Funnily enough, when I read through hundreds of pages in the DMG, PHB, XGTE, MM, etc, I see 90+ percent talk about tactics and mechanics, and scant few pages about how to role play the backstory of a PC. D&D IS a dice based tactics game that was designed where the dice rolls are critical to detailing what happens in the game. When players and DM's cheat on rolls they are denying the very essence of the game.
This is entirely accurate. Adjudicating combat takes up a lot more space than adjudicating roleplaying. There are reasons for this.
Combat is a kind of simulation. It has gears that need to lock together for the thing to work, it needs to take into account things that could possibly happen. It's crunchy, by it's very nature.
Roleplaying is different. There is no meaningful way to try and map out all the various interactions beings can have - in all the ways that aren't combat - it's essentially infinite. So that's a different game. Not a game that requires math, but one that requires social skills. One that isn't controlled by tight rules, action economy, dice rolls and movement restrictions, but rather by ... a sort of poetry.
I'll tell you something: I don't really play roles. I do have fun with archetypes, but I can only really be me. Other players are better at that - they can sort of get out of themselves and pretend to be someone else. Not me. But even so, the roleplaying is fun (to me - and others, I have to assume), trying to manipulate, threaten or convince NPC's to do what I want, and so on.
Combat, for all that it takes up most of the rules, is an afterthought.
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.
Funnily enough, when I read through hundreds of pages in the DMG, PHB, XGTE, MM, etc, I see 90+ percent talk about tactics and mechanics, and scant few pages about how to role play the backstory of a PC. D&D IS a dice based tactics game that was designed where the dice rolls are critical to detailing what happens in the game. When players and DM's cheat on rolls they are denying the very essence of the game.
This is entirely accurate.
It's not.
I'm not going to deny that the rulebooks devote a non-trivial amount of space to combat, but it's nowhere near the (hyperbolic) 90+%.
Take the PHB. You've got one admittedly sizable chapter (9) to cover combat. You have two others (7&8) that are about doing other things.
Most of the rest of the book is full of stuff. All the options to make your character. Much of the stuff is used in combat, yes. But a lot of it isn't. There's an entire chapter on your character's personality and background.
I'm not going to deny that D&D is a combat-centric game, but modern D&D does not give short shrift to the rest of the play space.
If you're going by sheer volume of rulebook space, D&D is neither a game about combat nor a game about roleplaying. It's a game of giving players and DMs huge piles of shiny toys to choose from.
I will point out that the classes and species include significant amounts of information about how to role play -- and that as Lore is integral to role playing, anything that is based in, relies on, or is outright lore is itself a part of how to role play in terms if direction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
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 DMs job is to use judgement, Every single rule in the book is actually at the DMs pleasure. Even what classes people can play is decided by the DM. The real question is did the players enjoy themselves. if not, the DM has work to do, if they did, then its all good.
Its not really cheating when the dm does it, because the DM makes and alters the rules. The same with the Law in the US. they have laws, but rely on human judgement in how to interpret and apply those laws.
Re-rolling a PC takes about 10 minutes, plus we all have backup PC's ready to go. Backstories are totally irrelevant to a game, so as I said, it take 10 minutes.
And as I said: It sounds to me like you're not playing an RPG, but a tactics game. That's entirely fine, but I do feel that for such a purpose, D&D is a sadly lacking system.
Funnily enough, when I read through hundreds of pages in the DMG, PHB, XGTE, MM, etc, I see 90+ percent talk about tactics and mechanics, and scant few pages about how to role play the backstory of a PC. D&D IS a dice based tactics game that was designed where the dice rolls are critical to detailing what happens in the game. When players and DM's cheat on rolls they are denying the very essence of the game.
Thats because for most of those things they rely on the players and the DM to handle that stuff without rules, you cant really make rules for creativity. It seems you are ignoring almost all the passages in the DMG, which advise GMs to alter the rule or game in order to improve it for the people they are playing with.
The essence of your DnD 5e is a tactical simulator, the essense of dnd 5e, according to itself (phb page 4 preface),
"playing d&d is an excercise in collaboritive creation, you and your friends tell epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama"
also note:
"To play d&d, and play it well, you don't need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny dice"
its fine to say you create a more compelling experience, in your opinion when the DM follows the dice, but saying that the dice, and tactical play is the essence of the game is in direct opposition to stated goals in the first pages of the book, describing what the point of dnd is.
Just your sentence about charachters being irrelevant to the game shows you really have a very narrow perspective on why people play the game.
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!
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?
0% agree with this.
The game is made to use with dice. Taking this away and making the results what you want removes the dice totally.
At this point you might as well let the players decide their dice rolls as well.
If you do not want the player to go down then attack a different player. Or preferably let then go down and start making death saving throws as that is built into the game.
If they die then let then die and let others bring them back as that is also built into the game.
If none of that is to your liking then have someone show up and help as that is built into the game.
Fudging rolls (to me) is not in the spirit of the game at all.
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."
Oh, look! Fudging Dice rolls BUILT INTO THE GAME.
I know, as some people have pointed out that this subject always gets heated....and I am well aware that my sarcasm may not be appreciated by all. But if you look at this with an opened mind you see two groups.
Group 1. DMs who fudge rolls to the benefit of their players and to keep things fun, which the rules specifically allows, All of the people in this group: "we do it, we are not saying anyone has to if they don't want to, but we do, and the rules allow it, its a personal choice the DM gets to make.
Then there is Group number 2 " your all cheating, because your fudge rolls", "your not following the rules or the "spirit" of the game if you fudge rolls". "you have to play the game the way we do to be playing it right"
Thats more of a rules clarification than a rules change, for pf2. Pf2 is definitely a less flexible, more tactical board game type of thing. Thats fine if you go in with that in mind.
5e is meant to be played however the DM decides it is. it has tons of optional rules, and basically caveats things with if the DM buy in. The game both have different focuses. Also note 5e design is not necessarily the same design as previous editions. But this thread was about 5e.
That said, pf2.0 doesnt actually work for a lot of players due to its choices, there are tons of debates on how to handle its design.
Dungeon Master Guide: 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 lets you fudge the results if you want to...
The question should be do you want as a DM or referee To be impartial or not be impartial as the DMG basically qualify fudging rolls as not playing impartially but for some cheating is a word too heavily loaded.
Well then, head on over to that, as I've said before. I mean, that's how PF is meant to be played.
That's not how D&D is meant to be played.
Then again, PF sucks soo.....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Well then, head on over to that, as I've said before. I mean, that's how PF is meant to be played.
That's not how D&D is meant to be played.
Then again, PF sucks soo.....
I DO play PF2. I also DM'ed my 1e game last night. I also have DM'ed Scarlet Heroes (as well as DM'ed 5e) , which literally has a "Defy Death" mechanic built into the game. because that game is designed for a single player (we play SC when we only have 2 players showing up instead of the 4 for the Wed 5e game). But that elegant Defy Death mechanic is also based on rolls. And of course, there is the standing 5e game on Wed nights. So yeah, in ALL of those game systems, no one would ever think of cheating on a roll. Maybe it is because we play in person in each of those games, so someone cheating on a roll is going to be embarrassed.
Well then, head on over to that, as I've said before. I mean, that's how PF is meant to be played.
That's not how D&D is meant to be played.
Then again, PF sucks soo.....
I DO play PF2. I also DM'ed my 1e game last night. I also have DM'ed Scarlet Heroes (as well as DM'ed 5e) , which literally has a "Defy Death" mechanic built into the game. because that game is designed for a single player (we play SC when we only have 2 players showing up instead of the 4 for the Wed 5e game). But that elegant Defy Death mechanic is also based on rolls. And of course, there is the standing 5e game on Wed nights. So yeah, in ALL of those game systems, no one would ever think of cheating on a roll. Maybe it is because we play in person in each of those games, so someone cheating on a roll is going to be embarrassed.
Other game systems are irrelevant to this discussion, because each game system is designed with different focuses, design and intentions. Also, this isnt thread about people cheating, its about whether DMs ever fudge dice. Dms use hidden rolls sometimes. DMs also sometimes may also outright, even unhidden, allow a reroll. I think fudging might be more likely in digital, due to a lack of trust in digital dice roll's fairness, but the people who accept the concept probably do it irl.
How important strict adherence to rules is, depends on the table. 5e empowers the DM, and charges them with making sure the game is fun. Not every game takes that stance.
Well then, head on over to that, as I've said before. I mean, that's how PF is meant to be played.
That's not how D&D is meant to be played.
Then again, PF sucks soo.....
*blah blah* So yeah, in ALL of those game systems, no one would ever think of cheating on a roll. Maybe it is because we play in person in each of those games, so someone cheating on a roll is going to be embarrassed.
The question isn't about cheating -- that is your personal spin on it, and it is not applicable to anyone else but you, personally. You calling it cheating means jack all, since you don't get to tell other people how to play their games or at as the final arbiter of what constitutes cheating.
Fudging is a term used to describe an allowable circumstance, and is distinct from cheating. If they wanted to talk about cheating, they would have used that word.
That lack of experience is still there, still visible. Your game is not the one and only "real way" to play D&D, and your rules are not applicable outside of your game.
Your thief players in your 1e game must really love how you never let them know the result of their using their skills.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Well then, head on over to that, as I've said before. I mean, that's how PF is meant to be played.
That's not how D&D is meant to be played.
Then again, PF sucks soo.....
*blah blah* So yeah, in ALL of those game systems, no one would ever think of cheating on a roll. Maybe it is because we play in person in each of those games, so someone cheating on a roll is going to be embarrassed.
The question isn't about cheating -- that is your personal spin on it, and it is not applicable to anyone else but you, personally. You calling it cheating means jack all, since you don't get to tell other people how to play their games or at as the final arbiter of what constitutes cheating.
Fudging is a term used to describe an allowable circumstance, and is distinct from cheating. If they wanted to talk about cheating, they would have used that word.
That lack of experience is still there, still visible. Your game is not the one and only "real way" to play D&D, and your rules are not applicable outside of your game.
Your thief players in your 1e game must really love how you never let them know the result of their using their skills.
LOL...
I will tell you had yesterday's 1e session went. 6 people at the table, including myself. I am at the end, strictly because of space issues. I had no DM screen up, even though I have one. EVERY single roll by me and every player was in the open last night.
I ran a complex combat with Giant Wasps on a grid, then later the group was exploring a cave complex with a hidden one room cultist temple.That temple area ended up being the 2nd combat. But here is the thing. The Fighter/Assassin tried a very bold high risk/high reward move. He tried to sneak around the cultists to get close to the BBEG Cleric to attempt a kill with a poisoned dagger. The player thought that his Cloak of Elvenkind gave him the almost perfect camouflage as it does outside. I opened up the DMG and showed him it was 50/50.
I said to him "Roll a d6. 1-3 you are unseen, 4-6 you are noticed". The entire table leaned in to watch the roll. The PLAYER made the roll, not me. The tension was high. He rolled a 4. That led to 2 chars dying, including the Assassin, as his PC and another were then caught by a Hold Person spell by the BBEG. THAT is how rolls in a game create narrative tension. A successful roll completely changes the outcome of that session AND the course of the campaign. But there are those that would have had me roll the dice behind a screen and announce "It is a 3".
Under no circumstances would or should that roll be reversed.
Well then, head on over to that, as I've said before. I mean, that's how PF is meant to be played.
That's not how D&D is meant to be played.
Then again, PF sucks soo.....
*blah blah* So yeah, in ALL of those game systems, no one would ever think of cheating on a roll. Maybe it is because we play in person in each of those games, so someone cheating on a roll is going to be embarrassed.
The question isn't about cheating -- that is your personal spin on it, and it is not applicable to anyone else but you, personally. You calling it cheating means jack all, since you don't get to tell other people how to play their games or at as the final arbiter of what constitutes cheating.
Fudging is a term used to describe an allowable circumstance, and is distinct from cheating. If they wanted to talk about cheating, they would have used that word.
That lack of experience is still there, still visible. Your game is not the one and only "real way" to play D&D, and your rules are not applicable outside of your game.
Your thief players in your 1e game must really love how you never let them know the result of their using their skills.
LOL...
I will tell you had yesterday's 1e session went. 6 people at the table, including myself. I am at the end, strictly because of space issues. I had no DM screen up, even though I have one. EVERY single roll by me and every player was in the open last night.
I ran a complex combat with Giant Wasps on a grid, then later the group was exploring a cave complex with a hidden one room cultist temple.That temple area ended up being the 2nd combat. But here is the thing. The Fighter/Assassin tried a very bold high risk/high reward move. He tried to sneak around the cultists to get close to the BBEG Cleric to attempt a kill with a poisoned dagger. The player thought that his Cloak of Elvenkind gave him the almost perfect camouflage as it does outside. I opened up the DMG and showed him it was 50/50.
I said to him "Roll a d6. 1-3 you are unseen, 4-6 you are noticed". The entire table leaned in to watch the roll. The PLAYER made the roll, not me. The tension was high. He rolled a 4. That led to 2 chars dying, including the Assassin, as his PC and another were then caught by a Hold Person spell by the BBEG. THAT is how rolls in a game create narrative tension. A successful roll completely changes the outcome of that session AND the course of the campaign. But there are those that would have had me roll the dice behind a screen and announce "It is a 3".
Under no circumstances would or should that roll be reversed.
ah, so you cheated and broke the 1e rules.
I mean, RAW, you, as DM, in 1e, are supposed to roll the dice in secret and not announce the result. Gygax has several paragraphs that explain that and why in the DMG.
Thankfully, you are able to not play the game strictly and adapt it to your style and approach, as opposed to strict stuff.
because in 1e, run by the writer of the books, players never roll anything. The DM does all the rolls. In secret. Per the rules. In case the DM decides to fudge a roll.
in 1e, as well, spell casters do not choose their spells. They are assigned them. By the DM. To start — after that, they have to find spells in treasure piles.
let’s also not forget that it is percentile dice, based on level, that should be rolled for sneaking around for an assassin.
see? You are running a game in a way that you like to play it. Ain’t nothing wrong with that at all — but you aren’t playing it the way it was intended to be played, or following the rules. Yet you hop in and say that folks doing things you disapprove of are bad DMs or cheating, or doing it wrong…
when you aren’t even doing it right.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Well then, head on over to that, as I've said before. I mean, that's how PF is meant to be played.
That's not how D&D is meant to be played.
Then again, PF sucks soo.....
*blah blah* So yeah, in ALL of those game systems, no one would ever think of cheating on a roll. Maybe it is because we play in person in each of those games, so someone cheating on a roll is going to be embarrassed.
The question isn't about cheating -- that is your personal spin on it, and it is not applicable to anyone else but you, personally. You calling it cheating means jack all, since you don't get to tell other people how to play their games or at as the final arbiter of what constitutes cheating.
Fudging is a term used to describe an allowable circumstance, and is distinct from cheating. If they wanted to talk about cheating, they would have used that word.
That lack of experience is still there, still visible. Your game is not the one and only "real way" to play D&D, and your rules are not applicable outside of your game.
Your thief players in your 1e game must really love how you never let them know the result of their using their skills.
LOL...
I will tell you had yesterday's 1e session went. 6 people at the table, including myself. I am at the end, strictly because of space issues. I had no DM screen up, even though I have one. EVERY single roll by me and every player was in the open last night.
I ran a complex combat with Giant Wasps on a grid, then later the group was exploring a cave complex with a hidden one room cultist temple.That temple area ended up being the 2nd combat. But here is the thing. The Fighter/Assassin tried a very bold high risk/high reward move. He tried to sneak around the cultists to get close to the BBEG Cleric to attempt a kill with a poisoned dagger. The player thought that his Cloak of Elvenkind gave him the almost perfect camouflage as it does outside. I opened up the DMG and showed him it was 50/50.
I said to him "Roll a d6. 1-3 you are unseen, 4-6 you are noticed". The entire table leaned in to watch the roll. The PLAYER made the roll, not me. The tension was high. He rolled a 4. That led to 2 chars dying, including the Assassin, as his PC and another were then caught by a Hold Person spell by the BBEG. THAT is how rolls in a game create narrative tension. A successful roll completely changes the outcome of that session AND the course of the campaign. But there are those that would have had me roll the dice behind a screen and announce "It is a 3".
Under no circumstances would or should that roll be reversed.
ah, so you cheated and broke the 1e rules.
I mean, RAW, you, as DM, in 1e, are supposed to roll the dice in secret and not announce the result. Gygax has several paragraphs that explain that and why in the DMG.
Thankfully, you are able to not play the game strictly and adapt it to your style and approach, as opposed to strict stuff.
because in 1e, run by the writer of the books, players never roll anything. The DM does all the rolls. In secret. Per the rules. In case the DM decides to fudge a roll.
in 1e, as well, spell casters do not choose their spells. They are assigned them. By the DM. To start — after that, they have to find spells in treasure piles.
let’s also not forget that it is percentile dice, based on level, that should be rolled for sneaking around for an assassin.
see? You are running a game in a way that you like to play it. Ain’t nothing wrong with that at all — but you aren’t playing it the way it was intended to be played, or following the rules. Yet you hop in and say that folks doing things you disapprove of are bad DMs or cheating, or doing it wrong…
when you aren’t even doing it right.
LOL...sure. Rolling percentiles vs a d6. Nice reach there. And as for spells, yeah, the M-U's did indeed roll per the rules to see what they got. And if you seriously think that players are not to roll dice, I have no clue where you get that from.
Don't try to deflect from the fact that rolls dictated the actions and narrative of the game. That is how a game is run. When the DM's cheat on rolls to enforce a particular course of events, then the players might as well just sit there and listen to the DM read the DM's own fan fiction.
Well then, head on over to that, as I've said before. I mean, that's how PF is meant to be played.
That's not how D&D is meant to be played.
Then again, PF sucks soo.....
*blah blah* So yeah, in ALL of those game systems, no one would ever think of cheating on a roll. Maybe it is because we play in person in each of those games, so someone cheating on a roll is going to be embarrassed.
The question isn't about cheating -- that is your personal spin on it, and it is not applicable to anyone else but you, personally. You calling it cheating means jack all, since you don't get to tell other people how to play their games or at as the final arbiter of what constitutes cheating.
Fudging is a term used to describe an allowable circumstance, and is distinct from cheating. If they wanted to talk about cheating, they would have used that word.
That lack of experience is still there, still visible. Your game is not the one and only "real way" to play D&D, and your rules are not applicable outside of your game.
Your thief players in your 1e game must really love how you never let them know the result of their using their skills.
LOL...
I will tell you had yesterday's 1e session went. 6 people at the table, including myself. I am at the end, strictly because of space issues. I had no DM screen up, even though I have one. EVERY single roll by me and every player was in the open last night.
I ran a complex combat with Giant Wasps on a grid, then later the group was exploring a cave complex with a hidden one room cultist temple.That temple area ended up being the 2nd combat. But here is the thing. The Fighter/Assassin tried a very bold high risk/high reward move. He tried to sneak around the cultists to get close to the BBEG Cleric to attempt a kill with a poisoned dagger. The player thought that his Cloak of Elvenkind gave him the almost perfect camouflage as it does outside. I opened up the DMG and showed him it was 50/50.
I said to him "Roll a d6. 1-3 you are unseen, 4-6 you are noticed". The entire table leaned in to watch the roll. The PLAYER made the roll, not me. The tension was high. He rolled a 4. That led to 2 chars dying, including the Assassin, as his PC and another were then caught by a Hold Person spell by the BBEG. THAT is how rolls in a game create narrative tension. A successful roll completely changes the outcome of that session AND the course of the campaign. But there are those that would have had me roll the dice behind a screen and announce "It is a 3".
Under no circumstances would or should that roll be reversed.
ah, so you cheated and broke the 1e rules.
I mean, RAW, you, as DM, in 1e, are supposed to roll the dice in secret and not announce the result. Gygax has several paragraphs that explain that and why in the DMG.
Thankfully, you are able to not play the game strictly and adapt it to your style and approach, as opposed to strict stuff.
because in 1e, run by the writer of the books, players never roll anything. The DM does all the rolls. In secret. Per the rules. In case the DM decides to fudge a roll.
in 1e, as well, spell casters do not choose their spells. They are assigned them. By the DM. To start — after that, they have to find spells in treasure piles.
let’s also not forget that it is percentile dice, based on level, that should be rolled for sneaking around for an assassin.
see? You are running a game in a way that you like to play it. Ain’t nothing wrong with that at all — but you aren’t playing it the way it was intended to be played, or following the rules. Yet you hop in and say that folks doing things you disapprove of are bad DMs or cheating, or doing it wrong…
when you aren’t even doing it right.
LOL...sure. Rolling percentiles vs a d6. Nice reach there. And as for spells, yeah, the M-U's did indeed roll per the rules to see what they got. And if you seriously think that players are not to roll dice, I have no clue where you get that from.
Don't try to deflect from the fact that rolls dictated the actions and narrative of the game. That is how a game is run. When the DM's cheat on rolls to enforce a particular course of events, then the players might as well just sit there and listen to the DM read the DM's own fan fiction.
Except you ignore the fact I pointed out the DMG for 1e *explicitly says the player does not roll such dice*.
it is written out there, lol. In detail. With a whole multi-paragraph example and everything.
So I wasn't deflecting -- I was pointing out that your assertion that it is cheating is incorrect, using your own approach to how dice are used versus the explicit statements in the DMG for 1e.
Because I have some terrifying news for you: When you played with Gygax, you rolled a d20 to hit. That was it. He rolled everything else. And he put that into the rule book. That whole "sit there and listen to the DMs fan fiction" thing? Yeah, that's how the guy who wrote the AD&D 1e books thought of how the game was to be played until about 85.
And his was the only game where that was how things were run that way that I have ever played in.
Nor was it a reach: while I personally don't have a problem with what Die you use, myself, I will point out that moving to a d6 shifts the success parameters. WHich is, precisely, a way of fudging the roll.
Oops, on your part. Not only did you fudge the roll, you had the player roll it (when they aren't supposed to know the outcome, per the rules, which is fudging again), and you did so for the purpose of heightening drama (and asserting that's how the drama is to be done, even though the DMG section I am referencing explains that you were not supposed to do that because that's how drama is encouraged).
So, under your own basis, you cheated.
So, it appears that you don't understand what fudging is, or why it is done, even though you yourself do it and have provided examples of fudging in your own game while claiming that you never do it, , likely because you think of fudging as something as simple as saying you rolled a 12 when you rolled a 20, because in your mind the whole point of the dice is to kill the damned PCs "because that's how it is supposed to work".
And in the process you forget that in 5e, they discourage killing PCs as part of the game mechanics themselves.
You were set up for this. Because the point of all of this is to note that there is no right way or wrong way to play D&D or DnD outside of doing something that is not fun for everyone at the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Full disclosure, I did not read this entire thread but my two cents...
I fudge rolls or stats on occasion in both directions. Sometimes, if the party is at a much stronger place than I expected and the next fight is supposed to be tough, I will buff up the monsters. On the flip side, if the party is very weak and about to face a tough fight, I will make it a little easier. Usually before the fight and not changing hit or damage rolls during the fight.
I don't mind killing PCs (and we don't have any sort of resurrection in my world). I do want the combat to always be a slight challenge and big fights are supposed to be epic, balanced on a knife's edge so I change things to make it so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Velstitzen
I am a 40 something year old physician who DMs for a group of 40 something year old doctors. We play a hybrid game, mostly based on 2nd edition rules with some homebrew and 5E components.
If a fight doesn't go as planned for or against the player characters, i prefer to adjust the encounter difficulty by having some monsters flee combat or arrives as back-up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is entirely accurate. Adjudicating combat takes up a lot more space than adjudicating roleplaying. There are reasons for this.
Combat is a kind of simulation. It has gears that need to lock together for the thing to work, it needs to take into account things that could possibly happen. It's crunchy, by it's very nature.
Roleplaying is different. There is no meaningful way to try and map out all the various interactions beings can have - in all the ways that aren't combat - it's essentially infinite. So that's a different game. Not a game that requires math, but one that requires social skills. One that isn't controlled by tight rules, action economy, dice rolls and movement restrictions, but rather by ... a sort of poetry.
I'll tell you something: I don't really play roles. I do have fun with archetypes, but I can only really be me. Other players are better at that - they can sort of get out of themselves and pretend to be someone else. Not me. But even so, the roleplaying is fun (to me - and others, I have to assume), trying to manipulate, threaten or convince NPC's to do what I want, and so on.
Combat, for all that it takes up most of the rules, is an afterthought.
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.
It's not.
I'm not going to deny that the rulebooks devote a non-trivial amount of space to combat, but it's nowhere near the (hyperbolic) 90+%.
Take the PHB. You've got one admittedly sizable chapter (9) to cover combat. You have two others (7&8) that are about doing other things.
Most of the rest of the book is full of stuff. All the options to make your character. Much of the stuff is used in combat, yes. But a lot of it isn't. There's an entire chapter on your character's personality and background.
I'm not going to deny that D&D is a combat-centric game, but modern D&D does not give short shrift to the rest of the play space.
If you're going by sheer volume of rulebook space, D&D is neither a game about combat nor a game about roleplaying. It's a game of giving players and DMs huge piles of shiny toys to choose from.
I will point out that the classes and species include significant amounts of information about how to role play -- and that as Lore is integral to role playing, anything that is based in, relies on, or is outright lore is itself a part of how to role play in terms if direction.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The DMs job is to use judgement, Every single rule in the book is actually at the DMs pleasure. Even what classes people can play is decided by the DM. The real question is did the players enjoy themselves. if not, the DM has work to do, if they did, then its all good.
Its not really cheating when the dm does it, because the DM makes and alters the rules. The same with the Law in the US. they have laws, but rely on human judgement in how to interpret and apply those laws.
Thats because for most of those things they rely on the players and the DM to handle that stuff without rules, you cant really make rules for creativity. It seems you are ignoring almost all the passages in the DMG, which advise GMs to alter the rule or game in order to improve it for the people they are playing with.
The essence of your DnD 5e is a tactical simulator, the essense of dnd 5e, according to itself (phb page 4 preface),
"playing d&d is an excercise in collaboritive creation, you and your friends tell epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama"
also note:
"To play d&d, and play it well, you don't need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny dice"
its fine to say you create a more compelling experience, in your opinion when the DM follows the dice, but saying that the dice, and tactical play is the essence of the game is in direct opposition to stated goals in the first pages of the book, describing what the point of dnd is.
Just your sentence about charachters being irrelevant to the game shows you really have a very narrow perspective on why people play the game.
DMG:
"What about you, the DM? Do you make your rolls in the open or hide them behind a DM screen? Consider the following:
Oh, look! Fudging Dice rolls BUILT INTO THE GAME.
I know, as some people have pointed out that this subject always gets heated....and I am well aware that my sarcasm may not be appreciated by all. But if you look at this with an opened mind you see two groups.
Group 1. DMs who fudge rolls to the benefit of their players and to keep things fun, which the rules specifically allows, All of the people in this group: "we do it, we are not saying anyone has to if they don't want to, but we do, and the rules allow it, its a personal choice the DM gets to make.
Then there is Group number 2 " your all cheating, because your fudge rolls", "your not following the rules or the "spirit" of the game if you fudge rolls". "you have to play the game the way we do to be playing it right"
Not hard to see what is going on here.
For those that talk about players deciding to allow PC's to die or not. Looks like the competition has embraced how these games are to be played:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0Q8Upkos_qU
Thats more of a rules clarification than a rules change, for pf2. Pf2 is definitely a less flexible, more tactical board game type of thing. Thats fine if you go in with that in mind.
5e is meant to be played however the DM decides it is. it has tons of optional rules, and basically caveats things with if the DM buy in. The game both have different focuses. Also note 5e design is not necessarily the same design as previous editions. But this thread was about 5e.
That said, pf2.0 doesnt actually work for a lot of players due to its choices, there are tons of debates on how to handle its design.
The question should be do you want as a DM or referee To be impartial or not be impartial as the DMG basically qualify fudging rolls as not playing impartially but for some cheating is a word too heavily loaded.
Well then, head on over to that, as I've said before. I mean, that's how PF is meant to be played.
That's not how D&D is meant to be played.
Then again, PF sucks soo.....
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I DO play PF2. I also DM'ed my 1e game last night. I also have DM'ed Scarlet Heroes (as well as DM'ed 5e) , which literally has a "Defy Death" mechanic built into the game. because that game is designed for a single player (we play SC when we only have 2 players showing up instead of the 4 for the Wed 5e game). But that elegant Defy Death mechanic is also based on rolls. And of course, there is the standing 5e game on Wed nights. So yeah, in ALL of those game systems, no one would ever think of cheating on a roll. Maybe it is because we play in person in each of those games, so someone cheating on a roll is going to be embarrassed.
Other game systems are irrelevant to this discussion, because each game system is designed with different focuses, design and intentions. Also, this isnt thread about people cheating, its about whether DMs ever fudge dice. Dms use hidden rolls sometimes. DMs also sometimes may also outright, even unhidden, allow a reroll. I think fudging might be more likely in digital, due to a lack of trust in digital dice roll's fairness, but the people who accept the concept probably do it irl.
How important strict adherence to rules is, depends on the table. 5e empowers the DM, and charges them with making sure the game is fun. Not every game takes that stance.
The question isn't about cheating -- that is your personal spin on it, and it is not applicable to anyone else but you, personally. You calling it cheating means jack all, since you don't get to tell other people how to play their games or at as the final arbiter of what constitutes cheating.
Fudging is a term used to describe an allowable circumstance, and is distinct from cheating. If they wanted to talk about cheating, they would have used that word.
That lack of experience is still there, still visible. Your game is not the one and only "real way" to play D&D, and your rules are not applicable outside of your game.
Your thief players in your 1e game must really love how you never let them know the result of their using their skills.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
LOL...
I will tell you had yesterday's 1e session went. 6 people at the table, including myself. I am at the end, strictly because of space issues. I had no DM screen up, even though I have one. EVERY single roll by me and every player was in the open last night.
I ran a complex combat with Giant Wasps on a grid, then later the group was exploring a cave complex with a hidden one room cultist temple.That temple area ended up being the 2nd combat. But here is the thing. The Fighter/Assassin tried a very bold high risk/high reward move. He tried to sneak around the cultists to get close to the BBEG Cleric to attempt a kill with a poisoned dagger. The player thought that his Cloak of Elvenkind gave him the almost perfect camouflage as it does outside. I opened up the DMG and showed him it was 50/50.
I said to him "Roll a d6. 1-3 you are unseen, 4-6 you are noticed". The entire table leaned in to watch the roll. The PLAYER made the roll, not me. The tension was high. He rolled a 4. That led to 2 chars dying, including the Assassin, as his PC and another were then caught by a Hold Person spell by the BBEG. THAT is how rolls in a game create narrative tension. A successful roll completely changes the outcome of that session AND the course of the campaign. But there are those that would have had me roll the dice behind a screen and announce "It is a 3".
Under no circumstances would or should that roll be reversed.
ah, so you cheated and broke the 1e rules.
I mean, RAW, you, as DM, in 1e, are supposed to roll the dice in secret and not announce the result. Gygax has several paragraphs that explain that and why in the DMG.
Thankfully, you are able to not play the game strictly and adapt it to your style and approach, as opposed to strict stuff.
because in 1e, run by the writer of the books, players never roll anything. The DM does all the rolls. In secret. Per the rules. In case the DM decides to fudge a roll.
in 1e, as well, spell casters do not choose their spells. They are assigned them. By the DM. To start — after that, they have to find spells in treasure piles.
let’s also not forget that it is percentile dice, based on level, that should be rolled for sneaking around for an assassin.
see? You are running a game in a way that you like to play it. Ain’t nothing wrong with that at all — but you aren’t playing it the way it was intended to be played, or following the rules. Yet you hop in and say that folks doing things you disapprove of are bad DMs or cheating, or doing it wrong…
when you aren’t even doing it right.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
LOL...sure. Rolling percentiles vs a d6. Nice reach there. And as for spells, yeah, the M-U's did indeed roll per the rules to see what they got. And if you seriously think that players are not to roll dice, I have no clue where you get that from.
Don't try to deflect from the fact that rolls dictated the actions and narrative of the game. That is how a game is run. When the DM's cheat on rolls to enforce a particular course of events, then the players might as well just sit there and listen to the DM read the DM's own fan fiction.
Except you ignore the fact I pointed out the DMG for 1e *explicitly says the player does not roll such dice*.
it is written out there, lol. In detail. With a whole multi-paragraph example and everything.
So I wasn't deflecting -- I was pointing out that your assertion that it is cheating is incorrect, using your own approach to how dice are used versus the explicit statements in the DMG for 1e.
Because I have some terrifying news for you: When you played with Gygax, you rolled a d20 to hit. That was it. He rolled everything else. And he put that into the rule book. That whole "sit there and listen to the DMs fan fiction" thing? Yeah, that's how the guy who wrote the AD&D 1e books thought of how the game was to be played until about 85.
And his was the only game where that was how things were run that way that I have ever played in.
Nor was it a reach: while I personally don't have a problem with what Die you use, myself, I will point out that moving to a d6 shifts the success parameters. WHich is, precisely, a way of fudging the roll.
Oops, on your part. Not only did you fudge the roll, you had the player roll it (when they aren't supposed to know the outcome, per the rules, which is fudging again), and you did so for the purpose of heightening drama (and asserting that's how the drama is to be done, even though the DMG section I am referencing explains that you were not supposed to do that because that's how drama is encouraged).
So, under your own basis, you cheated.
So, it appears that you don't understand what fudging is, or why it is done, even though you yourself do it and have provided examples of fudging in your own game while claiming that you never do it, , likely because you think of fudging as something as simple as saying you rolled a 12 when you rolled a 20, because in your mind the whole point of the dice is to kill the damned PCs "because that's how it is supposed to work".
And in the process you forget that in 5e, they discourage killing PCs as part of the game mechanics themselves.
You were set up for this. Because the point of all of this is to note that there is no right way or wrong way to play D&D or DnD outside of doing something that is not fun for everyone at the table.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Full disclosure, I did not read this entire thread but my two cents...
I fudge rolls or stats on occasion in both directions. Sometimes, if the party is at a much stronger place than I expected and the next fight is supposed to be tough, I will buff up the monsters. On the flip side, if the party is very weak and about to face a tough fight, I will make it a little easier. Usually before the fight and not changing hit or damage rolls during the fight.
I don't mind killing PCs (and we don't have any sort of resurrection in my world). I do want the combat to always be a slight challenge and big fights are supposed to be epic, balanced on a knife's edge so I change things to make it so.
Velstitzen
I am a 40 something year old physician who DMs for a group of 40 something year old doctors. We play a hybrid game, mostly based on 2nd edition rules with some homebrew and 5E components.
this explains so much...
If a fight doesn't go as planned for or against the player characters, i prefer to adjust the encounter difficulty by having some monsters flee combat or arrives as back-up.