I generally don't fudge rolls, but I adjust depending on my friends' situation in life. Like... I had a friend who recently lost her job and just desperately wanted to play D&D to distract her from a plethora of additional stressors that were stressing her out. I didn't try to cater the game to her or anything, but she reached a point where the big, final hit in a major combat against a character deeply tied to her backstory came down to a saving throw from a spell she cast. The target or her spell actually succeeded on the roll, but they were low enough on HP that whoever landed a successful hit would have killed them anyway... I decided to just fudge the roll, let the bad guy fail, and let her have that moment of triumph to help get her out of her funk.
You can probably tell that the story I just told was full of caveats. But I think that's generally the truth of dice fudging. If you're doing it just to "win", you're a pathetic loser. But if you're doing it to make the game more fun and engaging for your players, well... that's just being a good DM.
^^^
This is the answer. For me, the answer is 'sometimes'. the goal is always for the DM and players to have fun. Sometimes that means fudging a roll here or there. Fun should always trump whatever the dice tell you, and when to fudge is going to have to be played by feel.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
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.
While death is an outcome it is not the only outcome a good dm knows that
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.
Which is a totally acceptable and legitimate way to play if that’s what works for that table and no one gets to say it isn’t.
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.
Which is a totally acceptable and legitimate way to play if that’s what works for that table and no one gets to say it isn’t.
So, for those who play it that chars can't die, do you still track hit points? And if so, why?
Further, who makes that decision? The DM, or the players, a simple majority of votes?
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.
Which is a totally acceptable and legitimate way to play if that’s what works for that table and no one gets to say it isn’t.
also it depends on your session zero if you say NO BACK UPS death means a shortened campaign so if i run a no back ups game if you [don't]die in combat you fail any tasks forgo any rewards and you miss out on some lore and you lose time so your next adventure may be on a stricter timer
If i do back ups we assume the back has been an adventurer long enough to reach your current level and must have a valid reason to stumble into your adventure
To do no deaths you say things like "with you subdued the animated armour doesn't see you as a threat your party returns you to town where you make a recovery in a weeks time"
I tend to only say no back ups if using pre generated pcs as i like to work them in as npcs t future dtorys working with both the pre gen background and player additions"
In. Way some games need a set end goal if your players try to avoid it just make alternative tasks full of combat so they either go do the goal or fail the encounter in a way allowing failure with no death allows for greater flexibly in how your npcs react to pc
If you fail to defend the tavern from orcs the bar keep may take a disliking to you meaning your not able to meet quest hiving npcs who drink there
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.
Which is a totally acceptable and legitimate way to play if that’s what works for that table and no one gets to say it isn’t.
So, for those who play it that chars can't die, do you still track hit points? And if so, why?
Further, who makes that decision? The DM, or the players, a simple majority of votes?
Of course, because even if your character isn’t “killed”, they are rendered unconscious or disabled however you want to phrase it, the mechanic of failing the objective is still there. You are still defeated and have to deal with whatever the consequences of the bad guy beating you are.
Both? You know what a session zero is? The party and the DM lay out the parameters of the game, what is acceptable and unacceptable, what time of game is wanted. So yeah, if the majority of the players want to play that way, that’s how it should be played. If that's how the players want to play but not how the DM wants to play, then that is not the party they should be DMing, and vice versa.
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.
Which is a totally acceptable and legitimate way to play if that’s what works for that table and no one gets to say it isn’t.
So, for those who play it that chars can't die, do you still track hit points? And if so, why?
Further, who makes that decision? The DM, or the players, a simple majority of votes?
Of course, because even if your character isn’t “killed”, they are rendered unconscious or disabled however you want to phrase it, the mechanic of failing the objective is still there. You are still defeated and have to deal with whatever the consequences of the bad guy beating you are.
Both? You know what a session zero is? The party and the DM lay out the parameters of the game, what is acceptable and unacceptable, what time of game is wanted. So yeah, if the majority of the players want to play that way, that’s how it should be played. If that's how the players want to play but not how the DM wants to play, then that is not the party they should be DMing, and vice versa.
Consequences....except of course death. Seriously, does said PC lose all its assets? Or permanent physical damage to the PC? Or does the player get to veto that too?
I never fudge rolls. I occasionally fudge a lot of other stuff. The most common one is when someone delivers a big hit that leaves an enemy with low enough hp that any hit will kill them, they just die instead.
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.
Which is a totally acceptable and legitimate way to play if that’s what works for that table and no one gets to say it isn’t.
So, for those who play it that chars can't die, do you still track hit points? And if so, why?
Further, who makes that decision? The DM, or the players, a simple majority of votes?
Of course, because even if your character isn’t “killed”, they are rendered unconscious or disabled however you want to phrase it, the mechanic of failing the objective is still there. You are still defeated and have to deal with whatever the consequences of the bad guy beating you are.
Both? You know what a session zero is? The party and the DM lay out the parameters of the game, what is acceptable and unacceptable, what time of game is wanted. So yeah, if the majority of the players want to play that way, that’s how it should be played. If that's how the players want to play but not how the DM wants to play, then that is not the party they should be DMing, and vice versa.
Consequences....except of course death. Seriously, does said PC lose all its assets? Or permanent physical damage to the PC? Or does the player get to veto that too?
Yes consequences, this really isn't a hard concept. If a PC is killed, there are consequences to the story, it is no different. What those are depends on the specific situation, same as PC death. Maybe they lose all their asset they have on them, sure, or maybe it is something else, maybe the bad guy wins and they have to deal with that, there are infinite possibilites.
The player isn't vetoing anything, this is all stuff a competent DM is ironing out in session zero with the players. If the group has decided that PC's can't perma die, the next part of the conversation is what does it look like when a PC hits zero HP, fails their deaths saves, takes damage double their total HP, etc.
So, for those who play it that chars can't die, do you still track hit points? And if so, why?
In technical terms, PC's can die. But I've not seen a PC death in my gaming group since ... oh, I'm going to say 2005. That's close enough for jazz.
Why track hitpoints? What, you think they're there to measure when you die? No. They're there as a tension builder. They measure not when you die, but when you potentially lose the fight. And of course there are consequences. But we're not playing a war game. We're playing a role playing game. That's important. If you die, the role is no longer playable. Or rather, the long, slow decomposition in the cold, dark earth is a ... rather different story than the one about heroics told heretofore.
So. You lose the fight, you either run or are taken captive or fail to protect an objective, or some other thing happens. The story takes a turn. That's the consequence.
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.
For many it War and role playing game. Do you decide before hand what happens if the party all go down to zero or runaway while at least one player is at zero and taken with the other PC or do you decide afterwards depending on stuff?
So, for those who play it that chars can't die, do you still track hit points? And if so, why?
In technical terms, PC's can die. But I've not seen a PC death in my gaming group since ... oh, I'm going to say 2005. That's close enough for jazz.
Why track hitpoints? What, you think they're there to measure when you die? No. They're there as a tension builder. They measure not when you die, but when you potentially lose the fight. And of course there are consequences. But we're not playing a war game. We're playing a role playing game. That's important. If you die, the role is no longer playable. Or rather, the long, slow decomposition in the cold, dark earth is a ... rather different story than the one about heroics told heretofore.
So. You lose the fight, you either run or are taken captive or fail to protect an objective, or some other thing happens. The story takes a turn. That's the consequence.
We have had 6 char deaths in the past 8 sessions. (That does not include the TPK in the one-shot I ran when the DM was away). We all understand that PC's can and will die because the setting is tough. It actually follows far more of what is in the DMG compared to other campaigns I have seen.
Content creator Sly Flourish has a short column where you adjust the 'dials' of the monster I've used occasionally. https://slyflourish.com/dials_of_monster_difficulty.html It has been an excellent approach to encounters while not necessarily fudging dice rolls. Of course, some people may view this as still fudging, but each to their own.
My belief is you should NEVER fudge rolls...ever. As a DM you have many other ways to work battles and ultimately the game itself gives MANY ways for PCs to survive.
If players ever find out you fudge rolls they will have a hard time trusting you at that point...as they should. How do they know you only fudge to keep them alive?
The gaming system has rules in place for pretty much everything and 5e is very player driven. You have to try pretty hard to die in 5e especially past tier 1 levels.
As a DM, I have fudged rolls. I have only ever done so to improve the fun of the party. This includes things like downgrading critical hits to regular hits (IE treating it as a 19) when the party is in danger of dying to something they should statistically have no major problem with. I have also used it to make the opponents actually hit when I've been rolling 2's and 3's consistently, because if they didn't then the fight becomes low-risk.
I have moved away from this a lot compared to when I started DMing. I used to fudge rolls on the fly, now I have to really justify it - and the justfication to me is player enjoyment. A monster failing a saving throw against a player who is expending a spell slot, knowing that the monster is going to die before it acts again anyway, is an excellent example. With a Monk and Barbarian queueing up to hack and beat it to death and it only having 10hp left, the warlock using a spell slot to force a save deserves the epic final blow, and I will not let the dice deny them.
Curious about how people feel about fudging monster health too. I had a monster with 68hp left, and the barbarian got a critical hit with a magic weapon, and ended up dealing 65 damage to it. I said it died - not least because the barbarian had dealt a huge amount of damage, but also because they had missed 6 attacks in a row, with advantage from Reckless. Do people use the same logic behind this? Is fudging health the same as fudging dice rolls?
@JustaFarmer When you say "We have had 6 char (its characters not char, btw :) ) deaths in the past 8 sessions." Do you mean 6 characters have been reduced to 0 hit points, or 6 characters have been reduced to 0 hit points and failed their death saves, and not been resurrected? Just wondering if you are saying six total deaths, gone from the game, player had to make a new character in the last 8 sessions, or just that they "died" in during the course of the game session. I'm also curious as to the levels of the characters who died. Since I'm asking for a bunch of info that has nothing to do with the OP, ill also asked if you would elaborate on the circumstances of your TPK....just because I'm curious.
Seeing a lot of needless nitpicking corrections here (correcting "Char" to "Characters", and "dnd" to "D&D", when it's not really necessary). That sort of behaviour makes is a needlessly hostile place to be, and that's less fun for everyone!
^^^
This is the answer. For me, the answer is 'sometimes'. the goal is always for the DM and players to have fun. Sometimes that means fudging a roll here or there. Fun should always trump whatever the dice tell you, and when to fudge is going to have to be played by feel.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
While death is an outcome it is not the only outcome a good dm knows that
Which is a totally acceptable and legitimate way to play if that’s what works for that table and no one gets to say it isn’t.
So, for those who play it that chars can't die, do you still track hit points? And if so, why?
Further, who makes that decision? The DM, or the players, a simple majority of votes?
also it depends on your session zero if you say NO BACK UPS death means a shortened campaign so if i run a no back ups game if you [don't]die in combat you fail any tasks forgo any rewards and you miss out on some lore and you lose time so your next adventure may be on a stricter timer
If i do back ups we assume the back has been an adventurer long enough to reach your current level and must have a valid reason to stumble into your adventure
To do no deaths you say things like "with you subdued the animated armour doesn't see you as a threat your party returns you to town where you make a recovery in a weeks time"
I tend to only say no back ups if using pre generated pcs as i like to work them in as npcs t future dtorys working with both the pre gen background and player additions"
In. Way some games need a set end goal if your players try to avoid it just make alternative tasks full of combat so they either go do the goal or fail the encounter in a way allowing failure with no death allows for greater flexibly in how your npcs react to pc
If you fail to defend the tavern from orcs the bar keep may take a disliking to you meaning your not able to meet quest hiving npcs who drink there
in a hole in the ground you notice a halfling
Of course, because even if your character isn’t “killed”, they are rendered unconscious or disabled however you want to phrase it, the mechanic of failing the objective is still there. You are still defeated and have to deal with whatever the consequences of the bad guy beating you are.
Both? You know what a session zero is? The party and the DM lay out the parameters of the game, what is acceptable and unacceptable, what time of game is wanted. So yeah, if the majority of the players want to play that way, that’s how it should be played. If that's how the players want to play but not how the DM wants to play, then that is not the party they should be DMing, and vice versa.
Consequences....except of course death. Seriously, does said PC lose all its assets? Or permanent physical damage to the PC? Or does the player get to veto that too?
I never fudge rolls. I occasionally fudge a lot of other stuff. The most common one is when someone delivers a big hit that leaves an enemy with low enough hp that any hit will kill them, they just die instead.
Yes consequences, this really isn't a hard concept. If a PC is killed, there are consequences to the story, it is no different. What those are depends on the specific situation, same as PC death. Maybe they lose all their asset they have on them, sure, or maybe it is something else, maybe the bad guy wins and they have to deal with that, there are infinite possibilites.
The player isn't vetoing anything, this is all stuff a competent DM is ironing out in session zero with the players. If the group has decided that PC's can't perma die, the next part of the conversation is what does it look like when a PC hits zero HP, fails their deaths saves, takes damage double their total HP, etc.
I roll in front of my players so there is no fudging. I get hateful glares when I roll two 20's in a row when they use silvery barbs :D
In technical terms, PC's can die. But I've not seen a PC death in my gaming group since ... oh, I'm going to say 2005. That's close enough for jazz.
Why track hitpoints? What, you think they're there to measure when you die? No. They're there as a tension builder. They measure not when you die, but when you potentially lose the fight. And of course there are consequences. But we're not playing a war game. We're playing a role playing game. That's important. If you die, the role is no longer playable. Or rather, the long, slow decomposition in the cold, dark earth is a ... rather different story than the one about heroics told heretofore.
So. You lose the fight, you either run or are taken captive or fail to protect an objective, or some other thing happens. The story takes a turn. That's the consequence.
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.
For many it War and role playing game. Do you decide before hand what happens if the party all go down to zero or runaway while at least one player is at zero and taken with the other PC or do you decide afterwards depending on stuff?
We have had 6 char deaths in the past 8 sessions. (That does not include the TPK in the one-shot I ran when the DM was away). We all understand that PC's can and will die because the setting is tough. It actually follows far more of what is in the DMG compared to other campaigns I have seen.
Content creator Sly Flourish has a short column where you adjust the 'dials' of the monster I've used occasionally. https://slyflourish.com/dials_of_monster_difficulty.html It has been an excellent approach to encounters while not necessarily fudging dice rolls. Of course, some people may view this as still fudging, but each to their own.
I see dnd as a story ... Take dr who we all know he won't fully die but we want to see how he escapes death and damnation
in a hole in the ground you notice a halfling
My belief is you should NEVER fudge rolls...ever. As a DM you have many other ways to work battles and ultimately the game itself gives MANY ways for PCs to survive.
If players ever find out you fudge rolls they will have a hard time trusting you at that point...as they should. How do they know you only fudge to keep them alive?
The gaming system has rules in place for pretty much everything and 5e is very player driven. You have to try pretty hard to die in 5e especially past tier 1 levels.
D&D (it is not dnd) is NOT a TV show, with a pre-written script, where said char is a hero and can never die.
As a DM, I have fudged rolls. I have only ever done so to improve the fun of the party. This includes things like downgrading critical hits to regular hits (IE treating it as a 19) when the party is in danger of dying to something they should statistically have no major problem with. I have also used it to make the opponents actually hit when I've been rolling 2's and 3's consistently, because if they didn't then the fight becomes low-risk.
I have moved away from this a lot compared to when I started DMing. I used to fudge rolls on the fly, now I have to really justify it - and the justfication to me is player enjoyment. A monster failing a saving throw against a player who is expending a spell slot, knowing that the monster is going to die before it acts again anyway, is an excellent example. With a Monk and Barbarian queueing up to hack and beat it to death and it only having 10hp left, the warlock using a spell slot to force a save deserves the epic final blow, and I will not let the dice deny them.
Curious about how people feel about fudging monster health too. I had a monster with 68hp left, and the barbarian got a critical hit with a magic weapon, and ended up dealing 65 damage to it. I said it died - not least because the barbarian had dealt a huge amount of damage, but also because they had missed 6 attacks in a row, with advantage from Reckless. Do people use the same logic behind this? Is fudging health the same as fudging dice rolls?
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!
@JustaFarmer When you say "We have had 6 char (its characters not char, btw :) ) deaths in the past 8 sessions." Do you mean 6 characters have been reduced to 0 hit points, or 6 characters have been reduced to 0 hit points and failed their death saves, and not been resurrected? Just wondering if you are saying six total deaths, gone from the game, player had to make a new character in the last 8 sessions, or just that they "died" in during the course of the game session. I'm also curious as to the levels of the characters who died. Since I'm asking for a bunch of info that has nothing to do with the OP, ill also asked if you would elaborate on the circumstances of your TPK....just because I'm curious.
Thanks
Seeing a lot of needless nitpicking corrections here (correcting "Char" to "Characters", and "dnd" to "D&D", when it's not really necessary). That sort of behaviour makes is a needlessly hostile place to be, and that's less fun for everyone!
Play nice! (or "Play Nicely" if you prefer!)
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!