And I give some indication they are coming, like sounds of clanking armor coming their way a few turns earlier. It gives them a chance to get out if they are feeling overwhelmed.
Stat Fudging
Adjusting monster statistics in mid-encounter. Most commonly done with hit points, because changing things like armor class is usually obvious.
5 - More Likely - I don't double HP or anything that drastic. If I misjudged the combat that badly I'll just let them have it. But HP is given as a range in the stat block for a reason. If an extra 10 HP prevents the fight from ending with one round of smites, it might be worth it just so the other players can have some fun too.
Unexpected Allies
If the PCs are doing poorly, some form of help arrives to rescue the PCs.
1 - Not likely - yuck, I personally hate this one. The PCs are the heroes, not my NPCs. Sometimes this could be part of the plan from the beginning. Like the PCs know if they can hold off the orc army until dawn, their allies will arrive to help them. But that's more like... expected allies. Swooping in on an eagle from out of nowhere because I screwed up an encounter is very unsatisfying for everyone. If I could rate this a 0 I would haha.
Honestly, it depends. I am guilty of using pretty much all of these, but I try to use them as a last resort and different things work in different situations. I think that sometimes DM should intervene, especially if it makes for a better story, or prevents a really lame one:) The beauty of TTRPGs is that we do not have to blindly follow the rules like the computers. But if the rules are ignored all the time, it is not fun either, so it needs to be done carefully and not taken lightly.
Here is my take on the various tactics. However, keep in mind that any of these are usually not needed and in my experience I use them extremely rarely if ever. There isn't much point in having die rolls if random good and bad events can't occur. If a situation develops into an unexpected TPK (which shouldn't usually happen) then usually I'd use a post combat narrative adjustment to explain why the opponents took prisoners rather than just killing the characters outright.
Ability Fudging (Additive) - Give the monster new powers in mid-encounter. Usually used to prevent the PCs from winning with unexpected tactics.
Never - if the characters are winning let them use their abilities and enjoy an easy win.
Ability Fudging (Subtractive) - Ignore one of the monster's abilities, because using it would make the encounter harder than intended.
Rarely - if an ability would make an encounter harder than intended then why was the monster or ability included in the first place? On the other hand, if the creature has an ability that could be used again later in a fight that is going badly, I might choose to not use it as if it had not recharged.
Bad Tactics - The monster does something stupid, or at least suboptimal.
Sometimes - every creature can make sub-optimal decisions but it is more likely for an orc than a lich. One of the most common "bad tactics" I use is NOT killing a character once they hit zero hit points. Two hits on that character at zero hit points and they will never get up again. There are so many ways to get a character up and fighting again from zero hit points in a D&D world that making sure opponents stay down would tend to be a standard tactic. However, most opponents don't do that unless they have seen a character get back up in the current combat - then intelligent opponents will sometimes start to target unconscious but not dead opponents.
Die Roll Fudging - Ignoring die rolls to achieve a more preferable result. Requires rolling secretly.
Never - I don't think there should be any need to fudge die rolls (the only exception would be when running a game for someone who would be very sensitive to bad die roll results - like playing with some younger people - I would tend to cushion negative effects unless I was sure it would not bother the player).
Schrödinger's Villain - Some monsters might show up as reinforcements. Or they might not. Depending on how easily the fight is going for the PCs.
Sometimes - this may get used if the original encounter was intended to have reinforcements that make sense for the narrative. However, the number of reinforcements can be adjusted a bit depending on how the fight is going (the last wave might not show up for example). I would extremely rarely use this spontaneously since if the players get an easy win because things go in their favor, I have no issue with it. It is good for the players to sometimes feel that their characters are powerful.
Stat Fudging - Adjusting monster statistics in mid-encounter. Most commonly done with hit points, because changing things like armor class is usually obvious.
Sometimes - hit points is the most obvious. AC is another option. One example is a stat block for a creature with a long sword showing both one and two handed swings and an AC of 18 from chain and shield. Depending on the fight, I might click the two handed attack option and drop the AC to 16 (which the stat block should include but doesn't) since the drop in AC is far more significant than the 1 hit point increase in average damage. I've occasionally also adjusted save modifiers for specific creatures (in advance of the fight) to make the fight more interesting given the party abilities.
Unexpected Allies - If the PCs are doing poorly, some form of help arrives to rescue the PCs.
Extremely rarely - I'd never randomly throw in an unexpected ally. However, depending on the narrative, allies might be something that could show up and in such a case, if it made logical sense to the story then I wouldn't have an issue with some sort of ally showing up but only if it was a reasonable story element.
Some of the choices are not fudging to me, they are DM's choice to use some ability or not, bring reinforcements as wel as enemies opting to flee or surrender etc...
Fudging to me is originally using a statblock, roll etc and mid-way during use, change it on the fly. That goes for rolls, monsters stats, AC, HP, Traits or Actions etc.
I have always found this article interesting. The Dials of Monster Difficulty
I'm using a broad definition of fudging as "things you do to adjust encounter difficulty after it has already started to produce a desired outcome".
Then yeah following your broad definition there's things i'm open to do to adjust encounty difficulty as DM with monsters reaction, tactics and others i'm not, especially if it involves cheating or modifying pre-established datas during use ☺
For monster statblocks, i prefer to homebrew them ahead of time then on the fly during an encounter, same for houseruling PCs abilities, i prefer not during session unless absolutely necessary. For rolls, well i roll in the open when playing in-person and make my rolls public during online play, that includes ability checks, attack rolls, saving throws, recharge check as well as revealing traits or feature upon activation.
Ability Fudging (Additive): 4. I'm OK with giving monsters more abilities within reason. If they're desperate such as being backed up against the wall, they might get multiattack or some bonus to damage with a penalty to hit. But if I made the encounter too easy, I'll take my lumps and keep the lesson in mind for next time. Maybe the next encounter.
Ability Fudging (Subtractive): 4. See above: when enemies are cocky and confident in their abilities, they don't need to use everything on their stat block. They won't exert themselves too quickly.
Bad Tactics: 3. Depends on the monster, and ultimately they're fallible beings. Some bandits will have read The Art of War before raiding caravans, and some wizards know spells but hasn't got a strategic bone in their body.
Schrödinger's Villain: 3. I don't pull reinforcements out of the blue, but I do keep track of where monsters are in dungeons. They're not static, they frequently go on patrols, rest, and set up defences. This goes especially for intelligent or wise creatures. So regardless of how the fight's going, if the adventurers or monsters do something to attract others' attention... they'll come running (or groggily, depending on their state).
Stat Fudging: 1. I don't like fudging anything. If something's too easy, that's on me to learn for next time. I find most of my encounters undertuned, not overtuned, to play things safely. And if I can set the precident of running away being a valid choice, all the better. If the party ignores me flat out saying 'you could attempt to flee', that's entirely on them.
Unexpected Allies: 2. Much as I dislike this trope, I appreciate it can be necessary and can have interesting consequences: sometimes the monsters think they can join the winning side, or sometimes the allies may want the favour repaying. It's a way of introducing new characters and factions the party may (or may not) want to become involved with in future. As a player I dislike this because it's essentially kill-stealing and I'm not afraid of losing characters.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
I think as long as the fudging is in service of fun, things are all good.
Take the Sleep spell. I had a player end a boss encounter by rolling the exact number of hit points on sleep that the enemy had just before the caster was loading up a spell that would have wiped them all out. Total hail mary play, and the wizard was clearly waiting for the moment to let that spell out.
Made a better moment than failing by 1hp if the he had rolled 1 point less, right?
I also had a big bad get just curb stomped by a low initiative roll in the first round, but he had hostages in his tentacles and he was a homebrew interdimensional abberation. So I Ability Fudged (additive) and drained the life from some hostages to replenish him. I've never seen experienced players so happy, excited, and terrified at the same time. Secretly I already knew they'd win one way or another since they took out his original hp, but I could at least make it entertaining for them and myself.
At the same time, I had a group where some players canceled at the last minute, so I ability fudged (subtractive) to keep the difficulty in check, namely a resistance to non-magical weapons. The point of the fight wasn't to kill them all, just to burn off some hp and resources for the encounters later anyway.
I don't think fudging is bad, provided you are coming at it from the right perspective.
1: I have added or amended abilities mid-fight because they needed to work differently. This is usually homebrew, because I have not playtested my own creations (this fight being the playtest) and I realise that DC 10 is way too low, or that a massive monster hitting with 2d8 damage is too weedy, or that holding your breath lasts for goddamned ever)
2: I have removed or amended abilities as well. This is either because I've missed them and it would feel unfair to add them in now (EG player 1 gets hit, then player 2 gets hit next turn and oh it does paralysis I forgot that), or because it's homebrew ad I realise a DC18 save to avoid 10d6 damage is actually waaay too much.
3: Bad tatics, it depends on how smart the monster is and whether the players are doing something to provoke it. Having the dumb monster which follows movement chase the tank because the tank is moving and the wizard is not is bad tactics, but believable. I'll never have smart enemies just become idiots to make the PCs win a fight they shouldn't have picked.
4: Dieroll Fudging, I have done it on occasion. One of note was when I rolled exclusively 5's and 6's on a bunch of D6 for a breath weapons damage. To avoid outright killing half the party, I dropped it to average damage plus a little instead. I have also done similar when a monster is rolling very poorly in a fight for damage. I see no issue as a DM with rolling and if it doesn't fit the story, using the average instead - for example, a character was picked up in a dragons mouth and flung through a wall. I rolled 2 1's for damage, so added an impromptu "+3" to the damage or being flung through a wall, so that it meant something!
5: Schrödinger's Villain, I tend to plan reinforcements only in fights which are meant to be climactic and epic, and tend to gauge it on whether anyone has dropped. I don't want to make it so difficult as to TPK, but I also won't make it so nobody dies!
6: Stat Fudging, Only the HP really, and only for important exposition rather than challenge. Chief example, the party met a giant fisherman who they attacked. They "killed" him in one round, but I upped his HP so he lasted long enough to grab the fishing rod and try to lure something huge in. He didn't attack any more, and they killed him after the boat started getting pulled, but if he'd dropped when he hit 0, then the encounter would have been a bit more jerky than it was!
7: Suddenly, allies? Nope. Not unless it has a good reason for happening - an example being if the party is waiting for Bob the NPC Paladin to meet them on a hill, and they find themselves attacked by zombies, then holding on for Bob to arrive with his full contingent of knights of the paladin order of Bobbing is a good goal for the encounter. For random encounters and the like? No, not unless there's a bloody good reason for it. As others have said, it makes it feel like without you, they would have died, and they want to be heroes.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I tend to agree with all the options, when applicable, to keep the narrative and engagement at proper levels and to make it fun for everyone. Monster HP, Extra Abilities, Reinforcements, all come into play when I see the party is going to easily overwhelm what I want to be a meaningful encounter. Drag it out a little longer, using one or several means, to get the impact needed for the encounter. As I have DM'd my party more, I find I need to intervene less as I am better at balancing the encounters, using plain rules with no adjustments. On rare occasions, dice gods take a tantrum one way or the other, skewing things badly, b those occasions are really rare. Usually I retool an encounter because they are a little better damage dealers (my players) against this set of foes than I expected.
I find it's more common in 1-4 level range than anywhere else. Usually past level 4 something stupid isn't going to really blow the encounter in a round.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.