When I first started playing I would fudge rolls occasionally. Probably most often preventing a crit on a character that would have killed them though sometimes for other reasons. I think the main reason at the time was that the DM had a screen, they rolled behind the screen and the implicit expectation seemed to be that a DM should adjust as needed.
However, the more I played the less I liked the idea of fudging as the DM. There are better ways to adjust encounters and a lot of DMs seem to fudge rolls to make encounters more challenging, which often gets into a me vs them type of mindset which isn't the point of the game. These days, I think of the DM as the adjudicator of player interactions with the world and luck is a factor so I make all the die rolls in the open. I still cringe when I score a crit with a monster since I still don't like seeing characters die but this way everyone at the table knows that fate played a role (I also try to make encounters challenging but not deadly - though the difficulty can often be scaled just by playing the NPCs more or less intelligent depending on the die rolls - though increasing/decreasing monster hit points or having extras show up or intelligent opponents decide to flee are often good ways to adjust an encounter on the fly - fiddling with dice is more of a lazy way out).
Finally, when the players discover that the DM has fudged die rolls, a fundamental trust has effectively been broken. In the future, players will always wonder did the monster REALLY make their save, was it a real crit that knocked my character out or was it a DM manufactured one because he wanted a more "exciting" combat and knocking my character out was a means to an end (keep in mind that the combat is typically NOT more exciting for the player whose character has been taken out of play).
In the example posted above, the DM should have said "these monsters have an expanded crit range" and "please stop trying to peak at my die rolls" - since the player shouldn't really be looking in the first place and the DM shouldn't be put in a position of having to justify the results he is narrating that are supposed to be due to random die rolls. It is much better for the players to always wonder if the DM will fudge die rolls rather than knowing the DM fudges die rolls. In the latter case, the players lose a basic element of trust that the DM is objectively narrating the story of the character interactions with the world.
Last comment :), players LIKE to occasionally stomp opponents, even in a fight that the DM was intending to be hard. The players often know it looked challenging and when they roll well and use their abilities to achieve a stunning success then the players should be allowed to enjoy that moment - adding a crit just isn't going to change the outcome and really doesn't make the fight any more exciting for the players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When I first started playing I would fudge rolls occasionally. Probably most often preventing a crit on a character that would have killed them though sometimes for other reasons. I think the main reason at the time was that the DM had a screen, they rolled behind the screen and the implicit expectation seemed to be that a DM should adjust as needed.
However, the more I played the less I liked the idea of fudging as the DM. There are better ways to adjust encounters and a lot of DMs seem to fudge rolls to make encounters more challenging, which often gets into a me vs them type of mindset which isn't the point of the game. These days, I think of the DM as the adjudicator of player interactions with the world and luck is a factor so I make all the die rolls in the open. I still cringe when I score a crit with a monster since I still don't like seeing characters die but this way everyone at the table knows that fate played a role (I also try to make encounters challenging but not deadly - though the difficulty can often be scaled just by playing the NPCs more or less intelligent depending on the die rolls - though increasing/decreasing monster hit points or having extras show up or intelligent opponents decide to flee are often good ways to adjust an encounter on the fly - fiddling with dice is more of a lazy way out).
Finally, when the players discover that the DM has fudged die rolls, a fundamental trust has effectively been broken. In the future, players will always wonder did the monster REALLY make their save, was it a real crit that knocked my character out or was it a DM manufactured one because he wanted a more "exciting" combat and knocking my character out was a means to an end (keep in mind that the combat is typically NOT more exciting for the player whose character has been taken out of play).
In the example posted above, the DM should have said "these monsters have an expanded crit range" and "please stop trying to peak at my die rolls" - since the player shouldn't really be looking in the first place and the DM shouldn't be put in a position of having to justify the results he is narrating that are supposed to be due to random die rolls. It is much better for the players to always wonder if the DM will fudge die rolls rather than knowing the DM fudges die rolls. In the latter case, the players lose a basic element of trust that the DM is objectively narrating the story of the character interactions with the world.
Last comment :), players LIKE to occasionally stomp opponents, even in a fight that the DM was intending to be hard. The players often know it looked challenging and when they roll well and use their abilities to achieve a stunning success then the players should be allowed to enjoy that moment - adding a crit just isn't going to change the outcome and really doesn't make the fight any more exciting for the players.