Quote from PhilCole >>

A die roll is a random occurrence, it has nothing to do with decisions of the party.

I guess my question is do you follow every rule, to the letter, every time? 

Lawful Good DM. 

 Fudging and house-rules are not the same. Your question has no bearing on the topic of this thread, which is specifically... in the title... FUDGING ROLLS. 

Trying to equate any change to the rules of the game with fudging is creating a definition of "fudging" that is useless, because if it can mean anything that is functionally identically to meaning nothing.

Fudging is a specific manifestation of a change to the rules; to fudge, the DM rolls a die or has the player roll a die, determines the outcome independent of that die roll, and attempts to convince the players that it was the die roll that determined the outcome (which is true even if the attempt is nothing more than allowing the players to assume that to be the case).

Nothing else is fudging.

Yep, for this forum that is the definition of fudging.  I guess I just look at fudging rolls on the same level as stretching and changing things.  I've got no problem with either extreme or somewhere in the middle for fudging rolls. 

I just took umbrage at the post by SkyCaptain that says "you are being dishonest."  I was just wondering what was the level of honesty needed.  As silly and petty as it sounds, it just torqued me a bit.

And it's not disparaging to say one DM is Neutral Good and one is Lawful Good.  (I'm not sure how a Chaotic Good DM would do.)

Quote from PhilCole >>

I just took umbrage at the post by SkyCaptain that says "you are being dishonest."

Take all the umbrage you want, I don't care. Because the moment you fudge that dice roll... you are lying to your players and being dishonest to them where it matters. As an NPC, lie your ass off if that's what the NPC would do, but don't lie to your players as the DM. The DM should be trusted to always be honest. The NPC's however are a different story.

Lets remember that every table holds a different game with different expectations.  There are multiple ways to play D&D, and not all of them maintain the same goals or regiments.  These differences are what can promote different styles, as we tailor our own house rules to the players we keep.

Quote from Sedge >>

Lets remember that every table holds a different game with different expectations.  There are multiple ways to play D&D, and not all of them maintain the same goals or regiments.  These differences are what can promote different styles, as we tailor our own house rules to the players we keep.

I question the assertion that fudging rolls automatically makes you dishonest or lying to your players. You are being dishonest if you tell your players that you "honor the dice" or "let the dice fall as they may" or any number of similar statements. However, if you are up-front to your players that you occasionally fudge results when necessary, I don't see how subsequently doing just that makes you dishonest. If you claim that you don't manipulate results and then proceed to fudge, that is being dishonest to your players. The act of fudging itself, however, is not.

Whether or not fudging is acceptable varies by play group, there is no one "true" way to play D&D, and that goes down as far as how people roll dice. Some groups want the dice to be sacrosanct and for results never to be manipulated. Others are fine if results are manipulated if it results in a better story being told (where the definition of "better" also varies by group).

You're being dishonest to them because fudging the dice rolls, even if they know you do, lessens the element of risk and suspense. The element of not truly know what is going to happen. It ruins the game for a lot of people. It also makes them question whether you really rolled that crit or not and breaks the flow of the game because they question you and you show them the dice or don't, thus further degrading the trust that should exist between DM and players.

For you, that is probably the case. However, see my second paragraph. In a group that embraces fudging results, it likely enhances risk and suspense, as a stray roll cannot trivialize an encounter, or a PC may survive at very low hit points to add suspense to whether or not they can drop the bad guy before the PC drops in the next round. You may question a DM in such a case, but in groups where fudging is embraced, nobody is questioning any roll results.

Just because you don't like how something does not make playing the game that way wrong or invalid. Please stop trying to project your opinions as fact.

I guess all DMs should be True Neutral, but I know I'm not.

To be objective, we must split apart "dishonesty" from "lessening the element of risk and suspense".  These would be separate qualities and are not directly proportionate.  Many casual games are not carried out to be strict to dice, as they may be more roleplaying/relaxing in nature.  Perhaps they have a house rule that is not strict to the dice roll, but takes averages.  If these mechanics are agreed upon by the table, then a DM wouldn't be dishonest at all, but the risk & suspense would be adequately diminished.  It depends on the sort of game being played.

I can understand the warrant of playing by the dice and immersing yourself into the game.  That is the type of play many players desire, so they may battle through the challenges - good and bad.  We must consider all games before denouncing any DM for how they play.  If we don't know their environment, we can't judge them according to our own ruleset.

Good points.  I was trying to say "It takes all types."  Every house has its' rules, sorry about the labeling, I was trying to be glib and funny.  (Nat 1 for persuasion)

When I sit down at a table of D&D, I expect the dice to be a final arbiter of what happens the moment that die leaves my hand. I expect the same from the DM. Anything less is being dishonest to the players and making their choices matter less. So what if an encounter is trivialized? You think that mattered to Vox Machina when... 

 No, they didn't care. The encounter was "trivialized" somewhat at that point, but they will remember that moment for years to come. If Mercer fudged the die roll at that point to allow what happened happen, and the players later found out... they would be pissed and upset. It ruined their moment. Fudging the result of a roll is dishonest. Altering the outcome of encounter that goes badly that would be in line with what the npc's would do... that is well within reason for a DM. Such as goblins capturing the characters instead of outright slaying them. Cause goblins might know someone that would pay good coin or some other form of wealth for the characters. Thus continuing the story in an entirely different direction.

It might ruin the game for a lot of people, which is fine.  They can find another DM, or DM themselves.  There are a ton of memes out there about what ruins a game for different people. 

Everyone needs to find a group that works for them.  As long as you find a game and a DM that is fun for you, there is no right or wrong way to do it. 

Again "que serra serra".  I get it, you hate it, a lot of people don't.  It's ok, as long as your group enjoys playing. 

We can both be right as long as we agree that the purpose of the game is to have fun.

I hope you guys have fun playing, my group does and nobody feels cheated or trivialized.