The Fudge Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster is synonymous to cheat. The Dungeon Master Guide doesn't say whether fudging is cheating or not it only offer suggestions on circumstances for doing it. To me it is cheating in the process to change the result of an attack or check after first opting to determine it randomly. There's some DM that turn crit or hit into miss and vice versa, for better or worse.
The Fudge Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster is synonymous to cheat. The Dungeon Master Guide doesn't say whether fudging is cheating or not it only offer suggestions on circumstances for doing it. To me it is cheating in the process to change the result of an attack or check after first opting to determine it randomly. There's some DM that turn crit or hit into miss and vice versa, for better or worse.
No-one is taking that definition away from you, if you believe fudging is cheating that's great...although I will say falling back on Merriam-Webster is more than a little weak, especially for any English speaker outside of the USA. Often MW's assertions and definitions are largely limited to only the USA sensibilities. That makes it heavily ridiculed in academic and educational circles across the world. Fudge is more commonly as a verb defined not as cheating but rather as ommission or avoidance. So to present information in a misleading or unclear way. 'The politician fudged his answers to support his argument'. You'll find this type of definition in several (international) variants of the Oxford, Cambridge, Collins, and Brittanica dictionaries.
That said, relying on the dictionary definition is an inaccurate because what we're talking about is a hobby-specific vernacular that is often based on a commonly accepted understanding that is often intentionally ill-defined. Think more along the lines of colloquialisms. I and many in the UK know what is meant by the term 'sling your hook'. Therein lies the beauty of both the game and those colloquial definitions, they allow for a descriptivist approach to language meaning that players across hundreds of different tables are free to interpret the wordings their way. I worry that pushing a dictionary definition as you have deters people from their own interpretation and playing the game in the way that is the most fun for them. That doesn't mean you shouldn't play this way at your table if that's what's most fun for you. Repeating for the third time that you feel it's simply cheating didn't add anything to the conversation and I feel personally could very much dissuade people from playing the way they find the most fun.
I had second thoughts about making my encounter easier but my solution is to reuse the vampire sundown countdown later on once we all know how to run combat as a team
Knowing the system on both sides of the screen is a key part of the fudging decision. In 2014, when my group first transitioned to 5e, I used to fudge a bit. I hadn’t gotten the hang of what was balanced, particularly in terms of action economy, the players barely knew what their characters could do, I barely knew what the monsters could do. It led to a lot of encounters that either I’d overdone it with the enemies, or something else didn’t work as it was supposed to, like we were misreading a rule and it created wonky encounters. So, I’d fudge to stop people dying from things that weren’t their fault.
Bad decisions I wouldn’t fudge, but if it was my fault, or at least, not the player’s fault, I’d fudge to stop screw ups. Now we’re 10 years into this edition, and all have a good handle on things, so I don’t really do it any more. It was like a training wheels kind of thing, but we’ve got enough handle on the game now that they’re off.
That said, relying on the dictionary definition is an inaccurate because what we're talking about is a hobby-specific vernacular that is often based on a commonly accepted understanding that is often intentionally ill-defined.
Fudging is not a game term defined in any 5E book, therefore you need to rely on its common definition found in dictionaries since we're not referring to making chocolate but to falsify. ;)
As we can see in this thread some people view fudging as cheating while others don't and it's fine there's no right or wrong answer, just personal perception.
That said, relying on the dictionary definition is an inaccurate because what we're talking about is a hobby-specific vernacular that is often based on a commonly accepted understanding that is often intentionally ill-defined.
Fudging is not a game term defined in any 5E book, therefore you need to rely on its common definition found in dictionaries since we're not referring to making chocolate but to falsify. ;)
The 5e books don't define munchkin, rules lawyer, or murderhobo, either, but we know what they mean. The hobby has its own language.
As we can see in this thread some people view fudging as cheating while others don't and it's fine there's no right or wrong answer, just personal perception.
As far as I'm concerned, the main use is to compensate for my own calibration errors. (though most of the time one can work around the problem by making the enemy fight worse)
That said, relying on the dictionary definition is an inaccurate because what we're talking about is a hobby-specific vernacular that is often based on a commonly accepted understanding that is often intentionally ill-defined.
Fudging is not a game term defined in any 5E book, therefore you need to rely on its common definition found in dictionaries since we're not referring to making chocolate but to falsify. ;)
As we can see in this thread some people view fudging as cheating while others don't and it's fine there's no right or wrong answer, just personal perception.
Actually, the proper interpretation is some think cheating is fine, whole others don't. I wonder if these same people think it is OK to cheat at Monopoly, or any other board game.
As we can see in this thread some people view fudging as cheating while others don't and it's fine there's no right or wrong answer, just personal perception.
Actually, the proper interpretation is some think cheating is fine, whole others don't. I wonder if these same people think it is OK to cheat at Monopoly, or any other board game.
The social contracts surrounding board games are completely different, and thus irrelevant.
And when the rules include "the GM can override the rules", is the GM even capable of cheating? On so many axes, the GM only plays fair if they choose to do so. The dice are no different.
That said, relying on the dictionary definition is an inaccurate because what we're talking about is a hobby-specific vernacular that is often based on a commonly accepted understanding that is often intentionally ill-defined.
Fudging is not a game term defined in any 5E book, therefore you need to rely on its common definition found in dictionaries since we're not referring to making chocolate but to falsify. ;)
As we can see in this thread some people view fudging as cheating while others don't and it's fine there's no right or wrong answer, just personal perception.
Actually, the proper interpretation is some think cheating is fine, whole others don't. I wonder if these same people think it is OK to cheat at Monopoly, or any other board game.
people make extra house and have a fines cache in monopoly all the time defo not RAW and just there too feed money in to help poor players
As we can see in this thread some people view fudging as cheating while others don't and it's fine there's no right or wrong answer, just personal perception.
Actually, the proper interpretation is some think cheating is fine, whole others don't. I wonder if these same people think it is OK to cheat at Monopoly, or any other board game.
The social contracts surrounding board games are completely different, and thus irrelevant.
And when the rules include "the GM can override the rules", is the GM even capable of cheating? On so many axes, the GM only plays fair if they choose to do so. The dice are no different.
the gm is a story teller right? So is the gm wants to keep pc a alive or kill pc b for the good of the story
Plus i find if your using wotc pre gens to teach new players theres only so many pre gens who can die before you have to run a creation session
I know it sounds weird but with player agreement i want to reuse a good pc as an npc
I suppose the other solution is instead of death your party is downed and you fail the objective leading to no rewards
That said, relying on the dictionary definition is an inaccurate because what we're talking about is a hobby-specific vernacular that is often based on a commonly accepted understanding that is often intentionally ill-defined.
Fudging is not a game term defined in any 5E book, therefore you need to rely on its common definition found in dictionaries since we're not referring to making chocolate but to falsify. ;)
As we can see in this thread some people view fudging as cheating while others don't and it's fine there's no right or wrong answer, just personal perception.
Actually, the proper interpretation is some think cheating is fine, whole others don't. I wonder if these same people think it is OK to cheat at Monopoly, or any other board game.
The proper interpretation is on page 148 of the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, page 110 of the 1e DMG, Page 104 of the 2nd editions DMG, Page 18 of 3rd ed DMG, 235 of the 5e dmg. I cannot speak for fourth ed as i never touched it. You are allowed to play the game as you desire JustaFarmer but you don't get to gaslight us and call us cheaters.
For me it is a rarirty to fudge dice, but is also, completely situational, and depends entirely on the players involved and the ultimate goal of everyone having fun and us creating a great story.
Recently there was a situation where if I went by the dice as rolled, the carefully thought out, creative, and honestly smart, plans of three of my players would have been completely trashed, and probably at least 2 of them killed, if not all three. So I fudged the roll, letting them survive and go on to have an epic side adventure with tons of laughs and other perilous moments. In that case the players involved were ages 12,13, and 14 and are all first time players, and had already suffered a series of set backs because of previous bad rolls. I felt, as the story telling arbiter, it would be more fun for them not to die at that moment and that way. I was also concerned that to have them die at that moment and way would be taken pretty negatively, your first PC death is a big deal and can have long term effects on someones relationship with the game.
Now, in that exact same situation with some of my other, older, experienced characters, I absolutely wouldn't have fudged the roll, I would have wiped them out with out hesitation and we would all have a bemused laugh about it. The difference is those players have all played for years and years, have all lost characters before and have learned to appreciate the loss of a character in an ignoble way. The game is still FUN when that happens, because they have experienced it before and understand it better.
Ultimately, for me that is what it comes down to in deciding whether to fudge a roll or not, does fudging it make for a more fun, entertaining story for the players?
M3theston and Sisonek, If my players starts at level 1 or 2 I will often give them extra hit points to use during character creation to avoid most one shots from weak enemies on level 1/2 characters.
It seems to me for some the game is more about the story while others see dnd as a game.
That is an interesting point, and I think how BG3 handles difficulty. I have played it on easy and normal to see the difference and on easy the game plays basically the same but the characters have more hit points. Extra health would also allow for a few more dangerous enemies. I'm always paranoid as DM about balance and not throwing anything too crazy at the party, especially in the first few levels, after level 5 it's all fair game. the power spike there is big enough I feel they can handle themselves.
That said, relying on the dictionary definition is an inaccurate because what we're talking about is a hobby-specific vernacular that is often based on a commonly accepted understanding that is often intentionally ill-defined.
Fudging is not a game term defined in any 5E book, therefore you need to rely on its common definition found in dictionaries since we're not referring to making chocolate but to falsify. ;)
As we can see in this thread some people view fudging as cheating while others don't and it's fine there's no right or wrong answer, just personal perception.
Actually, the proper interpretation is some think cheating is fine, whole others don't. I wonder if these same people think it is OK to cheat at Monopoly, or any other board game.
In the context of D&D ... absolutely false.
The definition of cheating is breaking the rules of the game to achieve an end (usually win the game).
If a DM modifies a dice roll they are "achieving an end" but they are NOT breaking the rules of the game. Just read the DMG if you care about what the rules for a DM actually are rather than your own personal definition that applies to no one but you. (Some of the D&D 5e Rules on Dice Rolling are quoted at the end of the post for reference).
"The dice don't run your game YOU do." If the DM decides to roll a die to help them decide how a situation should be resolved and that clarifies their thinking on it then they are perfectly allowed to change their mind and ignore the die roll. That is the RULES of the game for DMs. This includes monster to hit die rolls, the damage for spells or any other dice roll that the DM makes during play of the game.
Fudging dice rolls is a strategy available to DMs (not PLAYERS) that is part of the D&D RULES. The RULES do not say that the DM must accept the number on any die they roll. If it did then the DM would be cheating if they did not accept a die as rolled. The game rules do NOT say that.
The question of whether a DM should fudge rolls or not is a very good topic for discussion. As mentioned in this thread and elsewhere, there can be some good reasons to either accept a hidden die roll or ignore it. However, whether a DM fudges or not, it is a personal choice. It does NOT reflect on their moral code, it certainly does NOT reflect how they might choose to play by the rules of other games, it reflects a choice in how the DM wants to achieve a story narrative within their game and that is ALL.
Changing or ignoring the value of a die rolled by the DM is explicitly permitted within the rules of D&D and as a result a DM who decides to do so, is categorically NOT cheating based on the accepted definition of the term (i.e. breaking the rules).
Discussing whether a DM SHOULD modify or ignore hidden die rolls is a decent topic ... accusing people who choose to use the strategy of cheating is a completely false narrative.
P.S. When I DM, I roll in the open for everyone to see, I don't modify or change die rolls ... I don't need to since there are so many other tools available for modification that it isn't necessary.
P.P.S. Do you consider it cheating when a DM modifies a creatures abilities, gives it a special ability, adds an attack? When a DM increases or decreases a creatures hit points? When a DM modifies something in a creature stat block - AC, spells, skills, stats? Is it cheating for a DM to throw in a few more creatures in an encounter that is turning out too easy or to remove reinforcements from an encounter that has taken a bad turn? All of these are adjustments a DM can make that are explicitly allowed within the scope of the D&D "rules".
DMG:
"What about you, the DM? Do you make your rolls in the open or hide them behind a DM screen? Consider the following:
If you roll dice where the players can see, they know you’re playing impartially and not fudging rolls.
Rolling behind a screen keeps the players guessing about the strength of their opposition. When a monster hits all the time, is it of a much higher level than the characters, or are you rolling high numbers?
Rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit, or even a miss. Don’t distort die rolls too often, though, and don’t let on that you’re doing it. Otherwise, your players might think they don’t face any real risks — or worse, that you’re playing favorites.
A roll behind a screen can help preserve mystery. For example, if a player thinks there might be someone invisible nearby and makes a Wisdom (Perception) check, consider rolling a die behind the screen even if no one is there, making the player think someone is, indeed, hiding. Try not to overuse this trick.
You might choose to make a roll for a player because you don’t want the player to know how good the check total is. For example, if a player suspects a baroness might be charmed and wants to make a Wisdom (Insight) check, you could make the roll in secret for the player. If the player rolled and got a high number but didn’t sense anything amiss, the player would be confident that the baroness wasn’t charmed. With a low roll, a negative answer wouldn’t mean much. A hidden roll allows uncertainty."
DMG:
"The Role of Dice
Dice are neutral arbiters. They can determine the outcome of an action without assigning any motivation to the DM and without playing favorites. The extent to which you use them is entirely up to you.
Rolling with It
Some DMs rely on die rolls for almost everything. When a character attempts a task, the DM calls for a check and picks a DC. As a DM using this style, you can’t rely on the characters succeeding or failing on any one check to move the action in a specific direction. You must be ready to improvise and react to a changing situation.
Relying on dice also gives the players the sense that anything is possible. Sure, it might seem unlikely that the party’s halfling can leap on the ogre’s back, pull a sack over its head, and then dive to safety, but with a lucky enough roll it just might work.
A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success.
Ignoring the Dice
One approach is to use dice as rarely as possible. Some DMs use them only during combat, and determine success or failure as they like in other situations.
With this approach, the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors. For example, the players might describe how they search for a secret door, detailing how they tap on a wall or twist a torch sconce to find its trigger. That could be enough to convince the DM that they find the secret door without having to make an ability check to do so.
This approach rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation you’ve described for an answer, rather than looking to their character sheet or their character’s special abilities. A downside is that no DM is completely neutral. A DM might come to favor certain players or approaches, or even work against good ideas if they send the game in a direction he or she doesn’t like. This approach can also slow the game if the DM focuses on one “correct” action that the characters must describe to overcome an obstacle.
The Middle Path
Many DMs find that using a combination of the two approaches works best. By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world.
Remember that dice don’t run your game — you do. Dice are like rules. They’re tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player’s action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character’s plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage."
Actually, the proper interpretation is some think cheating is fine, whole others don't. I wonder if these same people think it is OK to cheat at Monopoly, or any other board game.
Monopoly is a game you're trying to win. Cheating to win is very bad form. If you're playing to win D&D, I'd venture you're doing it wrong. Particularly if you're the GM.
Of course, there's always the option of Cut-throat Monopoly, in which cheating is encouraged, although punished if discovered. This isn't an official ruleset though, and may be a particularly Danish thing. It's fun, tho.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
To me this is just another tool to adjust difficulty, usually in a last-ditch effort to adjust other changes I have made.
Don't pretend that written adventures and the CR system are so ironclad that you can always give a party a solid challenge by playing it strictly by the book. I am constantly upping difficulty beyond what is recommended in order to give my players any challenge at all. This includes adding features and abilities to monsters, adding more monsters, increasing monster stats, adding punishing terrain features, adding additional requirements for success or completion, and so on.
As such, in every encounter the party faces I've already "fudged" things heavily in my favor. Any pulled punches are a result of me reevaluating the overblown measures that I've already put out there.
I will say that I rarely do it and when I do I chalk up the encounter as a design failure to learn from. But I think it's wild to call it cheating. This is not Monopoly with hard, thoroughly-tested paths. It is a game of constant guesswork and adjustment. Just because some might leave all that guesswork to the vague guidelines the devs have put out doesn't mean their game is any more solid or honestly challenging.
I'll also say though that I have played with a DM that fudges the game a LOT. All rolls are hidden, and every encounter has a similar trajectory - it starts out dire, looks like we're outmatched, but eventually we always overcome the odds with the DM narrating our improbable successes with great vigor. I appreciate the drama he's trying to inject, but it feels like it doesn't matter what I do in combat or if I'm even there at all. Like any tool, fudging dice can be abused or overused.
To me this is just another tool to adjust difficulty, usually in a last-ditch effort to adjust other changes I have made.
Don't pretend that written adventures and the CR system are so ironclad that you can always give a party a solid challenge by playing it strictly by the book. I am constantly upping difficulty beyond what is recommended in order to give my players any challenge at all. This includes adding features and abilities to monsters, adding more monsters, increasing monster stats, adding punishing terrain features, adding additional requirements for success or completion, and so on.
As such, in every encounter the party faces I've already "fudged" things heavily in my favor. Any pulled punches are a result of me reevaluating the overblown measures that I've already put out there.
I will say that I rarely do it and when I do I chalk up the encounter as a design failure to learn from. But I think it's wild to call it cheating. This is not Monopoly with hard, thoroughly-tested paths. It is a game of constant guesswork and adjustment. Just because some might leave all that guesswork to the vague guidelines the devs have put out doesn't mean their game is any more solid or honestly challenging.
I'll also say though that I have played with a DM that fudges the game a LOT. All rolls are hidden, and every encounter has a similar trajectory - it starts out dire, looks like we're outmatched, but eventually we always overcome the odds with the DM narrating our improbable successes with great vigor. I appreciate the drama he's trying to inject, but it feels like it doesn't matter what I do in combat or if I'm even there at all. Like any tool, fudging dice can be abused or overused.
Re: That DM that "narrates improbable success", do an experiment. When the next combat comes up, have your PC do the most ridiculous, counter-productive actions possible. If your PC is STILL successful, then it is time to walk away from that table, because the dice rolls are meaningless. Unless you are comfortable with your PC just being along for the ride.
To me this is just another tool to adjust difficulty, usually in a last-ditch effort to adjust other changes I have made.
Don't pretend that written adventures and the CR system are so ironclad that you can always give a party a solid challenge by playing it strictly by the book. I am constantly upping difficulty beyond what is recommended in order to give my players any challenge at all. This includes adding features and abilities to monsters, adding more monsters, increasing monster stats, adding punishing terrain features, adding additional requirements for success or completion, and so on.
As such, in every encounter the party faces I've already "fudged" things heavily in my favor. Any pulled punches are a result of me reevaluating the overblown measures that I've already put out there.
I will say that I rarely do it and when I do I chalk up the encounter as a design failure to learn from. But I think it's wild to call it cheating. This is not Monopoly with hard, thoroughly-tested paths. It is a game of constant guesswork and adjustment. Just because some might leave all that guesswork to the vague guidelines the devs have put out doesn't mean their game is any more solid or honestly challenging.
I'll also say though that I have played with a DM that fudges the game a LOT. All rolls are hidden, and every encounter has a similar trajectory - it starts out dire, looks like we're outmatched, but eventually we always overcome the odds with the DM narrating our improbable successes with great vigor. I appreciate the drama he's trying to inject, but it feels like it doesn't matter what I do in combat or if I'm even there at all. Like any tool, fudging dice can be abused or overused.
Re: That DM that "narrates improbable success", do an experiment. When the next combat comes up, have your PC do the most ridiculous, counter-productive actions possible. If your PC is STILL successful, then it is time to walk away from that table, because the dice rolls are meaningless. Unless you are comfortable with your PC just being along for the ride.
or you can get nat1 or have players hit minus hp but instead of death etc think of creative consequences. Like "you pass out and are nursed to health in a local village but since you faiked to deafet the orc king the world is at war"
To me this is just another tool to adjust difficulty, usually in a last-ditch effort to adjust other changes I have made.
Don't pretend that written adventures and the CR system are so ironclad that you can always give a party a solid challenge by playing it strictly by the book. I am constantly upping difficulty beyond what is recommended in order to give my players any challenge at all. This includes adding features and abilities to monsters, adding more monsters, increasing monster stats, adding punishing terrain features, adding additional requirements for success or completion, and so on.
As such, in every encounter the party faces I've already "fudged" things heavily in my favor. Any pulled punches are a result of me reevaluating the overblown measures that I've already put out there.
I will say that I rarely do it and when I do I chalk up the encounter as a design failure to learn from. But I think it's wild to call it cheating. This is not Monopoly with hard, thoroughly-tested paths. It is a game of constant guesswork and adjustment. Just because some might leave all that guesswork to the vague guidelines the devs have put out doesn't mean their game is any more solid or honestly challenging.
I'll also say though that I have played with a DM that fudges the game a LOT. All rolls are hidden, and every encounter has a similar trajectory - it starts out dire, looks like we're outmatched, but eventually we always overcome the odds with the DM narrating our improbable successes with great vigor. I appreciate the drama he's trying to inject, but it feels like it doesn't matter what I do in combat or if I'm even there at all. Like any tool, fudging dice can be abused or overused.
Re: That DM that "narrates improbable success", do an experiment. When the next combat comes up, have your PC do the most ridiculous, counter-productive actions possible. If your PC is STILL successful, then it is time to walk away from that table, because the dice rolls are meaningless. Unless you are comfortable with your PC just being along for the ride.
or you can get nat1 or have players hit minus hp but instead of death etc think of creative consequences. Like "you pass out and are nursed to health in a local village but since you faiked to deafet the orc king the world is at war"
In other words, chars can't die.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Fudge Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster is synonymous to cheat. The Dungeon Master Guide doesn't say whether fudging is cheating or not it only offer suggestions on circumstances for doing it. To me it is cheating in the process to change the result of an attack or check after first opting to determine it randomly. There's some DM that turn crit or hit into miss and vice versa, for better or worse.
Both as DM and player i prefer to live and die by the dice, letting them fall where they may.
No-one is taking that definition away from you, if you believe fudging is cheating that's great...although I will say falling back on Merriam-Webster is more than a little weak, especially for any English speaker outside of the USA. Often MW's assertions and definitions are largely limited to only the USA sensibilities. That makes it heavily ridiculed in academic and educational circles across the world. Fudge is more commonly as a verb defined not as cheating but rather as ommission or avoidance. So to present information in a misleading or unclear way. 'The politician fudged his answers to support his argument'. You'll find this type of definition in several (international) variants of the Oxford, Cambridge, Collins, and Brittanica dictionaries.
That said, relying on the dictionary definition is an inaccurate because what we're talking about is a hobby-specific vernacular that is often based on a commonly accepted understanding that is often intentionally ill-defined. Think more along the lines of colloquialisms. I and many in the UK know what is meant by the term 'sling your hook'. Therein lies the beauty of both the game and those colloquial definitions, they allow for a descriptivist approach to language meaning that players across hundreds of different tables are free to interpret the wordings their way. I worry that pushing a dictionary definition as you have deters people from their own interpretation and playing the game in the way that is the most fun for them. That doesn't mean you shouldn't play this way at your table if that's what's most fun for you. Repeating for the third time that you feel it's simply cheating didn't add anything to the conversation and I feel personally could very much dissuade people from playing the way they find the most fun.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Knowing the system on both sides of the screen is a key part of the fudging decision. In 2014, when my group first transitioned to 5e, I used to fudge a bit. I hadn’t gotten the hang of what was balanced, particularly in terms of action economy, the players barely knew what their characters could do, I barely knew what the monsters could do. It led to a lot of encounters that either I’d overdone it with the enemies, or something else didn’t work as it was supposed to, like we were misreading a rule and it created wonky encounters. So, I’d fudge to stop people dying from things that weren’t their fault.
Bad decisions I wouldn’t fudge, but if it was my fault, or at least, not the player’s fault, I’d fudge to stop screw ups. Now we’re 10 years into this edition, and all have a good handle on things, so I don’t really do it any more. It was like a training wheels kind of thing, but we’ve got enough handle on the game now that they’re off.
Fudging is not a game term defined in any 5E book, therefore you need to rely on its common definition found in dictionaries since we're not referring to making chocolate but to falsify. ;)
As we can see in this thread some people view fudging as cheating while others don't and it's fine there's no right or wrong answer, just personal perception.
The 5e books don't define munchkin, rules lawyer, or murderhobo, either, but we know what they mean. The hobby has its own language.
As far as I'm concerned, the main use is to compensate for my own calibration errors. (though most of the time one can work around the problem by making the enemy fight worse)
Actually, the proper interpretation is some think cheating is fine, whole others don't. I wonder if these same people think it is OK to cheat at Monopoly, or any other board game.
The social contracts surrounding board games are completely different, and thus irrelevant.
And when the rules include "the GM can override the rules", is the GM even capable of cheating? On so many axes, the GM only plays fair if they choose to do so. The dice are no different.
people make extra house and have a fines cache in monopoly all the time defo not RAW and just there too feed money in to help poor players
in a hole in the ground you notice a halfling
the gm is a story teller right? So is the gm wants to keep pc a alive or kill pc b for the good of the story
Plus i find if your using wotc pre gens to teach new players theres only so many pre gens who can die before you have to run a creation session
I know it sounds weird but with player agreement i want to reuse a good pc as an npc
I suppose the other solution is instead of death your party is downed and you fail the objective leading to no rewards
in a hole in the ground you notice a halfling
The proper interpretation is on page 148 of the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, page 110 of the 1e DMG, Page 104 of the 2nd editions DMG, Page 18 of 3rd ed DMG, 235 of the 5e dmg. I cannot speak for fourth ed as i never touched it. You are allowed to play the game as you desire JustaFarmer but you don't get to gaslight us and call us cheaters.
For me it is a rarirty to fudge dice, but is also, completely situational, and depends entirely on the players involved and the ultimate goal of everyone having fun and us creating a great story.
Recently there was a situation where if I went by the dice as rolled, the carefully thought out, creative, and honestly smart, plans of three of my players would have been completely trashed, and probably at least 2 of them killed, if not all three. So I fudged the roll, letting them survive and go on to have an epic side adventure with tons of laughs and other perilous moments. In that case the players involved were ages 12,13, and 14 and are all first time players, and had already suffered a series of set backs because of previous bad rolls. I felt, as the story telling arbiter, it would be more fun for them not to die at that moment and that way. I was also concerned that to have them die at that moment and way would be taken pretty negatively, your first PC death is a big deal and can have long term effects on someones relationship with the game.
Now, in that exact same situation with some of my other, older, experienced characters, I absolutely wouldn't have fudged the roll, I would have wiped them out with out hesitation and we would all have a bemused laugh about it. The difference is those players have all played for years and years, have all lost characters before and have learned to appreciate the loss of a character in an ignoble way. The game is still FUN when that happens, because they have experienced it before and understand it better.
Ultimately, for me that is what it comes down to in deciding whether to fudge a roll or not, does fudging it make for a more fun, entertaining story for the players?
M3theston and Sisonek, If my players starts at level 1 or 2 I will often give them extra hit points to use during character creation to avoid most one shots from weak enemies on level 1/2 characters.
It seems to me for some the game is more about the story while others see dnd as a game.
That is an interesting point, and I think how BG3 handles difficulty. I have played it on easy and normal to see the difference and on easy the game plays basically the same but the characters have more hit points. Extra health would also allow for a few more dangerous enemies. I'm always paranoid as DM about balance and not throwing anything too crazy at the party, especially in the first few levels, after level 5 it's all fair game. the power spike there is big enough I feel they can handle themselves.
In the context of D&D ... absolutely false.
The definition of cheating is breaking the rules of the game to achieve an end (usually win the game).
If a DM modifies a dice roll they are "achieving an end" but they are NOT breaking the rules of the game. Just read the DMG if you care about what the rules for a DM actually are rather than your own personal definition that applies to no one but you. (Some of the D&D 5e Rules on Dice Rolling are quoted at the end of the post for reference).
"The dice don't run your game YOU do." If the DM decides to roll a die to help them decide how a situation should be resolved and that clarifies their thinking on it then they are perfectly allowed to change their mind and ignore the die roll. That is the RULES of the game for DMs. This includes monster to hit die rolls, the damage for spells or any other dice roll that the DM makes during play of the game.
Fudging dice rolls is a strategy available to DMs (not PLAYERS) that is part of the D&D RULES. The RULES do not say that the DM must accept the number on any die they roll. If it did then the DM would be cheating if they did not accept a die as rolled. The game rules do NOT say that.
The question of whether a DM should fudge rolls or not is a very good topic for discussion. As mentioned in this thread and elsewhere, there can be some good reasons to either accept a hidden die roll or ignore it. However, whether a DM fudges or not, it is a personal choice. It does NOT reflect on their moral code, it certainly does NOT reflect how they might choose to play by the rules of other games, it reflects a choice in how the DM wants to achieve a story narrative within their game and that is ALL.
Changing or ignoring the value of a die rolled by the DM is explicitly permitted within the rules of D&D and as a result a DM who decides to do so, is categorically NOT cheating based on the accepted definition of the term (i.e. breaking the rules).
Discussing whether a DM SHOULD modify or ignore hidden die rolls is a decent topic ... accusing people who choose to use the strategy of cheating is a completely false narrative.
P.S. When I DM, I roll in the open for everyone to see, I don't modify or change die rolls ... I don't need to since there are so many other tools available for modification that it isn't necessary.
P.P.S. Do you consider it cheating when a DM modifies a creatures abilities, gives it a special ability, adds an attack? When a DM increases or decreases a creatures hit points? When a DM modifies something in a creature stat block - AC, spells, skills, stats? Is it cheating for a DM to throw in a few more creatures in an encounter that is turning out too easy or to remove reinforcements from an encounter that has taken a bad turn? All of these are adjustments a DM can make that are explicitly allowed within the scope of the D&D "rules".
DMG:
"What about you, the DM? Do you make your rolls in the open or hide them behind a DM screen? Consider the following:
DMG:
"The Role of Dice
Dice are neutral arbiters. They can determine the outcome of an action without assigning any motivation to the DM and without playing favorites. The extent to which you use them is entirely up to you.
Rolling with It
Some DMs rely on die rolls for almost everything. When a character attempts a task, the DM calls for a check and picks a DC. As a DM using this style, you can’t rely on the characters succeeding or failing on any one check to move the action in a specific direction. You must be ready to improvise and react to a changing situation.
Relying on dice also gives the players the sense that anything is possible. Sure, it might seem unlikely that the party’s halfling can leap on the ogre’s back, pull a sack over its head, and then dive to safety, but with a lucky enough roll it just might work.
A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success.
Ignoring the Dice
One approach is to use dice as rarely as possible. Some DMs use them only during combat, and determine success or failure as they like in other situations.
With this approach, the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors. For example, the players might describe how they search for a secret door, detailing how they tap on a wall or twist a torch sconce to find its trigger. That could be enough to convince the DM that they find the secret door without having to make an ability check to do so.
This approach rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation you’ve described for an answer, rather than looking to their character sheet or their character’s special abilities. A downside is that no DM is completely neutral. A DM might come to favor certain players or approaches, or even work against good ideas if they send the game in a direction he or she doesn’t like. This approach can also slow the game if the DM focuses on one “correct” action that the characters must describe to overcome an obstacle.
The Middle Path
Many DMs find that using a combination of the two approaches works best. By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world.
Remember that dice don’t run your game — you do. Dice are like rules. They’re tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player’s action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character’s plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage."
Monopoly is a game you're trying to win. Cheating to win is very bad form. If you're playing to win D&D, I'd venture you're doing it wrong. Particularly if you're the GM.
Of course, there's always the option of Cut-throat Monopoly, in which cheating is encouraged, although punished if discovered. This isn't an official ruleset though, and may be a particularly Danish thing. It's fun, tho.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
To me this is just another tool to adjust difficulty, usually in a last-ditch effort to adjust other changes I have made.
Don't pretend that written adventures and the CR system are so ironclad that you can always give a party a solid challenge by playing it strictly by the book. I am constantly upping difficulty beyond what is recommended in order to give my players any challenge at all. This includes adding features and abilities to monsters, adding more monsters, increasing monster stats, adding punishing terrain features, adding additional requirements for success or completion, and so on.
As such, in every encounter the party faces I've already "fudged" things heavily in my favor. Any pulled punches are a result of me reevaluating the overblown measures that I've already put out there.
I will say that I rarely do it and when I do I chalk up the encounter as a design failure to learn from. But I think it's wild to call it cheating. This is not Monopoly with hard, thoroughly-tested paths. It is a game of constant guesswork and adjustment. Just because some might leave all that guesswork to the vague guidelines the devs have put out doesn't mean their game is any more solid or honestly challenging.
I'll also say though that I have played with a DM that fudges the game a LOT. All rolls are hidden, and every encounter has a similar trajectory - it starts out dire, looks like we're outmatched, but eventually we always overcome the odds with the DM narrating our improbable successes with great vigor. I appreciate the drama he's trying to inject, but it feels like it doesn't matter what I do in combat or if I'm even there at all. Like any tool, fudging dice can be abused or overused.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Re: That DM that "narrates improbable success", do an experiment. When the next combat comes up, have your PC do the most ridiculous, counter-productive actions possible. If your PC is STILL successful, then it is time to walk away from that table, because the dice rolls are meaningless. Unless you are comfortable with your PC just being along for the ride.
or you can get nat1 or have players hit minus hp but instead of death etc think of creative consequences. Like "you pass out and are nursed to health in a local village but since you faiked to deafet the orc king the world is at war"
in a hole in the ground you notice a halfling
In other words, chars can't die.