“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
In D&D, "fudge" or "fudging" has negative connotations for a sizable portion of the population, and therefore the term "fudging rules" could be seen as something negative that shouldn't happen. The term "house rules" does not have such connotations, and can be used whenever a rule is deliberately changed for the sake of fun. A DM simply calling for something not explicitly covered by the rules is just part of the game, even if you play strictly by RAW (Rules As Written) the DM is going to be making judgment calls.
In D&D, "fudge" or "fudging" has negative connotations for a sizable portion of the population, and therefore the term "fudging rules" could be seen as something negative that shouldn't happen. The term "house rules" does not have such connotations, and can be used whenever a rule is deliberately changed for the sake of fun. A DM simply calling for something not explicitly covered by the rules is just part of the game, even if you play strictly by RAW (Rules As Written) the DM is going to be making judgment calls.
You want to let your players do fun and creative things that they're trying to do. This means that sometimes you'll let them do it even if the rules don't say they should be able to. Your barbarian while raging out makes a strength check to pick up this huge statue and throw it at the enemy. He succeeds on the str check to lift the huge thing, succeeds on the attack roll to throw it, the statue is easily twice the size of the goblin he's throwing it at, roll 1d4 for an improvised wep. No. **** that. That's no fun. Give him a bump to the damage. Don't punish his creativity using the rules. Fudge the rules to reward his creativity. Your game will be more fun for your players and you, especially if that barbarian had ****** stats to begin with. He managed to do a ton of damage through creativity that he wouldn't have been able to do using his raw stats.
The only rolling method I've ever liked was the "Organic" method. I believe I originally encountered it in one of the old "Skills & Powers" books. It's a three step procedure:
Roll 4d6-drop-lowest in order.
Reroll any one.
Swap any pair.
This gives a natural feel to certain things - a wizard can potentially end up with a high Strength, because he just happens to be a big guy. At the same time, the swap allows players to put their best stat where they want it for whatever class they want to play.
I still recall first playing D&D, with the basic set (red box) and the method was explicit: roll 3d6 for each stat, in order - that's what your stats are. Now find a class that you can play with those stats!
1st Eds DM Guide Method III (pg 11) Roll 3d6 for each stat six times - keep the best scores. I like my characters in my campaign to be above average.... :)
In D&D, "fudge" or "fudging" has negative connotations for a sizable portion of the population, and therefore the term "fudging rules" could be seen as something negative that shouldn't happen. The term "house rules" does not have such connotations, and can be used whenever a rule is deliberately changed for the sake of fun. A DM simply calling for something not explicitly covered by the rules is just part of the game, even if you play strictly by RAW (Rules As Written) the DM is going to be making judgment calls.
I mean if someone think a post should be downvoted because of semantics, then that's on them for being an a-hole. I'd argue that most of us are ok with any kind of DM fudging for purposes of storytelling or rule-of-cool.
Also, I disagree with those whose opinion is that fudging has a negative connotation in D&D. In the real world, especially accounting, then yes it's got a negative connotation. But all DMs fudge SOMETHING. Whether it be stat allocation, attack rolls/saving throws against the PCs, or any kind of homebrew rules, that's ALL "fudging the rules". And, while I know everyone has their own playstyle, but if someone doesn't do ANY of the above, they are probably a terrible DM.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Also, tried the 2d6+6 method with my players and the highest stat bonus was +11 with the lowest being +8 (this is with adding the optional Sanity stat). The standard array is a +5.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Also, I disagree with those whose opinion is that fudging has a negative connotation in D&D. In the real world, especially accounting, then yes it's got a negative connotation. But all DMs fudge SOMETHING. Whether it be stat allocation, attack rolls/saving throws against the PCs, or any kind of homebrew rules, that's ALL "fudging the rules". And, while I know everyone has their own playstyle, but if someone doesn't do ANY of the above, they are probably a terrible DM.
I think by considering all of those methods of adjusting the game-play experience as being "fudging" you are making it impossible for you to see what those of us that say things like "fudging is a bad thing because you can accomplish all of its benefits by other means that don't involve any of its inherent risks" are actually getting at.
We're not saying that altering the rules in any way is bad, that would be ridiculous. Altering the rules is how each group fine-tunes the game to provide them their best possible experience with the game.
What we, or at least I, am saying when I say "Fudging is bad. Don't fudge." is this: Altering the rules without the other people at the table knowing both what you have altered and why, and without the other people at the table being able to provide their opinion on whether they agree with your alterations or would rather there be a different alteration instead, is bad. Yes, it is a tool that can be used to accomplish certain desirable things - but it's a tool that has immediate negative effect if its use is even suspected, so it's not worth the risk, especially because you can do basically everything this one tool does with another tool that doesn't have a negative impact when players think you are using it.
I still recall first playing D&D, with the basic set (red box) and the method was explicit: roll 3d6 for each stat, in order - that's what your stats are. Now find a class that you can play with those stats!
Id probably have a group of people hate me as I go, I know I have a 26 strength and 6 intelligence, but I wanna play a wizard, we already have everything else! Primarily the reason I don't like it, as it can due to randomness make everyone lean toward the same class and leave little ability to play the type of class you really want or the type of class that might give a different play style compared to everyone else.
I think there has to be a balance to fudging. For example, at first level, its okay to make sure you don't kill the d6 guys in round one before they even have a chance to go. Probably don't need to fudge anything with the Barbarian because he can take a lot. If you are fudging the damage rolls at level 20, that's a bad thing. However, I think its okay to start fudging numbers once you realize the encounter is heading toward a TPK AND the party has played the combat with precision, but you accidentally made the encounter unbeatable. Or worse, one or two of the PCs had to rush away mid-combat and without their characters there is no way the party can win. (Yes you could pretend their characters is still there, but unless someone had their character sheets on hand, there would still be a lot of fudging going on.
Ultimately if the PCs come up with an awesome idea that the rules say is impossible, but its logical, makes complete sense, and should actually work, and it would lead to an amazing story, then by all means, go for it.
I would say there is a difference between fudging and house rules. Primarily house rules are the rules established prior to the game (or game session) occurring, that the players know ahead of time how you are going to run the game. Fudging or dismissing the rules, is more when in the act of playing, a player comes up with an amazing idea that the rules don't allow, but it would be awesome story wise or for the game, if the player could do it. So you temporarily bend the rules to allow for fun.
But what tools would you recommend besides fudging?
That depends on the circumstance that the DM would be fudging in, but here are some examples:
Called for a roll but realize you don't like the result? Don't roll dice and secretly ignore them - publicly own that you, not the die, decided. Even "Actually, no, don't roll that, here's what happens..." is preferable because you still get the outcome you were going to fudge for, but rather than risk that your player feels like they can't ever trust anything as being legit because they are pretty sure you fudge, you are making it clear to the player that any time things aren't being handle legit-by-the-dice they will know. Preserves the feeling that the dice matter, and that things aren't just going how they are going because the DM wanted them to (assuming the DM is, as most DMs that do fudge claim, only overruling dice occasionally rather than basically all the time).
Set up a challenge that is not quite the ease/difficulty you wanted it to be? The tool I suggest is to not put such emphasis on a single encounter that it not going just as you wanted even registers as a problem - if things got too hard, trust that your players will find a way through or out (supplementary tool: make sure all the players are aware that "we flee the battle" will be handle with rules that make actually getting away a real possibility, not the combat rules that were designed to make actually fighting work and don't (and shouldn't be expected to) handle the not-fighting act of a chase or escape). If things got too easy, good. It's nice for players to feel like they stomped the tar out of something, especially if the whole thing could have been a lot harder for them given just a couple die rolls. Ain't broke, don't fix.
Set up a challenge that just doesn't actually work at all, when you thought it would? The tool I use for that situation is this: "My bad guys, this doesn't work like I thought. Gimme a sec and I'll do something about that." The weird thing? I've actually had players thank me for admitting I made a mistake and offering to fix it, and in all my years I've never heard of anyone thanking anyone else for fudging dice rolls (more just the pretending that the cool outcome wasn't the result of fudging).
If provided other examples of times when a DM would fudge, I'd be glad to suggest how I'd handle the situation differently.
Because of how erratic a d20 is, and how even if you're TRAINED in a skill the bonus honestly doesn't help that much sometimes.
I don't make a lot of check pass/fail.
Most of my checks determine how FAST you succeed. There is less need to "fudge" a bad roll when success or failure was always going to happen, but the dice helps narrate how that happens.
I've also like to add in "success with complication" from the FATE system. This *does* require more narrative overhead from the GM.
Take for example a Rogue disabling a trap.
Lets say the rogue rolls poorly. It's really easy to say "the trap goes off and attacks you, make a save."
Instead you can make the trap engage other party members. "Suddenly you hear a click and realize your tool is stuck in the pressure plate and the trap is active. As long as you don't MOVE you're fine, but the trap will go off."
Now the Rogue has the option to "let go" and and try to dodge the trap, or maybe someone else in the party can try to help.
Or if someone flups a Stealth check. Instead of "the guards see you."
"You hear a guard say 'Do, you hear something?'"
Now if someone thinks fast and goes "meow!" "meow!" We've all seen that scene in the movies and we all love the scene in the movie. That scene only comes from a creatively executed failed check.
Personally I'd grow bored with a game that I couldn't fail at. I mean why play a game with dice if the results are always going to be you succeed. Or if sometimes you get a one and succeed anyway.
The thing I would be cautioned about when changing dice rolls while people know it, is that 1) it becomes expected 2) if for whatever reason you end up changing dice rolls for one person more than you do for anyone else. (Even worse if its a spouse, cute girl, the guy everyone knows is your best friend, etc.)
If the dm starts saying he is cutting the monsters hp in half because he made the encounter too strong, then people start to think he is going to do that with every hard/deadly encounter, and I think in the long run makes the game less fun than if the dm just cut their xp in half without notice, or let the monsters miss a couple of rounds to even the playing field.
Also, I disagree with those whose opinion is that fudging has a negative connotation in D&D. In the real world, especially accounting, then yes it's got a negative connotation. But all DMs fudge SOMETHING. Whether it be stat allocation, attack rolls/saving throws against the PCs, or any kind of homebrew rules, that's ALL "fudging the rules". And, while I know everyone has their own playstyle, but if someone doesn't do ANY of the above, they are probably a terrible DM.
I think by considering all of those methods of adjusting the game-play experience as being "fudging" you are making it impossible for you to see what those of us that say things like "fudging is a bad thing because you can accomplish all of its benefits by other means that don't involve any of its inherent risks" are actually getting at.
We're not saying that altering the rules in any way is bad, that would be ridiculous. Altering the rules is how each group fine-tunes the game to provide them their best possible experience with the game.
What we, or at least I, am saying when I say "Fudging is bad. Don't fudge." is this: Altering the rules without the other people at the table knowing both what you have altered and why, and without the other people at the table being able to provide their opinion on whether they agree with your alterations or would rather there be a different alteration instead, is bad. Yes, it is a tool that can be used to accomplish certain desirable things - but it's a tool that has immediate negative effect if its use is even suspected, so it's not worth the risk, especially because you can do basically everything this one tool does with another tool that doesn't have a negative impact when players think you are using it.
But what tools would you recommend besides fudging?
That depends on the circumstance that the DM would be fudging in, but here are some examples:
Called for a roll but realize you don't like the result? Don't roll dice and secretly ignore them - publicly own that you, not the die, decided. Even "Actually, no, don't roll that, here's what happens..." is preferable because you still get the outcome you were going to fudge for, but rather than risk that your player feels like they can't ever trust anything as being legit because they are pretty sure you fudge, you are making it clear to the player that any time things aren't being handle legit-by-the-dice they will know. Preserves the feeling that the dice matter, and that things aren't just going how they are going because the DM wanted them to (assuming the DM is, as most DMs that do fudge claim, only overruling dice occasionally rather than basically all the time).
Set up a challenge that is not quite the ease/difficulty you wanted it to be? The tool I suggest is to not put such emphasis on a single encounter that it not going just as you wanted even registers as a problem - if things got too hard, trust that your players will find a way through or out (supplementary tool: make sure all the players are aware that "we flee the battle" will be handle with rules that make actually getting away a real possibility, not the combat rules that were designed to make actually fighting work and don't (and shouldn't be expected to) handle the not-fighting act of a chase or escape). If things got too easy, good. It's nice for players to feel like they stomped the tar out of something, especially if the whole thing could have been a lot harder for them given just a couple die rolls. Ain't broke, don't fix.
Set up a challenge that just doesn't actually work at all, when you thought it would? The tool I use for that situation is this: "My bad guys, this doesn't work like I thought. Gimme a sec and I'll do something about that." The weird thing? I've actually had players thank me for admitting I made a mistake and offering to fix it, and in all my years I've never heard of anyone thanking anyone else for fudging dice rolls (more just the pretending that the cool outcome wasn't the result of fudging).
If provided other examples of times when a DM would fudge, I'd be glad to suggest how I'd handle the situation differently.
Ok, so for fudging rolls, you designed an encounter that wasn't supposed to be anywhere near a party killer. As far as ease of challenge goes: it's an easy encounter (below the party's average CR). But, the party is rolling nothing but low numbers and you are rolling nothing but high numbers. The party's healer has tried to keep up, but those d4s and d8s just keep rolling 1s and 2s. They decide to play it smart and attempt to escape, but in their escape one of the characters gets hit by an attack, and what more, a critical hit, that would fell them.
So, through no fault of yours through encounter design or theirs through gameplay, you might have a character die in a very unheroic way to what should've been an easy encounter.
Unless you are one of THOSE kinds of DMs that likes to kill PCs off just because the dice says they deserve death, the play here is to fudge the roll and let them survive, if only barely. Even if they suspect you let them live, they are going to be far happier than if you let them die because some random dice decided it was that players turn to die today.
I've noticed one key thing about your scenarios; your players seem omniscient when it comes to you fudging die rolls. "I've never heard of anyone thanking anyone else for fudging die rolls"... Why would you? Your players shouldn't know that you are fudging the die rolls. That's the entire purpose of fudging them in the first place. In the above scenario, they think they got out by the skin of their teeth. It's not: "... you take 8 damage." - "well, I'm dead" - "oh, I mean you take 6 damage!"
If your players are noticing that you are fudging, you are doing it wrong (probably either by doing it too often or because you are bad at doing it). My players have never known when I fudge the rules (whether it be because I changed a crit to a hit or because I ignored the action economy to allow a creature to do something it shouldn't normally be able to do) and many of the times that it has happened they have been the events discussed enthusiastically at the end of the evening as a close call or it was awesome when this happened. Hell, we're over a year removed from the action economy fudge and the players still talk about the time when the Unicorn was randomly summoned by the Wild Magic Sorcerer and it acted immediately by teleporting the druid to safety while he was dying (two failed death saving throws, and about to start his turn underneath a Fire Elemental) and and healed him with its healing touch. I mean, the teleporting and healing are both actions and the unicorn should have technically rolled initiative and acted in its turn in the initiative order. So, that was me fudging the rules twice, but 1) they don't know the unicorn's action economy, and 2) it made for a much more climatic Wild Magic roll to have a magical forest creature come and save the Circle of the Land (forest) Druid, especially since it was in the Scarlet Moon Hall part in the Elemental Evil adventure.
So, what exact tool would replace what became THE best story of the entire group's D&D campaign? I'm just curious...
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Personally I'd grow bored with a game that I couldn't fail at. I mean why play a game with dice if the results are always going to be you succeed. Or if sometimes you get a one and succeed anyway.
My point isn't have failure not happen, but. I've seen two many *cough* modules *cough* where a key quest item is behind a Perception check the party just flubs. Then the GM is trying to figure out how to bring them around to the hook.
But to point out that a #@*% roll can have better narrative consequences and options then "win/loss".
Plus there are some things that you honestly can't fail at, it just takes longer.
There are plenty of times when abject failure IS narratively interesting, but not all the time.
I think inherently within an investigation check is the idea that if can be repeated if you stay in the room and continue searching. So I wouldn't call that "fudging" as I think that is at least a normalized practice within the game. As for perception checks, if your really need the item found, then having its DC low enough that someone's passive perception is bound to notice it, is a better way to go, then fudging it during game so that they absolutely discover it. (the difference is that its possible the person with the passive perception never looks at or for the item and therefore there remains a chance it won't be found.
So in short, I firmly believe that if there isn't a chance of failure then you skip rolling and just narrate what happens. IF you call for a roll and everyone rolls a 1, then you go you guys find this item, I feel like the players themselves would feel a little cheated, as you just helped them find the item they and you both know their characters didn't see.
I also believe that in general you should always have alternate ways for the PCs to succeed. Maybe they don't find the item, but maybe they can forge a fake. Maybe someone tells them who has the item, or they know it is in the temple, so they just have to search more. I realize this is really close to what you are saying, though from my perspective it isn't endless and I'd really only allow rerolls when it comes to searching for something where you could take more time. So if you fail to see the "blue sapphire" around the lady's neck, then you fail to see the blue sapphire around her neck.
I really don't see why an adventure can't nor shouldn't end in failure if it happens to actually be a failure. I disagree that the story is served better by it not being a failure. (Yes it might let you finish the last 50 pages of the module....but that's not really the story.) Failure is a human thing and I think should be possible within a game.
Personally I'd grow bored with a game that I couldn't fail at. I mean why play a game with dice if the results are always going to be you succeed. Or if sometimes you get a one and succeed anyway.
It's not not failing, it's failure meaning something different because the attempted task was different. A check that is trying to answer the question "can you pick the lock?" resolve that either yes you can pick the lock, or no you can't... but that sort of check usually leaves the same question to be asked again, and a repeat on the check to be made until success happens. What was suggested was not making it so that the check is only ever resulting in the above question being answered yes or yes, but changing the question the check is trying to answer to "can you pick the lock before [event that complicates your character's life in some way happens]?"
Which actually makes failing a check mean actually failing to achieve something, because you can't retry getting the lock open before someone notices you at the door if someone has already noticed you.
Also, the line "Why play a game with dice if the results are always going to be you succeed" is exactly the kind of thing I ask a person that says they thinking fudging dice rolls is a good thing. Usually, I get some line about only fudging the right rolls, which leads me to wonder how a person is meant to actually know which rolls are the right rolls to fudge because if failure is good all the other times they didn't fudge it away (which most insist they don't fudge away all failure, and I trust them on that), how can they be sure it is bad this specific time.
Ok, so for fudging rolls, you designed an encounter that wasn't supposed to be anywhere near a party killer. As far as ease of challenge goes: it's an easy encounter (below the party's average CR). But, the party is rolling nothing but low numbers and you are rolling nothing but high numbers. The party's healer has tried to keep up, but those d4s and d8s just keep rolling 1s and 2s. They decide to play it smart and attempt to escape, but in their escape one of the characters gets hit by an attack, and what more, a critical hit, that would fell them.
1) So, through no fault of yours through encounter design or theirs through gameplay, you might have a character die in a very unheroic way to what should've been an easy encounter.
Unless you are one of THOSE kinds of DMs that likes to kill PCs off just because the dice says they deserve death, the play here is to fudge the roll and let them survive, if only barely. 2) Even if they suspect you let them live, they are going to be far happier than if you let them die because some random dice decided it was that players turn to die today.
3) I've noticed one key thing about your scenarios; your players seem omniscient when it comes to you fudging die rolls. "I've never heard of anyone thanking anyone else for fudging die rolls"... Why would you? Your players shouldn't know that you are fudging the die rolls. That's the entire purpose of fudging them in the first place. In the above scenario, they think they got out by the skin of their teeth. It's not: "... you take 8 damage." - "well, I'm dead" - "oh, I mean you take 6 damage!"
4) If your players are noticing that you are fudging, you are doing it wrong (probably either by doing it too often or because you are bad at doing it). My players have never known when I fudge the rules (whether it be because I changed a crit to a hit or because I ignored the action economy to allow a creature to do something it shouldn't normally be able to do) and many of the times that it has happened they have been the events discussed enthusiastically at the end of the evening as a close call or it was awesome when this happened. 5) Hell, we're over a year removed from the action economy fudge and the players still talk about the time when the Unicorn was randomly summoned by the Wild Magic Sorcerer and it acted immediately by teleporting the druid to safety while he was dying (two failed death saving throws, and about to start his turn underneath a Fire Elemental) and and healed him with its healing touch. I mean, the teleporting and healing are both actions and the unicorn should have technically rolled initiative and acted in its turn in the initiative order. So, that was me fudging the rules twice, but 1) they don't know the unicorn's action economy, and 2) it made for a much more climatic Wild Magic roll to have a magical forest creature come and save the Circle of the Land (forest) Druid, especially since it was in the Scarlet Moon Hall part in the Elemental Evil adventure.
6) So, what exact tool would replace what became THE best story of the entire group's D&D campaign? I'm just curious...
There are a lot of things to respond to in your post, so I'm going to add bold numbering in the quote and number my thoughts to match so you can see what exactly I am responding to with any given thought:
1) There is actually fault here, on both sides. First, as a DM you can choose what conditions there are for failure to overcome an encounter, and are directly in charge of the purpose of an encounter, so there are only "unheroic" deaths when you have put death, rather than some other consequence, on the table for an encounter that you don't want death to occur during. The tool to use there is to change what losing the fight means to something that is actually acceptable to you - and I apply to all die rolls; if there aren't two outcomes that are both good for the story/game-play for a roll (or set of rolls, like combat is) to decide between, skip the dice entirely and narrate the outcome you want to happen. Same result as fudging, but with a time-saving and risk-free method. Also, it's up to the DM to do like I mentioned already and establish some rules for escaping combat that don't rely upon the game's combat rules that very clearly don't work for figuring out if the characters can get away from their enemies (evidence more than your example of "we should run, oh wait Jim just tried and died as a result" is unnecessary, I think).
Second, the players are actually at fault if they didn't choose to run when things were starting to look grim, and instead waited until someone was capable of being brought down by one more successful attack.
2) Some players, yes. Other players, definitely not. None of my group, for example, would be happy suspecting that the DM had fudged their character away from dying because, well, it's like when you figure out that one important thing someone told you was a lie, the natural reaction is to wonder what other things they've lied to you about.
3) I assume no more omniscience on the part of players than you assume unfailing deception on the part of the DM. The reality is that some people will notice some of the fudging, and others might notice less, none, more, or even all of the fudging.
4) If a tool has literally no margin for error, you either use it flawlessly or you are doing it wrong, why would you choose it over tools that aren't so fickle? Especially considering you can't even ask your players if they prefer you fudging because if they know you fudge then fudging doesn't actually work anymore. You have to be absolutely certain that yes, you do know when they want you to fudge and how they want you to fudge, but never actually get their input or even let on that you use that particular tool or they'll be suspicious of when you are using it and that means you can't possibly do it right anymore. Plus, while you have memorable stories of times that you did fudge and the players liked the outcome, you can't be certain that they'd feel the same about the story if they knew for sure you had fudged it for them - and it's possible, in fact it's just as likely in my experience, to have stories that are just as memorable to the players involved that do not involve any fudging at all.
Like this one time in my group that a trapped secret door ended up killing the character that had been asked to check for traps and said "Secret doors are never trapped. *searched, but failed to find the trap* See? Nothing. *loud explosion*" Or this other time when a character intentionally got surrounded by gnolls, insisted he was fine, hit the floor dying next round, then sprung back up thanks to a nat 20 on a death save and managed to finish off the gnolls without hitting the floor again. Or another time still when I rolled maximum damage on the breath weapon of a dragon that surprised the party and one of the party members outright died because they failed their saving throw, and none of the players got bent out of shape because dragons are supposed to be scary so they were happy to see one actually manage to be scary.
5) Not all players are as unaware of the way the game works. Imagine how the tone of play might have been if one of the players at your table asked "Why'd that unicorn get to take two actions in the same turn?" Yes, it worked out for you when you did it... but does having not yet hurt yourself while juggling chainsaws mean that juggling chainsaws doesn't have a serious risk of injury to it?
6) I said it earlier, but it bears repeating: Fudging is not a mandatory part of what ends up being "the best story". I know for a fact because all of my groups have also had stories of things that went down in-game that still get excitedly retold at any opportunity decades after they went down.
I have a very limited list of when to fudge rolls,
1) Any time you would kill/make unconscious a pc outright during the first round of combat, especially if it's before the pc even gets to act.
2) You really messed up on an encounter
In regards to the unicorn thing, I really doubt the players didn't/couldn't figure out that the dm fudged something. I mean, the unicorn showing up and going straight over to the druid is going to be clear what the dm is doing. Thing is the players didn't care. It's not like dm randomly had a unicorn to appear and save the druid, but brought it in to the narrative action of the PCs decisions. So it made for a cool story that wouldn't have happened otherwise. I really doubt they didn't realize the dm fudged the whole thing, at least the unicorn showing up.
Could have been a legendary unicorn with legendary actions! Even more cool if you tie the unicorn into the story later and the PCs do come across the unicorns and learn how they were able to do it. You can even bring in more elements to the game that explain why what appeared to be a random action by the dm wasn't as random as the PCs thought.
While I would say dragons should be the exception to what I'm about to say, but taking a PC out first round before they act because of a crit and high dice rolls in an encounter that is probably going to take an hour+ of play time, is perhaps not the best thing to do. It would normally be way more fun for the player if you just ignored the crit and let them participate in the game.
Obviously, you can take a player out first round if the party is really good about healing people. But if you as dm know they have no healing magic and don't remember if they have any healing potions left or they don't, then it's best to fudge away the crit then let the player do nothing for an hour+.
Granted if the player already has a backup he wants to use, what better time to introduce a new character than during the middle of combat!
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
In D&D, "fudge" or "fudging" has negative connotations for a sizable portion of the population, and therefore the term "fudging rules" could be seen as something negative that shouldn't happen. The term "house rules" does not have such connotations, and can be used whenever a rule is deliberately changed for the sake of fun. A DM simply calling for something not explicitly covered by the rules is just part of the game, even if you play strictly by RAW (Rules As Written) the DM is going to be making judgment calls.
The only rolling method I've ever liked was the "Organic" method. I believe I originally encountered it in one of the old "Skills & Powers" books. It's a three step procedure:
This gives a natural feel to certain things - a wizard can potentially end up with a high Strength, because he just happens to be a big guy. At the same time, the swap allows players to put their best stat where they want it for whatever class they want to play.
I still recall first playing D&D, with the basic set (red box) and the method was explicit: roll 3d6 for each stat, in order - that's what your stats are. Now find a class that you can play with those stats!
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
1st Eds DM Guide Method III (pg 11) Roll 3d6 for each stat six times - keep the best scores. I like my characters in my campaign to be above average.... :)
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Also, tried the 2d6+6 method with my players and the highest stat bonus was +11 with the lowest being +8 (this is with adding the optional Sanity stat). The standard array is a +5.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I think there has to be a balance to fudging. For example, at first level, its okay to make sure you don't kill the d6 guys in round one before they even have a chance to go. Probably don't need to fudge anything with the Barbarian because he can take a lot. If you are fudging the damage rolls at level 20, that's a bad thing. However, I think its okay to start fudging numbers once you realize the encounter is heading toward a TPK AND the party has played the combat with precision, but you accidentally made the encounter unbeatable. Or worse, one or two of the PCs had to rush away mid-combat and without their characters there is no way the party can win. (Yes you could pretend their characters is still there, but unless someone had their character sheets on hand, there would still be a lot of fudging going on.
Ultimately if the PCs come up with an awesome idea that the rules say is impossible, but its logical, makes complete sense, and should actually work, and it would lead to an amazing story, then by all means, go for it.
I would say there is a difference between fudging and house rules. Primarily house rules are the rules established prior to the game (or game session) occurring, that the players know ahead of time how you are going to run the game. Fudging or dismissing the rules, is more when in the act of playing, a player comes up with an amazing idea that the rules don't allow, but it would be awesome story wise or for the game, if the player could do it. So you temporarily bend the rules to allow for fun.
But what tools would you recommend besides fudging?
Because of how erratic a d20 is, and how even if you're TRAINED in a skill the bonus honestly doesn't help that much sometimes.
I don't make a lot of check pass/fail.
Most of my checks determine how FAST you succeed. There is less need to "fudge" a bad roll when success or failure was always going to happen, but the dice helps narrate how that happens.
I've also like to add in "success with complication" from the FATE system. This *does* require more narrative overhead from the GM.
Take for example a Rogue disabling a trap.
Lets say the rogue rolls poorly. It's really easy to say "the trap goes off and attacks you, make a save."
Instead you can make the trap engage other party members. "Suddenly you hear a click and realize your tool is stuck in the pressure plate and the trap is active. As long as you don't MOVE you're fine, but the trap will go off."
Now the Rogue has the option to "let go" and and try to dodge the trap, or maybe someone else in the party can try to help.
Or if someone flups a Stealth check. Instead of "the guards see you."
"You hear a guard say 'Do, you hear something?'"
Now if someone thinks fast and goes "meow!" "meow!" We've all seen that scene in the movies and we all love the scene in the movie. That scene only comes from a creatively executed failed check.
Personally I'd grow bored with a game that I couldn't fail at. I mean why play a game with dice if the results are always going to be you succeed. Or if sometimes you get a one and succeed anyway.
The thing I would be cautioned about when changing dice rolls while people know it, is that 1) it becomes expected 2) if for whatever reason you end up changing dice rolls for one person more than you do for anyone else. (Even worse if its a spouse, cute girl, the guy everyone knows is your best friend, etc.)
If the dm starts saying he is cutting the monsters hp in half because he made the encounter too strong, then people start to think he is going to do that with every hard/deadly encounter, and I think in the long run makes the game less fun than if the dm just cut their xp in half without notice, or let the monsters miss a couple of rounds to even the playing field.
So, through no fault of yours through encounter design or theirs through gameplay, you might have a character die in a very unheroic way to what should've been an easy encounter.
I've noticed one key thing about your scenarios; your players seem omniscient when it comes to you fudging die rolls. "I've never heard of anyone thanking anyone else for fudging die rolls"... Why would you? Your players shouldn't know that you are fudging the die rolls. That's the entire purpose of fudging them in the first place. In the above scenario, they think they got out by the skin of their teeth. It's not: "... you take 8 damage." - "well, I'm dead" - "oh, I mean you take 6 damage!"
If your players are noticing that you are fudging, you are doing it wrong (probably either by doing it too often or because you are bad at doing it). My players have never known when I fudge the rules (whether it be because I changed a crit to a hit or because I ignored the action economy to allow a creature to do something it shouldn't normally be able to do) and many of the times that it has happened they have been the events discussed enthusiastically at the end of the evening as a close call or it was awesome when this happened. Hell, we're over a year removed from the action economy fudge and the players still talk about the time when the Unicorn was randomly summoned by the Wild Magic Sorcerer and it acted immediately by teleporting the druid to safety while he was dying (two failed death saving throws, and about to start his turn underneath a Fire Elemental) and and healed him with its healing touch. I mean, the teleporting and healing are both actions and the unicorn should have technically rolled initiative and acted in its turn in the initiative order. So, that was me fudging the rules twice, but 1) they don't know the unicorn's action economy, and 2) it made for a much more climatic Wild Magic roll to have a magical forest creature come and save the Circle of the Land (forest) Druid, especially since it was in the Scarlet Moon Hall part in the Elemental Evil adventure.
So, what exact tool would replace what became THE best story of the entire group's D&D campaign? I'm just curious...
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I think inherently within an investigation check is the idea that if can be repeated if you stay in the room and continue searching. So I wouldn't call that "fudging" as I think that is at least a normalized practice within the game. As for perception checks, if your really need the item found, then having its DC low enough that someone's passive perception is bound to notice it, is a better way to go, then fudging it during game so that they absolutely discover it. (the difference is that its possible the person with the passive perception never looks at or for the item and therefore there remains a chance it won't be found.
So in short, I firmly believe that if there isn't a chance of failure then you skip rolling and just narrate what happens. IF you call for a roll and everyone rolls a 1, then you go you guys find this item, I feel like the players themselves would feel a little cheated, as you just helped them find the item they and you both know their characters didn't see.
I also believe that in general you should always have alternate ways for the PCs to succeed. Maybe they don't find the item, but maybe they can forge a fake. Maybe someone tells them who has the item, or they know it is in the temple, so they just have to search more. I realize this is really close to what you are saying, though from my perspective it isn't endless and I'd really only allow rerolls when it comes to searching for something where you could take more time. So if you fail to see the "blue sapphire" around the lady's neck, then you fail to see the blue sapphire around her neck.
I really don't see why an adventure can't nor shouldn't end in failure if it happens to actually be a failure. I disagree that the story is served better by it not being a failure. (Yes it might let you finish the last 50 pages of the module....but that's not really the story.) Failure is a human thing and I think should be possible within a game.
I have a very limited list of when to fudge rolls,
1) Any time you would kill/make unconscious a pc outright during the first round of combat, especially if it's before the pc even gets to act.
2) You really messed up on an encounter
In regards to the unicorn thing, I really doubt the players didn't/couldn't figure out that the dm fudged something. I mean, the unicorn showing up and going straight over to the druid is going to be clear what the dm is doing. Thing is the players didn't care. It's not like dm randomly had a unicorn to appear and save the druid, but brought it in to the narrative action of the PCs decisions. So it made for a cool story that wouldn't have happened otherwise. I really doubt they didn't realize the dm fudged the whole thing, at least the unicorn showing up.
Could have been a legendary unicorn with legendary actions! Even more cool if you tie the unicorn into the story later and the PCs do come across the unicorns and learn how they were able to do it. You can even bring in more elements to the game that explain why what appeared to be a random action by the dm wasn't as random as the PCs thought.
While I would say dragons should be the exception to what I'm about to say, but taking a PC out first round before they act because of a crit and high dice rolls in an encounter that is probably going to take an hour+ of play time, is perhaps not the best thing to do. It would normally be way more fun for the player if you just ignored the crit and let them participate in the game.
Obviously, you can take a player out first round if the party is really good about healing people. But if you as dm know they have no healing magic and don't remember if they have any healing potions left or they don't, then it's best to fudge away the crit then let the player do nothing for an hour+.
Granted if the player already has a backup he wants to use, what better time to introduce a new character than during the middle of combat!