Curious on your opinions. We were in combat and player's were having some great rolls and were downing the monsters much quicker than the DM had expected. The DM was rolling kind of away from the DM screen and I could see the rolls, and when attacking the DM says "oh thats a crit" against one of the players but i looked over and the DM had rolled a 19. So I said "oh sorry I can see its a 19, are these like Champion Subclass monsters or something" and the DM said "No no you're right its not a crit, I just wanted to make it more dramatic".
So I felt bad for noticing but at the same time I'm now wondering about DM's rolls go forward (he started hiding the rolls better after that).
What are your thoughts. Should a DM fudge rolls or make crits happen when they don't actually to make combat harder or is that not really fair since the player's can't do the same if we started getting destroyed by the monsters.
I don’t think there’s a significant issue with fudging rolls occasionally, as long as it’s being done to create a better experience. That said, as you’re learning, it does become a problem if you get caught. I feel like in this situation, maybe your DM should have taken the out you gave them and said “yeah, I wanted to make the fight a little tougher so these monsters have a wider crit range.” Even if everyone’s okay with the occasional fiat roll, it can be distracting for players to wonder if that’s happening.
Typically, I think there are better ways to adjust the challenge in real time. Change monster HP mid-fight, start giving them better attack bonuses and damage rolls as they get worn down, etc. GMs can and should be adjusting those static numbers as needed. Actually fudging dice should be a last resort, and I don’t think there’s ever anything wrong with not doing it at all.
Fudging to compensate for player's luck to me diminish the party's performance. If they're that good, let them be!
Personally, in such situation i'd be more inclined to let them crush the encounter and just create an additional one later, or have reinforcement show up before combat ends if a greater opposition was intended. The only time during in-person play i've fudged die rolls was to save low-level character from being outright killed by a crit or high damage roll or turn hit into miss to avoid TPK. When i play online, my rolls are public so i let the dice fall where they may.
Ask yourself whether the players will have more fun if you stick to the rules and let the chips fall where they may, or whether the players will have more fun if you cultivate a more compelling encounter as though the chips fell a certain way when they actually did not. I am not saying this to lead you, as I can imagine a situation where either situation might be the more preferred option.
The problem with fudging rolls is it really is cheating. Would a DM be okay with a player fudging their roles?
If the DM wants the encounter to last longer then have another friend show up or have contingencies in place that are a part of the adventure.
If players get wind that you cheat at your rolls they will never trust you from that point on which can then lead to player vs DM which is not ideal.
I've been a player at that table where the DM never seems to miss, the big bads never fail saving throws, etc. It then makes the players change their style of play to basically nothing but damaging attacks that cannot be saved for nothing (IE, spell casters stop trying save or suck spells).
I avoid fudging because in the end, a single fight doesn't usually matter that much, so if it turns out to be easy, I'll just make the next one harder. If it's really important that a particular fight be dramatic, I usually do it with optional elements -- a monster or effect that might or might not actually appear depending on how the encounter goes.
It is fine if you do it for the betterment of the game narrative, for player enjoyment, for really making a player moment pop off in spectacular ways. Etc. Or sometimes even to tweak the pacing of an encounter if it isn't quite right.
Eg, the badguy is the last standing on the battlefield and the PC who has some personal rivalry against him the most or whatever comes in with a save for half spell and he'd survive for like 3 hp if he saves. Just, let him fail. He was going to die anyway and the moment of triumph for the PC with that personal victory outweighs the strict adherence to dice outcomes.
It is important that you not do it also when the dice results actually change things in a material way. If the badguy in that last example had some spell or ability that could radically swing the situation if he made it to his next turn. Then, don't fudge it. But if 5 PCs go after the roll in question, we already know the outcome so lets just move it along in a meaningful way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Boost monster hit points mid-combat, or bring in a second wave if it makes sense for the encounter, sure. There are plenty of ways to make a fight more challenging without forcing the dice to do what you want
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Boost monster hit points mid-combat, or bring in a second wave if it makes sense for the encounter, sure. There are plenty of ways to make a fight more challenging without forcing the dice to do what you want
I guess I kind of lump all of this into the same category, but there is something about the way you describe it that seems fundamentally more honest than just lying about your die rolls.
The problem with fudging rolls is it really is cheating. Would a DM be okay with a player fudging their roles?
If the DM wants the encounter to last longer then have another friend show up or have contingencies in place that are a part of the adventure.
If players get wind that you cheat at your rolls they will never trust you from that point on which can then lead to player vs DM which is not ideal.
I've been a player at that table where the DM never seems to miss, the big bads never fail saving throws, etc. It then makes the players change their style of play to basically nothing but damaging attacks that cannot be saved for nothing (IE, spell casters stop trying save or suck spells).
Ya thats what I was thinking. I don't think he was doing it in a bad way at all, I'm sure it really was to make it more enjoyable/suspenseful for us but it just turns out I noticed and made things awkward lol.
But ya I agree, as a player we can't start making things hit if we're getting killed badly so its tough to say the opposite is fair.....but at the same time they are the DM so for story telling purposes I see where it can make sense. And this DM is really good I find so I wouldn't be surprised if he sometimes does the opposite and may fudge rolls down to help a player out if he's destroying everyone.
Boost monster hit points mid-combat, or bring in a second wave if it makes sense for the encounter, sure. There are plenty of ways to make a fight more challenging without forcing the dice to do what you want
I guess I kind of lump all of this into the same category, but there is something about the way you describe it that seems fundamentally more honest than just lying about your die rolls.
The point is to tell the best story. If the party's expecting a big, life-or-death battle and I goofed in setting it up and the enemy wasn't tough enough, I don't want it to fizzle. I want them to feel like they earned the win
Spewing crits is actually less effective for that anyway -- it makes it feel like the monsters were just getting lucky rather than actually being a challenge
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I guess it comes down to what we think of as fudging rolls. Spewing crits to balance an underpowered encounter is visibly dubious to everyone at the table. Turning a monster crit into a regular hit or lowering the rolled damage it deals is more along the lines of what might pass for fudging rolls at my table.
So... maybe it's not just what you do, but the adeptness with which you do it?
I guess I kind of lump all of this into the same category, but there is something about the way you describe it that seems fundamentally more honest than just lying about your die rolls.
The advantage of the second wave is that the players actually know what they beat -- instead of eight goblins, they beat twelve, or whatever (and if you're tracking xp, they get the xp for them).
There is no right answer and this subject has been discussed at length.
There are people that like numbers to have the game make sense, there are people that don't care, as long as the story is good.
I like numbers and rules, both as a DM and player and like to roll everything on the open and, even, say outright what are the save DCs before people roll to give the game that "gamey" feel. But I had both players and DMs that were on the completely other side of the spectrum.
The question will always be: How do you prefer playing the game and what are you willing to deal as a player?
It can be very tempting to fudge rolls as a DM, especially for new ones. You want to make the game fun and exciting. You want tense moments, great victories, and memorable monsters. Most DMs do it with good intentions.
I wouldn't really call it 'cheating,' because it's not a competition. There is no winning and losing based on dice rolls. The only way to win is for everyone to have a good time. There are some DMs and players who still think it is a competition. They think it's one side of the screen versus the other. They aren't really understanding the spirit of the game, or they are holding onto competitive feelings from other games.
Fudging monster rolls, or rolling in secret for more thrilling games has its benefits. It can help you balance scenarios, avoid disasters, and raise the stakes. It can give players exciting victories. It can create cinematic moments when the dice aren't really cooperating. It can help prevent metagame arguments with players who know all the stats in the monster manual.
That being said, here comes the big 'BUT'....
That instinct DMs have to 'cheat' a roll is largely unhelpful.
As you have pointed out, it can lead to suspicions from here on out in your game. Even if a player doesn't feel the game is a competition, it can rob you of a feeling of accomplishment when you win a fight. Did you really do it? Or did the DM just let it happen? Was it your ingenuity that saved the day or a fudged roll?
As others have said, there's better ways to adjust a combat. Ways that fit more naturally into the world like reinforcements. Ways that let you capitalize on dramatic moments better, like adjusting HP a little to let the PCs get the big final hit, instead of some terrain effect finishing off the boss.
But perhaps most importantly, the dice can come up with better stories than we can sometimes. As a DM, we might think the PCs are doing very well, when they feel like they are on their last leg. We might try to save them, when actually fighting with every ability they have left would have been more fulfilling. We might add in a monster crit, and that ends up being the one that turns a fight into a TPK. That sure feels bad. We might have one dramatic conclusion in mind, but the dice create another one even better.
Fudging parts of a fight can be useful for a new DM struggling to balance encounters. But once you have some experience, I highly recommend rolling in the open for most combats. The players love to see it. They can cheer and moan along with you, but for opposite reasons :) It adds to the tension. It builds trust. It makes victories feel earned. And it sometimes gives you an amazing turn of events that you never expected.
Try not to hold this one against your DM. Have some faith that he had good intentions. But it's fair to also let him know how it makes you feel too. Hopefully you can all go on to have better games. Good luck!
All great points above. Personally, I do not fudge rolls because I feel a palpable loss in the thrill of the game, although I know many DMs who do. My biggest gripe with fudging rolls is the principle - if I am fudging a roll then why am I rolling in the first place? It is in line with the idea that if we just wanted to tell a story of our choosing then we don't need dice, minis, or maps at all.
I agree wholeheartedly with Stegadorkus above when he says that the dice sometimes tell better stories than we do. My group says all the time "the dice don't lie" and its actually a motto that has aged like fine wine.
I will say that it is incumbent upon the DM to present encounters that are balanced if combat is being promoted from the DM side. In my campaign, I am very far removed as the DM in terms of hinting or making combat seem like the ideal or non-ideal. Everything is up to the players. Thus, my encounters are not always "balanced" in the sense that the enemies will always be a reasonable engagement for the party. All of my encounters are solely dependent on where the party is in the world and what might be taking place their currently. So, to give proper warning, I would induce skill checks for the party whenever they want to determine if a fight is right for them. Fleeing is always an option!
And in the end, as a player, I would absolutely hate to find that my DM is fudging the dice just to make it more thrilling. In that event, I would much rather the encounter be designed to test the party's resources and challenge their tactics instead of relying solely on hits/misses and raw damage.
I can't believe no one has brought up the sacrilege of this event. First you have the DM not honoring the dice gods and then you have the player not honoring the DM screen. I'm not sure which is a worse offense!
I've mostly been a DM in my time playing so I'm more inclined to say that you looking past the screen was the worse offense. Here's why...
What if you all were about to face a TPK and you were the last one standing. The DM rolls and says" Oh... that was a miss" giving you time to pour a potion down someone throat or heal, etc... If you had looked around the screen and saw he rolled a 20 would you have spoken out and said.. "Oh, I saw your roll and I'm dead. Wow that's a wipe"?
I can't believe no one has brought up the sacrilege of this event. First you have the DM not honoring the dice gods and then you have the player not honoring the DM screen. I'm not sure which is a worse offense!
I've mostly been a DM in my time playing so I'm more inclined to say that you looking past the screen was the worse offense. Here's why...
What if you all were about to face a TPK and you were the last one standing. The DM rolls and says" Oh... that was a miss" giving you time to pour a potion down someone throat or heal, etc... If you had looked around the screen and saw he rolled a 20 would you have spoken out and said.. "Oh, I saw your roll and I'm dead. Wow that's a wipe"?
To be fair, I absolutely would have said it then as well. I don't mind dying in game, thats part of it. Thats the point of rolling dice, it can go in any direction. But yes like I said I did feel bad and it was just one of those not thinking about things, when its someone's turn I look at them and it was in my view. I agree with other comments in that if we killed the mob really quickly just send in a random creature from another direction for some reason or make the next mob more difficult. My DM is great but this does make me slightly curious what else he is changing now and never had that feeling before. I just like letting the dice do their thing, if I need a back up character, so be it. But maybe thats just me.
I can't believe no one has brought up the sacrilege of this event. First you have the DM not honoring the dice gods and then you have the player not honoring the DM screen. I'm not sure which is a worse offense!
I've mostly been a DM in my time playing so I'm more inclined to say that you looking past the screen was the worse offense. Here's why...
What if you all were about to face a TPK and you were the last one standing. The DM rolls and says" Oh... that was a miss" giving you time to pour a potion down someone throat or heal, etc... If you had looked around the screen and saw he rolled a 20 would you have spoken out and said.. "Oh, I saw your roll and I'm dead. Wow that's a wipe"?
To be fair, I absolutely would have said it then as well. I don't mind dying in game, thats part of it. Thats the point of rolling dice, it can go in any direction. But yes like I said I did feel bad and it was just one of those not thinking about things, when its someone's turn I look at them and it was in my view. I agree with other comments in that if we killed the mob really quickly just send in a random creature from another direction for some reason or make the next mob more difficult. My DM is great but this does make me slightly curious what else he is changing now and never had that feeling before. I just like letting the dice do their thing, if I need a back up character, so be it. But maybe thats just me.
Exactly...now the doubt creeps in as to what else was fudged...it is a bad feeling.
I personally love DMs that roll in front of the players and just let what happens happen. Plenty of things in game to bring players back so no harm in knocking them out or even killing them.
In adventurer's league you never really die anyways (except some tier 4 modules)....you just cannot continue in that module.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey
Curious on your opinions. We were in combat and player's were having some great rolls and were downing the monsters much quicker than the DM had expected. The DM was rolling kind of away from the DM screen and I could see the rolls, and when attacking the DM says "oh thats a crit" against one of the players but i looked over and the DM had rolled a 19. So I said "oh sorry I can see its a 19, are these like Champion Subclass monsters or something" and the DM said "No no you're right its not a crit, I just wanted to make it more dramatic".
So I felt bad for noticing but at the same time I'm now wondering about DM's rolls go forward (he started hiding the rolls better after that).
What are your thoughts. Should a DM fudge rolls or make crits happen when they don't actually to make combat harder or is that not really fair since the player's can't do the same if we started getting destroyed by the monsters.
Cheers
I don’t think there’s a significant issue with fudging rolls occasionally, as long as it’s being done to create a better experience. That said, as you’re learning, it does become a problem if you get caught. I feel like in this situation, maybe your DM should have taken the out you gave them and said “yeah, I wanted to make the fight a little tougher so these monsters have a wider crit range.” Even if everyone’s okay with the occasional fiat roll, it can be distracting for players to wonder if that’s happening.
Typically, I think there are better ways to adjust the challenge in real time. Change monster HP mid-fight, start giving them better attack bonuses and damage rolls as they get worn down, etc. GMs can and should be adjusting those static numbers as needed. Actually fudging dice should be a last resort, and I don’t think there’s ever anything wrong with not doing it at all.
Fudging to compensate for player's luck to me diminish the party's performance. If they're that good, let them be!
Personally, in such situation i'd be more inclined to let them crush the encounter and just create an additional one later, or have reinforcement show up before combat ends if a greater opposition was intended. The only time during in-person play i've fudged die rolls was to save low-level character from being outright killed by a crit or high damage roll or turn hit into miss to avoid TPK. When i play online, my rolls are public so i let the dice fall where they may.
Ask yourself whether the players will have more fun if you stick to the rules and let the chips fall where they may, or whether the players will have more fun if you cultivate a more compelling encounter as though the chips fell a certain way when they actually did not. I am not saying this to lead you, as I can imagine a situation where either situation might be the more preferred option.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The problem with fudging rolls is it really is cheating. Would a DM be okay with a player fudging their roles?
If the DM wants the encounter to last longer then have another friend show up or have contingencies in place that are a part of the adventure.
If players get wind that you cheat at your rolls they will never trust you from that point on which can then lead to player vs DM which is not ideal.
I've been a player at that table where the DM never seems to miss, the big bads never fail saving throws, etc. It then makes the players change their style of play to basically nothing but damaging attacks that cannot be saved for nothing (IE, spell casters stop trying save or suck spells).
I avoid fudging because in the end, a single fight doesn't usually matter that much, so if it turns out to be easy, I'll just make the next one harder. If it's really important that a particular fight be dramatic, I usually do it with optional elements -- a monster or effect that might or might not actually appear depending on how the encounter goes.
It is fine if you do it for the betterment of the game narrative, for player enjoyment, for really making a player moment pop off in spectacular ways. Etc. Or sometimes even to tweak the pacing of an encounter if it isn't quite right.
Eg, the badguy is the last standing on the battlefield and the PC who has some personal rivalry against him the most or whatever comes in with a save for half spell and he'd survive for like 3 hp if he saves. Just, let him fail. He was going to die anyway and the moment of triumph for the PC with that personal victory outweighs the strict adherence to dice outcomes.
It is important that you not do it also when the dice results actually change things in a material way. If the badguy in that last example had some spell or ability that could radically swing the situation if he made it to his next turn. Then, don't fudge it. But if 5 PCs go after the roll in question, we already know the outcome so lets just move it along in a meaningful way.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The player enjoyment in my gaming group is that the DM makes all rolls out in the open and no rolls are fudged.
Fudge the rolls, no
Boost monster hit points mid-combat, or bring in a second wave if it makes sense for the encounter, sure. There are plenty of ways to make a fight more challenging without forcing the dice to do what you want
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I guess I kind of lump all of this into the same category, but there is something about the way you describe it that seems fundamentally more honest than just lying about your die rolls.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Ya thats what I was thinking. I don't think he was doing it in a bad way at all, I'm sure it really was to make it more enjoyable/suspenseful for us but it just turns out I noticed and made things awkward lol.
But ya I agree, as a player we can't start making things hit if we're getting killed badly so its tough to say the opposite is fair.....but at the same time they are the DM so for story telling purposes I see where it can make sense. And this DM is really good I find so I wouldn't be surprised if he sometimes does the opposite and may fudge rolls down to help a player out if he's destroying everyone.
The point is to tell the best story. If the party's expecting a big, life-or-death battle and I goofed in setting it up and the enemy wasn't tough enough, I don't want it to fizzle. I want them to feel like they earned the win
Spewing crits is actually less effective for that anyway -- it makes it feel like the monsters were just getting lucky rather than actually being a challenge
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Oh lord, that would be so cringe.
I guess it comes down to what we think of as fudging rolls. Spewing crits to balance an underpowered encounter is visibly dubious to everyone at the table. Turning a monster crit into a regular hit or lowering the rolled damage it deals is more along the lines of what might pass for fudging rolls at my table.
So... maybe it's not just what you do, but the adeptness with which you do it?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The advantage of the second wave is that the players actually know what they beat -- instead of eight goblins, they beat twelve, or whatever (and if you're tracking xp, they get the xp for them).
There is no right answer and this subject has been discussed at length.
There are people that like numbers to have the game make sense, there are people that don't care, as long as the story is good.
I like numbers and rules, both as a DM and player and like to roll everything on the open and, even, say outright what are the save DCs before people roll to give the game that "gamey" feel. But I had both players and DMs that were on the completely other side of the spectrum.
The question will always be: How do you prefer playing the game and what are you willing to deal as a player?
It can be very tempting to fudge rolls as a DM, especially for new ones. You want to make the game fun and exciting. You want tense moments, great victories, and memorable monsters. Most DMs do it with good intentions.
I wouldn't really call it 'cheating,' because it's not a competition. There is no winning and losing based on dice rolls. The only way to win is for everyone to have a good time. There are some DMs and players who still think it is a competition. They think it's one side of the screen versus the other. They aren't really understanding the spirit of the game, or they are holding onto competitive feelings from other games.
Fudging monster rolls, or rolling in secret for more thrilling games has its benefits. It can help you balance scenarios, avoid disasters, and raise the stakes. It can give players exciting victories. It can create cinematic moments when the dice aren't really cooperating. It can help prevent metagame arguments with players who know all the stats in the monster manual.
That being said, here comes the big 'BUT'....
That instinct DMs have to 'cheat' a roll is largely unhelpful.
As you have pointed out, it can lead to suspicions from here on out in your game. Even if a player doesn't feel the game is a competition, it can rob you of a feeling of accomplishment when you win a fight. Did you really do it? Or did the DM just let it happen? Was it your ingenuity that saved the day or a fudged roll?
As others have said, there's better ways to adjust a combat. Ways that fit more naturally into the world like reinforcements. Ways that let you capitalize on dramatic moments better, like adjusting HP a little to let the PCs get the big final hit, instead of some terrain effect finishing off the boss.
But perhaps most importantly, the dice can come up with better stories than we can sometimes. As a DM, we might think the PCs are doing very well, when they feel like they are on their last leg. We might try to save them, when actually fighting with every ability they have left would have been more fulfilling. We might add in a monster crit, and that ends up being the one that turns a fight into a TPK. That sure feels bad. We might have one dramatic conclusion in mind, but the dice create another one even better.
Fudging parts of a fight can be useful for a new DM struggling to balance encounters. But once you have some experience, I highly recommend rolling in the open for most combats. The players love to see it. They can cheer and moan along with you, but for opposite reasons :) It adds to the tension. It builds trust. It makes victories feel earned. And it sometimes gives you an amazing turn of events that you never expected.
Try not to hold this one against your DM. Have some faith that he had good intentions. But it's fair to also let him know how it makes you feel too. Hopefully you can all go on to have better games. Good luck!
All great points above. Personally, I do not fudge rolls because I feel a palpable loss in the thrill of the game, although I know many DMs who do. My biggest gripe with fudging rolls is the principle - if I am fudging a roll then why am I rolling in the first place? It is in line with the idea that if we just wanted to tell a story of our choosing then we don't need dice, minis, or maps at all.
I agree wholeheartedly with Stegadorkus above when he says that the dice sometimes tell better stories than we do. My group says all the time "the dice don't lie" and its actually a motto that has aged like fine wine.
I will say that it is incumbent upon the DM to present encounters that are balanced if combat is being promoted from the DM side. In my campaign, I am very far removed as the DM in terms of hinting or making combat seem like the ideal or non-ideal. Everything is up to the players. Thus, my encounters are not always "balanced" in the sense that the enemies will always be a reasonable engagement for the party. All of my encounters are solely dependent on where the party is in the world and what might be taking place their currently. So, to give proper warning, I would induce skill checks for the party whenever they want to determine if a fight is right for them. Fleeing is always an option!
And in the end, as a player, I would absolutely hate to find that my DM is fudging the dice just to make it more thrilling. In that event, I would much rather the encounter be designed to test the party's resources and challenge their tactics instead of relying solely on hits/misses and raw damage.
Good luck and keep on gaming!
I can't believe no one has brought up the sacrilege of this event. First you have the DM not honoring the dice gods and then you have the player not honoring the DM screen. I'm not sure which is a worse offense!
I've mostly been a DM in my time playing so I'm more inclined to say that you looking past the screen was the worse offense. Here's why...
What if you all were about to face a TPK and you were the last one standing. The DM rolls and says" Oh... that was a miss" giving you time to pour a potion down someone throat or heal, etc... If you had looked around the screen and saw he rolled a 20 would you have spoken out and said.. "Oh, I saw your roll and I'm dead. Wow that's a wipe"?
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
To be fair, I absolutely would have said it then as well. I don't mind dying in game, thats part of it. Thats the point of rolling dice, it can go in any direction. But yes like I said I did feel bad and it was just one of those not thinking about things, when its someone's turn I look at them and it was in my view. I agree with other comments in that if we killed the mob really quickly just send in a random creature from another direction for some reason or make the next mob more difficult. My DM is great but this does make me slightly curious what else he is changing now and never had that feeling before. I just like letting the dice do their thing, if I need a back up character, so be it. But maybe thats just me.
Exactly...now the doubt creeps in as to what else was fudged...it is a bad feeling.
I personally love DMs that roll in front of the players and just let what happens happen. Plenty of things in game to bring players back so no harm in knocking them out or even killing them.
In adventurer's league you never really die anyways (except some tier 4 modules)....you just cannot continue in that module.