Last session, one of my players, through diligent effort, learned a new skill from an NPC trainer and love interest. He can now use his reaction to increase his AC by 2 with some more conditions on top of that. In the next combat encounter, I rolled very low but declared that the attack roll was equal to the player's AC and the player happily used his new skill. Everyone cheered the NPC trainer gave him a thumbs up!
I've noticed in the past that many DMs are divided on the issue of fudging rolls. What is everyone's opinion on the matter?
Public Mod Note
(Sedge):
Moved to new DMs Only board
I think fudging rolls is a good thing. As a DM it is our job to make sure the players are having fun. If doing something like fudging rolls to make fun situations like you described adds to the game, then heck yeah! Go for it!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hell yeah I am going to Polymorph the boss into a Rabbit. I have always wanted a being a pure evil stuffed into a ball of fluff.
I don't have anything against fudging rolls and do so regularly. Its one of the reasons I continue to use a DM Screen.
For me, it all comes down to the story. If the story demands that one of the PCs encounters a difficulty, I may fudge the rolls up. If its a climatic moment and a PC's success is important to resolving a particular plot point, I may fudge the rolls down. The story dictates everything for me. I also use fudging to tailor a particular roll to a unique situation. It's common for my PCs (as I'm sure it is for other DMs) to come up with creative ways to use their skills and abilities. In these instances, I'll fudge the rolls to either make the attempt successful or a failure depending on what moves the story forward in the most interesting way.
Along similar lines, I also don't tell my PCs the DC, the AC of opponents, or remaining hit points. I find that handing out this information often causes them to focus more on the game mechanics and less on the story.
Fudging rolls runs the risk of the players feeling like the outcome wasn't legitimate, which can undercut their "wins" with feelings that they were gifted to them, and overlay any "loss" with a feeling that they didn't actually have a chance.
I've found, from experience, that even a DM that believes they are acting in the players' best interest when fudging a roll can alter an outcome the player doesn't actually want altered - a specific example being a DM that put the party up against overwhelmingly powerful opponents, told me how much damage my character took from an attack, and then fudged after I told him that killed my character with "Really? How many hp did you have? Oh, well I meant that the monster did [enough damage to leave me down, but not dead]" because he thought I'd rather my character live thanks to a gimme than die at the whim of the dice.
So I've developed a strong policy - one that started the very first time I ever read a DMG, as it encourage me to alter or ignore dice rolls after I've made them and I had the immediate 12-year old reaction of "That's bad advice 'cause it's not fair to do that.", and matured as I saw the effects of other DMs that did fudge - that no die shall ever be rolled unless its outcome will be used.
If you will only have one thing happen no matter what the die says, then just say that is what happens and skip the roll - it's the same end result without adding a lie (white, or otherwise) to the process.
I think fudging rolls is an important tool in the DM's toolbox, but one that shouldn't be used too often. If the players feel they are being cheated, or let off too easily, that will ruin their fun. If you fudge every roll in their favor, that's what's going to happen. You don't have to fudge every roll in their favor, though, and good DMs will fudge rolls sparingly and in such a manner that it enhances the player's fun. Sometimes this means not letting a PC die, but it can also mean making things more difficult. A DM who knows their stuff will have a good idea of when and how to utilize the fudge to make a better game.
In Aaron's example above, I don't think that's a case of fudging being the problem, but of the DM managing a combat encounter poorly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: The Cult of the Crystal Spider (Currently playing Storm King's Thunder) Player: The Knuckles of Arth - Lemire (Tiefling Rogue 5/Fighter 1)
You just have to make sure you are not doing it to be petty.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination. I will protect those who cannot protect themselves, I will protect even those I hate so long as it is right.
In Aaron's example above, I don't think that's a case of fudging being the problem, but of the DM managing a combat encounter poorly.
It's a case of cause and effect; he'd relied on fudging as a tool, and as a result didn't think there was a need to manage a combat encounter differently.
I think it's probably very group dependant, but I think it becomes a slippery slope quickly. If you start fudging rolls, and your players don't mind, why even use dice? Why not just do a collaborative story telling sort of thing? Probably fun either way as long as your group is in to it.
Part of "fudging" is to conceal the inaccuracy. If your players know that you're changing the roll, it's not "fudging" at all.
Unless you are outright lying to your player by making the claim "I don't fudge rolls ever" while occasionally fudging rolls, don't you think it'd be obvious to the players (or at least those that have ever read the parts of the book that tell the DM it's okay to fudge, or otherwise learned that such advice is given) that fudging is going on?
Plus, isn't something that is only okay to do if no one knows you did it functionally and fundamentally the same as something it is not okay to do?
I wasn't addressing the ethics or morality of lying to players about roll authenticity, but relating to the game's atmosphere being "okay" if fudging isn't spotlighted by obvious changes. The game quality will diminish if the players see explicit use of changing rolls for the worse/better to accommodate undesirable results. If these changes are completed without their knowledge of when or how much, the overall experience will benefit.
It depends on how good fudger you actually are, not how good you think you are at it, in my opinion. The original example was exactly the right way to fudge. :)
I used to play with this guy who basically tried to fudge everything to suit his purposes. It didn't matter what it was...He had his story that he was telling and refused to alter it at all or add any extra details that he hadn't prepared beforehand. His character in the game was also ALWAYS successful, no matter what he decided to do, while the rest of us were struggling along like we're meant to be. It was so frustrating, especially being new to the game. Actually, he was the first DM I played with, and it really turned me off the game as a whole for a long, long time. (You could always tell when he was rolling, though, because he'd get this snarky attitude while he was doing it... but that's a whole different can of worms.)
Now, a few years later, I am totally guilty of fudging as a DM. But, I won't do it to deny the players knowledge or experience. I'll do it to protect my players, especially the ones newer to the game, and to occasionally turn the tide back into their favor or allow them to succeed when they're trying really hard but doing really badly. (A couple in my current campaign seem bent on trying to kill themselves every.single.time they sit down to the table.) "Controlling my rolls" also gives my more experienced players an opportunity to rescue the newer guys and keep them in the game and having fun.
I mean, the point of the whole game is to have fun and tell a great collaborative story. If you're not able to do that, honestly or fudging it, you're better off not DMing.
Yeah... I normally let my dice roll as they are, but a few times here and there I'll have to fudge it so that a monster who was gonna attack one of the PCs doesn't crit and kill them because I don't view it as very fun at all if players die, not due to their own negligence but rather because the dice were especially unkind.
If these changes are completed without their knowledge of when or how much, the overall experience will benefit.
But is the level of benefit to the overall experience greater than the benefit of achieving the same end results via overt methods, rather than the method that only actually works if done covertly?
For example, is the game-play experience better in one of the following scenarios, or is it equal in both?
A) A character that is an excellent athlete (relatively high strength score, proficient in athletics to put that in game terms) tries to grab a feeble creature, such as a goblin, to stop it from running off with an item that is important to the character. The DM calls for an opposed roll, and the player reports a result that isn't low by any means (let's call it a 17), and the goblin's roll has come out to 17+ (despite it's strength penalty). By the rules, that means the goblin isn't stopped (ties on contests mean the conditions before the contest remain unchanged) - the DM finds this result undesirable, and fudges by telling the player that they've succeeded at grabbing the goblin.
B) A character that is an excellent athlete (relatively high strength score, proficient in athletics to put that in game terms) tries to grab a feeble creature, such as a goblin, to stop it from running off with an item that is important to the character. The DM finds the goblin not being grabbed at this moment to be an undesirable result, so instead of calling for an opposed roll just tells the player that they've succeeded at grabbing the goblin.
I would believe that players feel the reward of character growth and accomplishing results, rather than being dictated story progression. Certainly, this would need to be balanced out between granted successes and skill checked requirements, as either of the two yields one-sided gameplay.
I would believe that players feel the reward of character growth and accomplishing results, rather than being dictated story progression. Certainly, this would need to be balanced out between granted successes and skill checked requirements, as either of the two yields one-sided gameplay.
I'm unsure how to interpret your response. It appears you are comparing occasional fudging but usually letting the roll of the dice stand to pretty much always dictating story progression, when what I was asking you to do is compare fudging how ever often you fudge to getting the same result without fudging (dictating story progression) exactly as often - using a different tool, not running the game completely differently.
To phrase what I am asking differently; do you think that the player believing they have a chance of failure/success when they don't is what improves the play experience, or is it that not failing/succeeding when it would be "stupid" to do so is what improves the play experience? Because while the former can only be achieved by fudging a die roll, the later can be achieved by saying "Yeah, it'd be stupid if [blank], so [not-blank]", and doesn't rely on never having your deception seen through and never being wrong about whether your player agrees something is undesirable by actually opening conversation on the topic rather than assuming the DM knows what the player wants without ever actually asking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Last session, one of my players, through diligent effort, learned a new skill from an NPC trainer and love interest. He can now use his reaction to increase his AC by 2 with some more conditions on top of that. In the next combat encounter, I rolled very low but declared that the attack roll was equal to the player's AC and the player happily used his new skill. Everyone cheered the NPC trainer gave him a thumbs up!
I've noticed in the past that many DMs are divided on the issue of fudging rolls. What is everyone's opinion on the matter?
It's fine, as long as it's for good story reasons. Your action is a good example of fudging done right.
I think fudging rolls is a good thing. As a DM it is our job to make sure the players are having fun. If doing something like fudging rolls to make fun situations like you described adds to the game, then heck yeah! Go for it!
Hell yeah I am going to Polymorph the boss into a Rabbit. I have always wanted a being a pure evil stuffed into a ball of fluff.
I fudge rolls so hard, sometimes I'll just start rolling to make my players paranoid that they haven't observed something.
Really, I am just waiting for them to finish their debate.
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] --- [ Homebrew Rules & Guidelines ]
Send me a message with any questions or concerns
I don't have anything against fudging rolls and do so regularly. Its one of the reasons I continue to use a DM Screen.
For me, it all comes down to the story. If the story demands that one of the PCs encounters a difficulty, I may fudge the rolls up. If its a climatic moment and a PC's success is important to resolving a particular plot point, I may fudge the rolls down. The story dictates everything for me. I also use fudging to tailor a particular roll to a unique situation. It's common for my PCs (as I'm sure it is for other DMs) to come up with creative ways to use their skills and abilities. In these instances, I'll fudge the rolls to either make the attempt successful or a failure depending on what moves the story forward in the most interesting way.
Along similar lines, I also don't tell my PCs the DC, the AC of opponents, or remaining hit points. I find that handing out this information often causes them to focus more on the game mechanics and less on the story.
Creator, writer, and producer of Heroes Not Included
Fudging rolls runs the risk of the players feeling like the outcome wasn't legitimate, which can undercut their "wins" with feelings that they were gifted to them, and overlay any "loss" with a feeling that they didn't actually have a chance.
I've found, from experience, that even a DM that believes they are acting in the players' best interest when fudging a roll can alter an outcome the player doesn't actually want altered - a specific example being a DM that put the party up against overwhelmingly powerful opponents, told me how much damage my character took from an attack, and then fudged after I told him that killed my character with "Really? How many hp did you have? Oh, well I meant that the monster did [enough damage to leave me down, but not dead]" because he thought I'd rather my character live thanks to a gimme than die at the whim of the dice.
So I've developed a strong policy - one that started the very first time I ever read a DMG, as it encourage me to alter or ignore dice rolls after I've made them and I had the immediate 12-year old reaction of "That's bad advice 'cause it's not fair to do that.", and matured as I saw the effects of other DMs that did fudge - that no die shall ever be rolled unless its outcome will be used.
If you will only have one thing happen no matter what the die says, then just say that is what happens and skip the roll - it's the same end result without adding a lie (white, or otherwise) to the process.
I think fudging rolls is an important tool in the DM's toolbox, but one that shouldn't be used too often. If the players feel they are being cheated, or let off too easily, that will ruin their fun. If you fudge every roll in their favor, that's what's going to happen. You don't have to fudge every roll in their favor, though, and good DMs will fudge rolls sparingly and in such a manner that it enhances the player's fun. Sometimes this means not letting a PC die, but it can also mean making things more difficult. A DM who knows their stuff will have a good idea of when and how to utilize the fudge to make a better game.
In Aaron's example above, I don't think that's a case of fudging being the problem, but of the DM managing a combat encounter poorly.
DM: The Cult of the Crystal Spider (Currently playing Storm King's Thunder)
Player: The Knuckles of Arth - Lemire (Tiefling Rogue 5/Fighter 1)
I view it as almost a requirement at times.
You just have to make sure you are not doing it to be petty.
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination. I will protect those who cannot protect themselves, I will protect even those I hate so long as it is right.
I think it's probably very group dependant, but I think it becomes a slippery slope quickly. If you start fudging rolls, and your players don't mind, why even use dice? Why not just do a collaborative story telling sort of thing? Probably fun either way as long as your group is in to it.
Part of "fudging" is to conceal the inaccuracy. If your players know that you're changing the roll, it's not "fudging" at all.
The goal is to modify outcomes and have the players believe it was the due course of action, in order to preserve the story and their experience.
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] --- [ Homebrew Rules & Guidelines ]
Send me a message with any questions or concerns
Unless you are outright lying to your player by making the claim "I don't fudge rolls ever" while occasionally fudging rolls, don't you think it'd be obvious to the players (or at least those that have ever read the parts of the book that tell the DM it's okay to fudge, or otherwise learned that such advice is given) that fudging is going on?
Plus, isn't something that is only okay to do if no one knows you did it functionally and fundamentally the same as something it is not okay to do?
I wasn't addressing the ethics or morality of lying to players about roll authenticity, but relating to the game's atmosphere being "okay" if fudging isn't spotlighted by obvious changes. The game quality will diminish if the players see explicit use of changing rolls for the worse/better to accommodate undesirable results. If these changes are completed without their knowledge of when or how much, the overall experience will benefit.
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] --- [ Homebrew Rules & Guidelines ]
Send me a message with any questions or concerns
It depends on how good fudger you actually are, not how good you think you are at it, in my opinion. The original example was exactly the right way to fudge. :)
I used to play with this guy who basically tried to fudge everything to suit his purposes. It didn't matter what it was...He had his story that he was telling and refused to alter it at all or add any extra details that he hadn't prepared beforehand. His character in the game was also ALWAYS successful, no matter what he decided to do, while the rest of us were struggling along like we're meant to be. It was so frustrating, especially being new to the game. Actually, he was the first DM I played with, and it really turned me off the game as a whole for a long, long time. (You could always tell when he was rolling, though, because he'd get this snarky attitude while he was doing it... but that's a whole different can of worms.)
Now, a few years later, I am totally guilty of fudging as a DM. But, I won't do it to deny the players knowledge or experience. I'll do it to protect my players, especially the ones newer to the game, and to occasionally turn the tide back into their favor or allow them to succeed when they're trying really hard but doing really badly. (A couple in my current campaign seem bent on trying to kill themselves every.single.time they sit down to the table.) "Controlling my rolls" also gives my more experienced players an opportunity to rescue the newer guys and keep them in the game and having fun.
I mean, the point of the whole game is to have fun and tell a great collaborative story. If you're not able to do that, honestly or fudging it, you're better off not DMing.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond StaffYeah... I normally let my dice roll as they are, but a few times here and there I'll have to fudge it so that a monster who was gonna attack one of the PCs doesn't crit and kill them because I don't view it as very fun at all if players die, not due to their own negligence but rather because the dice were especially unkind.
I would believe that players feel the reward of character growth and accomplishing results, rather than being dictated story progression. Certainly, this would need to be balanced out between granted successes and skill checked requirements, as either of the two yields one-sided gameplay.
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] --- [ Homebrew Rules & Guidelines ]
Send me a message with any questions or concerns