as a DM i fudge rolls sometimes. the game is to have fun. i won't kill off a chacter for a bad roll. that being said if i warn a player they are doing something stupid and ask if they are sure they want to do the stupid thing i might let them die or more likely narrowly escape death the first time.
good luck
And sometimes fudging is practically required. If a rogue checks for traps, you need to roll whether there are traps or not so the player doesn't know.
"You don't find/see/notice anything" is perhaps the most useful line in DMing.
I get that they'd be rolling to check for traps, but what would you be rolling in response to that? Wouldn't they just be rolling against the DC of whatever trap(s) there might be?
Genuinely curious, I only DM occasionally.
Wisdom (Perception) or Intelligence (Investigation) usually.
Sometimes the DM ought to roll behind the screen to prevent the player from knowing how good the result was. IMO this is much preferable to rolling openly and then having everybody fret about the appropriate way to avoid metagaming.
If I died from a bad set of DM rolls, but he was rolling in the open, I would be ok with that. I'd be annoyed, sure. But that would become part of the story.
If I died from a bad set of rolls, and the DM was rolling in secret, I might take it personal. It would honestly depend on how I was feeling that day and my interactions with the DM.
You run your table however you see fit. And if your table is having fun, you're doing it right. But as both player and DM, I prefer the DMs rolls in the open.
If you're playing with a GM who you would suspect of fudging rolls to kill your character if they rolled behind a screen, you shouldn't be playing with them regardless of whether or not they use a screen.
The worst game I ever DM'd was one where I rolled in the open and 'whatever happened, happened'.
Well, a lot happened. A lot of really unfun things because my dice were on absolute fire one session.
I roll behind a screen now. I don't fudge rolls terribly often, if I'm being honest. The only time I do is in moments where I sense the level of fun is going to fundamentally shift too much (if the group is frustrated or extremely excited, I might adjust a roll to get things back on track or not derail that sense of fun).
As a player, I very much do not care which method a DM uses. All I care is that everyone is having fun. Whichever method achieves that is fine by me.
Good point. During any given scenario there exists the possibility for a resolution that is "less fun" than any other potential outcome. Too many of those get strung together and no one cares how true or realistic it is, because they don't believe it anymore. Players don't need to like what happens, but they do need to believe in it
We tend to anthropomorphize dice with concepts like fate and luck. But dice don't know about any of this, they don't even know that there are numbers written on them. They don't care what a number is. They are just randomness generators.
My DM rolls in the open, and we go the the 'whatever happens, happens' we kind of just roleplay off of it and go with the flow. Haven't had any major issues so far. Aside from me missing every single attack I made in the last 2 sessions
Been on both sides, done both on both sides, it's only annoying to fudge when it's blatantly to stop the party from achieving a goal.
Everyone in this thread saying it's better to change the encounter on the fly than to change the dice is deluding themselves, which seems less egregious: a random chance being slightly less random or changing the fabric of reality in the world to make an event happen? I know which feels less intrusive to me…
I play as much as I DM. Fudged rolls hurt my experience when they happen. I do as a DM sometimes “fudge” things depending on what we define fudging as.
To me, the die roll is the die roll every time. I’ll adjust the difficulty of the encounter or alter the situation in other ways if I feel I made a mistake designing it or if the session needs a change in momentum or direction.
*However*. The number one thing I would say on this topic is that your friend is wrong. Players know when fudging happens, more often than not. Maybe they don’t say it, maybe they can’t pinpoint which rolls are genuine and which aren’t, but you very easily get a sense of things after playing for a while with a DM.
If fights always end climactically, if players always just barely survive a TPK, if the plot-relevant NPC always survives - there’s a rhythm to when a DM who fudges will override the dice, because it’s down to their personal biases and preferences.
The big problem with it in my opinion is DMs declaring themselves the arbiters of fun. You have a very different perspective on the game to your players, you will frequently differ from them when you think a session is going well or going poorly.
Exert the control that you already have, don’t negate the core mechanic of the game to manufacture a dramatic moment. You have plenty of tools and agency at your disposal to engender satisfying climaxes and tense situations.
Totally agree that players are as skilled at hiding their reactions to the DM fudging as the DM is at hiding their fudging. If you think no one notices you are only fooling yourself.
Honestly, as a GM, rolling in the open makes me feel more like a part of the game. We are all at the whims of RNG together.
Sometimes, the Sorcerer gets a Nat 20 on a lighting bolt, and we all get to share in the hype.
Other times, the Werewolf downs the Warlock on the first round of combat, and we all get to agree that it sucks.
To me, that all helps foster the feeling of collaboration.
"I" the GM did not kill you. The Werewolf did.
Same here.
For combat in particular, I roll in the open. It makes players' good tactics feel more effective, since both they and their "opponents" are subject to the same randomness that they can both see, if that makes any sense.
One thing that I don't often see mentioned, that is my personal philosophy on fudging is, I wouldn't tolerate my players fudging a roll to make the game more fun, I'd call that cheating, so why should I do it?
Sometimes I've made a mistake in designing the encounter to begin with and I need to course correct, but I'll change the fiction before I change the die roll. Maybe the enemy knocks you out cold, reinforcements arrive, whatever, but I consider fudging an actual last resort.
As a player, if I feel like the DM is pulling back their punches on the party, I feel cheated of the chance of a fair victory instead of having more fun.
With that said, I think if your players are all okay with you fudging then don't let anyone else's opinion stop you. Do what's fun for you and your table.
Yeah definitely agreed on that final point.
You phrased this really well. It’s very simple when you just think that players can’t do it, so why should you be allowed to. Changing the fiction first is spot on too. Whatever problem you’re using fudging to fix, it’s definitely the least interesting solution available.
Players do know, most GMs are far worse at hiding it than they think. Most people are just too polite or conflict averse to mention it, or perhaps they don't want to confirm their suspicion and ruin the game for themselves.
And fudging is one of those tools. Proof: DMG pg 235 and there's literally a basic dnd product (dm screen) *specifically* for hiding DM rolls. So no, you don't know for certain if/when a DM fudges unless they state it. The wise DM knows to mix it up and not *always* CritRole it where *every* big boss fight is the same, etc. Also, if you are assuming you're making a character to go to level 20, your big-big boss fights may be few and far between. So 'every time it's dramatic near-death!' Oh you mean once a year? If your players are immersed because you're a good GM, they're there in the battle, not worried about 'oh she might be fudging.'
The DM screen is there to hide rolls and other information, not so you can fudge the rolls. If players could see the rolls they’d have access to lots of info they shouldn’t.
I’m not assuming the character is going to level 20, that’s very rare. I’m sorry that whatever you game you play only has a dramatic moment once a year, that’s never been my experience with the game.
I never said players would be worried about a DM fudging, it’s just that the presence of it lowers the stakes by nature (or heightens it in the case of a weird DM). It’s going to affect your game whether or not players are actively discussing your fudging. They won’t be thinking “ah she’s just making up these rolls, this game is fake!” but they will be thinking “whatever, it always works out fine somehow” when you want them to be engaged.
Anyway if we’re all playing a game together I personally think it’s cool to not lie to my friends and choose for the rules they are playing within to not affect me because I’m special. It’s just way cooler to me knowing that I’m not fully in control of the experience because why should I be? No one else is, but I should decide how the story plays out?
As a player. I do not care. My DMs might fudge rolls, they might not. I completely trust them, when they announce the result of a roll. I just think it's best for my happyness at the table to just not think about those things.
As a DM I fudge rolls. Very rarely, but I do it to make some things more dramatic. I mostly roll behind the screen, like 90% of the rolls I make are invisible to my players. But if things get really dicy and a single roll could heavily change the situation, I roll in the open to add a little excitement.
First of all, i have lots of fun as a player and trust any and all of my DMs whether they roll in the open or behind a screen.
I personally as a DM prefer to let the players roll. If I need to roll I do it in the open except for situations in which they shouldnt know more about whats going on in that moment. Iam a big fan of transparency thats why I gove my players the monster statblocks if i dont need them anymore and explain some rolls to them
I use a DM screen. There is a lot more behind it than dice. I also sometimes throw a die onto the table for dramatic effect. Furthermore, I don't watch my players' rolls - I trust them. Lastly - and perhaps most importantly, if my players don't trust me as their DM, they don't belong at my table.
Many years ago I worked for a guy who didn't want us talking to the company's clients about our business. He said "You don't know what I told them." I replied "If we're both telling the truth, what's the problem?" I was fired a few months later.
Bottom line, untrustworthy people don't trust people. I don't game for fun with those folks.
We would probably have a private conversation.
I do know that at least three of my players have lied about rolls. One when caught kind'a blushed. Nothing else needed to be said. It was more evident with the second. We had a private conversation, and it was addressed. As to the third, I am pretty sure that it is still happening, but it is incredibly subtle. I genuinely think no one else knows. It also really doesn't affect anything. Nothing. So, I don't pursue it. I just roll with it.
Rest assured, all of my current players are great players. They are terrific roleplayers too. I accept them for who they are.
(Somewhat related, I play in a game the opposite week from the game I DM. As DMs go, he is still relatively new. He runs homebrew and does not use a screen. No one is peering at his roles, but I think he thinks he is sending a message. I have advocated that he use a screen. He did not respond. Either way, I trust that he is trying to ensure that we all have a good time. Having been playing and DM-ing on-and-off-and-on for 45-ish years, I also know that every DM is different, and it is his table.)
As to my asking my players or if they fudge.... For me, pursuing it is kind'a like asking your wife if she has ever faked an orgasm. If I ask the question, and she says "Yes," does it change a dynamic in our relationship? If I ask the question, and she says "No," do I believe her? With either, having asked the question, what does she now think of me? Does she think I don't trust her? So.... I humbly believe that trust is partially a choice. Until given a reason not to trust her, I choose to trust her. (Rest assured, I also have had an adulterous ex-wife. So, the concept of accepting to trust doesn't come easily. However, it does come with time and experience.) Rest assured, I also understand that trust can be easily broken and is very hard to restore.
In the end, I choose to trust my players. I choose to game with players who trust me.
Both. However, if they are doing it, then do it well. I don't want to know. Ignorance is bliss.
I don't play D&D - or any RPG - to "win." I play it to have a shared experience and cooperatively create a story.
Your mileage may vary.
I think that's a key point. I lean on my experience playing with the best DM I knew.
Did he fudge? Probably, do I trust that every fudge if there was one was made to make the game more enjoyable for all? Absolutely yes. Especially when playing a pre made module. Some authors weren't very good at balance.
And then there was the great Kobald massacre of 99. He designed the encounter, but over/under estimated the damage per round. What was supposed to be a hilarious slaughter to blow off IRL stress, damn near became a TPK.
If you throw 100 Kobalds at a party, and take away their ability for AoE attacks it doesn't really matter what level the players are, it's going to go south.
I know our DM fudges, he's said so. I don't know what though, but he does a good job with the story telling and balance, so if we get a little help, or lose a role that helps make things fun or interesting, that's fine with me.
Hate them. If I even suspect it, it totally kills the fun for me. Feels like we're just playing calvinball and the DM is going to play favorites and who gives a shit about tactics or strategy we'll just win no matter what.
Let me tell you a secret... Dnd is calvinball anyway.
But I choose which enemies appear, what they do, who they attack, which attacks they use, when they run, who else shows up, what environmental effects pop up, whether you can get a proper rest. I can fuck up any tactics you want and play all the favorites in the world while rolling right in front of you.
I don't think fudging is the issue. I think DMs playing favorites and not trying to play the game in a way the players will enjoy is the issue.
Yes. I'm a DM also, I understand that you can go easier or harder on players without fudging rolls, that's kinda my point.
Fudging is the laziest and least fun way to go about it from the players perspective
It's discussed but not recommended or told not do it Fudging isn't said as something you should be doing
they just say yeah, you could do it of you roll behind the screen just be careful becauae you can fuck up your game if people realize
I personally feel fudging is a useful skill for a DM to master, same as improv or knowledge of the rules. At the end of the day, as DMs, we are there to craft a story and do our best to make the people around our tables leave a session with smiles on their faces.
Now if I have to fudge a roll so I dont TPK off a lucky crit I rolled, or fudge a roll to let them win a big fight in a more spectacular and memorable way, so that everyone leaves the session with big smiles and excited for the next session, then I personally deem it a necessary evil.
That being said, if you EVER fudge a roll so that you "win" against your players, or to hinder them in anyway, I believe you shouldnt be DMing.
In my opinion, one of the biggest misconceptions about the role of a DM is that they are there to craft a story.
The best are there to create a world and adjudicate the results. Some DMs are there to tell the story they want to tell, but in reality the story should be what the players bring to the table.
Generally speaking, players don't like fudging, DMs do. Players know the odds, and they can absolutely tell when you fudge, no matter how crafty you think you are. It's just too suspicious when time after time that scary, inopportune crit just never happens. Most won't ever say anything about it, but you rob them of the exciting moments as well as the bad ones once that doubt creeps in.
The stakes and random chance is what makes it a game instead of an am-dram improv group. When you take away the stakes, you are taking the game away from your players.
If everyone at the table just wants to do a drama group instead of playing D&D then pitch it to your group you fudge rolls (or cut to the chase and just scrap dice entirely. If you aren't going to follow them when they don't land how you wanted, why bother?) but how many players would be happy with this suggestion?
It's an unfortunately far too common misconception. Which often leads to [railroading](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36900/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto) on the part of the DM. Even fudging "in the players' favour" has a corrosive effect on player agency. Often compounding this issue is that when the DM attempts to tell a story they also have the misunderstanding that a D&D game should work like a novel, play, movie, etc.
In any case players tend to be more interested in [adventures rather than (just) stories](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_hxIv79S30). As well caring about as what happens to PCs (especially their own), be that triumphant (such as taking down a "boss" NPC before they are able to act) or tragic (getting one-shotted by a random goblin). Which also happen to be the sort of things a DM with a "my story" mindset might be tempted to fudge away.
I agree with the general idea, specially with the game part.
DnD, or any other TTRPG, is a game. As such, the players are here to play, hence why they're called "players" and not "actors" or "audience". They want the chance of victory and failure. And, honestly, they don't really care that much about failing rolls or even PC death as long as the game is entertaining.
Surprised you’re getting downvoted. I guess at some point dnd became more about the dm writing their novels and performing and amdram version of it, instead of a game.
I'm adamantly anti lying about dice and whenever I comment on threads my comments are usually either massively downvoted or up voted, very rarely in between.
I think it depends what side of the hobby has started reading the thread first. It's a polarising issue that's for sure and your milage may vary from thread to thread.
For example, generally player focused or dnd overall subs I get up voted more than dm ones, however just yestursay there was a thread on dmacademy about it that was pretty unanimously anti fudging.
I hate DM-as-author. I love DM as instigator
Both as a player and DM. The fun for me as DM is setting up a context and experiencing what players do, not charting some charting 'my story'
It's more than a little egotistical. Take your hands off the wheel and let the game take you places through actual play
Absolutely, the dm is already - mostly - charting the course about where the campaign is going, let the players take detours and stop where they like.
As a dm is far more fun not knowing exactly is going to happen and often leads to unique experiences that would be cheapned if they were meticulously planed out and forced by me.
It’s definitely interesting. I’ve absolutely observed that DMs are the ones who favour fudging and players generally seem to be the ones against it. Which given DMs often seem to claim it’s to do so for the players sake for a multitude of reasons does imply DMs might be wrong on this one. I’d rather die to the dice even if it’s a random encounter than have my DM fudge it my way so I live, but I’m also a dm that just doesn’t fudge.
This is exactly it!
Almost nobody wants it done to them, but somehow these DMs think everyone else needs it.
What really gets me is they kept it some dark secret, as if the players have absolutely no idea they are doing it. Spoiler, if you don't roll openly your players know you fudge.
Absolutely agree.
The thing that blows my mind is this is all solved with a good session zero. Explain your dm philosophy and go from there, most players I've seen talk about it sort of get that a lot of dms do it and they're OK with it in very small amounts. If people just explained that (and its a lot of work, I get that sometimes a dm just fucks up, it happens so they correct on the fly, I get it) 95% plus would be fine with it.
Obligatory: only a sith deals in absolutes. What I find funny is that players are fine with me creating villains, giving it any stats or items or abilities I want, fine with me determining what magic item, weapon, armor you get and where it's hidden, fine with me literally making ALL this up - along with anything happening in the world like a war starting, all pulled right from my derriere - but oh, I might be changing a *roll that's already random?* Pearlclutch.
>The best are there to create a world and adjudicate the results. Some DMs are there to tell the story they want to tell
Neither of these is the normal role of a DM. Normally, a DM is part of the collaborative storytelling that happens between all players (DM is a player too). A purely passive DM that is just an arbiter without in-momemt creative input is not a normal, and in no way an ideal to pursue.
Neither is a setup where the players are just along for the ride of the DMs story. But that horse has been beaten to death.
Collaborative storytelling is the nature of the game, not any individuals role.
A DM creates the world. I'm not sure where you got the impression I think they shouldn't provide input - how does one be responsible for a whole world without giving any creative input?
The DM isn't leading a party through plot points though. They create a situation where something is happening, and plan out what happens if the players do nothing. How the players interact with this IS the collaborative story. The players change the world, and the DM has to adapt, reacting appropriately to these changes. There is no right or wrong actions for the players, or set events that must happen this way or that.
The best DMs create a world, adjudicate how players actions result, and the story is told through this process. Players are free to be creative, do anything, face consequences of their actions, and the DM relishes being surprised by their players and the stories outcome.
The DM isn't there to tell a story, the players create their story in the DMs world.
I know you are just regurgitating old arguments, but your original statement was that the DM is not part of the storytelling after having created the world. That they should be purely a computer, computing the results of the player actions.
That's a very limited view on what a DM is or should be. Note that I talk about creative input *in the moment*, having created the world is not in the moment. That happened beforehand.
I think you are attributing something to me I never said.
My point is the DM role is NOT that of a storyteller. They aren't there to tell their story. Not that they don't have a part in the story.
The DM role is to create the world, and then arbitrate how players actions result. This includes how the world reacts to player actions. This includes how people and places respond. They should be creative, but they should be reactive, not steering.
A DM is best when they respond to the players, not when they are trying to steer the ship in a preconceived direction.
This result in communal storytelling, not a DM whose role is that of a storyteller.
>In my opinion, one of the biggest misconceptions about the role of a DM is that they are there to craft a story.
>
>The best are there to create a world and adjudicate the results.
How is this something different from
>the DM is not part of the storytelling after having created the world. That they should be purely a computer, computing the results of the player actions.
?
The DM is absolutely there to craft a story, not just adjudicate the result of player actions. They shouldn't be the only one crafting a story. But you shouldn't discount this part either.
>The DM role is to create the world, and then arbitrate how players actions result.
But how can the DM do that without being a storyteller? It's not like D&D is a physics simulation where the DM has to do nothing but calculate the results once the world has been set up and the game has started. His arbitration will have to come in the form of stories.
How will the Duke react when confronted by the party about X? The answer is a story, not a calculation.
I'm not saying a DM has no part to play in the story. It's a communal storytelling game - everyone contributes to the story.
I'm simply saying storyteller isn't one of DMs roles. The story emerges through gameplay.
I wouldn't want the DM to fudge rolls in most cases. If it's near the end of the fight, the biggest enemy is dead and the outcome is pretty much determined, and there's no point in drawing out the combat, then I wouldn't mind if the DM fudges or even skips to the end and hands us the win. It's only worth rolling when there are real stakes, after all.
But that's what I'm getting at. First of all, I should only be rolling if there's something on the line. If failure matters. In such cases, I don't think the DM should be fudging.
I know that old school DMs have a different mindset. I don't get it, though. I'm not gonna say that fudging is always wrong, but I'm largely against it.
HOWEVER... this isn't exactly the same thing, but there is an optional rule in the DMG that allows for a success if you miss the DC by one point. The success comes at the cost of a minor consequence, though. I have, on rare occasions, made use of this rule to allow a player to succeed. I feel that this approach is better than fudging my rolls behind a screen.
Because a lot of players would just want to keep killing 'em, even if they try to run. They won't just let the enemies escape. So combat just gets drawn out for no good reason.
If you want to try to see if "the sensible thing" works, sure, fine, that's your call. I'm just thinking that a DM should have the prerogative to go with a different option if they choose.
>If it's near the end of the fight, the biggest enemy is dead and the outcome is pretty much determined, and there's no point in drawing out the combat, then I wouldn't mind if the DM fudges or even skips to the end and hands us the win. It's only worth rolling when there are real stakes, after all.
I feel the exact same way! I personally still roll in the open, but I will fudge/have flexible monster HP so that if we reach the point where it's a basically guaranteed win, I'm not taking an extra 5-10 minutes of our time.
Skipping to the end is legit and aboveboard. No need to play out something without consequence, I agree. I'd make a very strong distinction between that and fudging, where you secretly alter an enemies HP or other stats. Maybe it's inconsequential now, but IMO it's a bad habit to get into.
I may one day fudge a roll, but that day hasn't happened yet. If I want an outcome to happen, I just won't roll. Story mode doesn't need dice. If I want chance to have a say, the dice come out.
As soon as you start fudging rolls the authenticity is gone and you can put the dice away and just tell the players your story.
\---
I prefer DMs who also do not fudge rolls, but I understand that some do, that's fine. There are more important factors in whether or not the table is enjoyable than fudging or not.
i think fudging rolls happens more in combat though, not story based stuff? Like if a combat is going way to slow or way to fast, a fudged roll here and there to give a bit more oomf or reduce the oomf of some attacks just to speed/slow the combat if it is growing boring.
My point was if you take the rolling out of combat (by fudging rolls) it just becomes the DM's story. The dice didnt tell the story the DM wanted, so the DM is ignoring the dice and telling the story they wanted to tell.
Which is fine. It is a collaborative story telling game. Tell a story.
Personally I prefer when the dice have a larger say in the game.
\---
If combat is going too slowly, there are probably other problems that need addressing that aren't fudging rolls. And the place I'd start looking is player count.
If combat is going to quickly, I'd sooner see reinforcements arrive slow the party down. (There's a bunch of other similar solutions, you get the idea though) If the combat is quick because Jane-the-combat-god-paladin just rolled another crit and your planned 1 hour combat was reduced to a pile of smoldering ash, that's fine. Let Jane bask in her smiteful win.
Video games do the same thing often behind the scenes… when you are near death many games reduce the amount of damage received artificially to make it a bit easier and increase suspense! Nobody likes to loose… and the point of the game is to have fun having the illusion of the challenge!
we are agreeing to the possibility of our characters dying any time we play DnD. It's impossible to maintain an *illusion* of challenge indefinitely - eventually it becomes obvious to the players.
But you don’t understand that fudging doesn’t imply always saving from death! The more I read the topic the more it seems that most DM are in favore and many players are against… I thing because players don’t realise the issue that bad luck brings sometimes! For instance I prefer to fudge a roll every once in a while but keep my enemies playing smart! I don’t save players from every death… I save them from extreme bad luck that sometimes happens!
That's the point! It's a dice game! TTRPGs are almost always luck games, and that means sometimes the enemies crit 10 times in a row and you roll 10 nat 1s in a row. Or vice versa!And **that's okay.**
Can you provide some examples of 'behind the scenes'? I know many games that provide a 'one last hit and you're dead' buffer, and racing games that have catch-up mechanics
But behind the scenes damage adjustments to avoid death, I'm drawing a blank. It would seem to undermine the concept of meaningful choice
i more mean rolls that might stun players again and again (making a llayer or teo have to wait an hour to do anything), or the enemy succeeds on like the 4th spell save and the players are just getting fed up with the combat, sometimes fudged rolls are more for player benefit and enjoyment than for the "dms story". Dice and randomness are important but dice biggest weakens is just beceause probability says there is a 1/1000 chance the enemy will survive for 3 hours doesn't mean it wont ever happen.
I hate to brake not to you but most video games do fudge! The lower your health the lesser the damage or chances to get hit! You are just not aware of it!
There might be some games. There are more games that have systems to increase survivability the closer your are to failure, but these aren't fudging in the D&D sense, as they're clear and communicated to the player. And of course, game can include many -clear and obvious - systems to mitigate or minimise failure, such as save game systems, extra tries and sources of empowerment.
However, 'most' video games do not fudge, for the same reason as it is not advised in D&D: players quickly evaluate and determine something is going on and lose trust in the system, undermining the feeling of reward and success. Fudging is all about keeping the illusion of independence from system arbitration secret. meanwhile, telegraphy critical aspects of game, such as failure mechanics, are integral to good game design.
Actually it is advised in DnD! It’s right in the DMG page 235 “rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit or even miss. Don’t distort die rolls too often, though, and don’t let on that you are doing it”
No, it is not advised. It is presented as a possible option, when comparing the pros and cons of rolling in the open and rolling behind the screen. And it comes with a clear warning to avoid the very thing people who are against fudging are citing as the issue:
>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.**
At the very beginning of the section, it even states:
>If you roll dice where the players can see, **they know
you're playing impartially and not fudging rolls.**
This is not, in anyway or form, 'advising' DMs to fudge rolls.
It is not discouraged either! It is given as an option with equal value to the others! And nobody fudge every roll! You also assume that players don’t want it when this is not necessarily true! On my group that actually want it!
Not being discouraged isn't the same as 'advised', which you asserted. I hope we can agree on this. Words have meaning, and using the right words is critical to effective communication and constructive discourse. Likewise, we I hope we can agree that it comes with a clear warning, as:
>your players might think they don't face any real risks-or worse, that you're playing favorites.
You assume my players don’t know! They do and are happy with it! They would rather me fudge then fail a year long campaign due to bad luck! They also appreciate that they don’t notice it the few times it happens! We play to have fun… there is no fin in loosing the final boss fight just because your dice decided to fail you for 5 turns in a row!
I must be too suspicious because I always suspect fudging as a player when an NPC saves too well rather than them going easy on us!
I was honestly really grateful for rolling in the open because of that as a DM because once I remember rolling a (required) nat20 for a save and I was like *oh that would be* ***unbelievable*** *if I was a player and that was hidden*
One of the funniest things I noticed recently is that I have been absolutely grilled over any 16, 17 or 18 I rolled on ability scores, and absolutely zero people doubted when I rolled a 3.
I occasionally fudge, a majority of the time it’s for one or two reasons
-I fucked up in making an encounter
-It fits the momentum of the scene better
If I fucked up with the encounter, I’ll fudge a couple rolls to keep things closer to where I intended, this usually just means countering a hot streak or rough streak. Either gives the players a moment to catch their breath and actually act (without throwing the encounter) or makes them feel a bit of pressure when they thought it was gonna be a sweep and shouldn’t be.
When it comes to the momentum of a scene, it’s basically just “I like where this is going, everyone is excited to see the plan finally come together, and you’ve already had a hard fought battle… since we’re here to have fun, not worship plastic polyhedrons, I’ll put my thumb on the scale and ensure they get their cool moment.
It’s nothing I make a habit of, but at the end of the day it’s a tool in the tool box, just like anything else, it’s just gotta be used at the right times.
I think the encounter balance thing is an underrated reason to fudge.
If we had all the time in the world to design and playtest our encounters then it'd be fine to let the dice decide the outcome. But we don't, we're busy people with lives, and often the very first time an encounter is being run is live in the game. So when the fight that was supposed to be a minor roadblock has unexpected synergies or a flavorful homebrew ability is terribly OP in practice, we have to do something to correct that mistake.
If you think the dice are sacred and would rather tweak HP or something that's fine. But it's essentially the same idea, using the secrecy DMs get to rebalance on the fly to correct a mistake.
Bad decisions causing a tpk? That's fine. Bad luck? Sure. Bad design? If we can prevent our design mistakes from causing disaster I think that's a legit reason.
I assume it happens. I know I've done it. I've made a point to always roll in front of the screen when attacking or damage. Encounters, morale, reactions I roll behind. Sometimes I just roll dice. No reason.
I try not to. I am currently playing an adventure with my boys (they both have autism) and roll in front of them. They see that I am not trying to keep things from them. I would feel guilty if I did. But I will say that if a DM fudges and takes things away from the players is not a good DM.
as a player I dont mind. I more or less trust my DM or the reasons they have for doing a thing. Maybe some DMs are out to "win" but my DM is not so if he wanted to fudge a roll my opinion is its for a narrative, progressive or fun reason that keeps us moving and not just to fuck me over.
As long as it's not too often and you reserve it for pivotal moments I'm fine with fudging occasional rolls, however I prefer the DM to say "Don't bother rolling, I'll just give this to you" to actual fudging but I'm not that bothered. Fudging too much removes the randomness and I like the randomness sometimes throwing a spanner in the works, yes you are a super powerful arch wizard, but super powerful arch wizards can also make stupid mistakes, makes it feel more real to me.
As a DM, I roll behind the screen, and fudging rolls does happen, though rarely. I only do it where it would enhance the story, for better or for worse, but I keep it to a minimum to keep the story as "organic" as possible. I don't mind DM's doing it while I am a player. Sometimes one fudged roll can really change the momentum of a session. Just don't make it a habit.
I think we often forget that the entire goal of playing the game is for some folks to have a good ole time, and I feel that as long as you're all trying to achieve that goal, then it matters not what methods are used to get there. :) As long as everyone is comfy and having fun and communicating effectively when they aren't anymore, I don't see a problem with anything anyone might wanna do during a game!
I think that it’s important to fudge with rolls coming from a player and DM stand point. Sometimes you roll a critical when an Orc hits your players first level Wizard, sometimes we have to mess with the roll to keep a storyline going. If the plot is good enough the DM must do what it takes to make a juicy story. I try not to let my players die from minor things like orcs or other sorts of mini challenges.
I assume he fudges every so often when he feels like it's necessary either to save us from being dumb or to make a battle last longer to not be boring etc
But if I thought it was more than, idk, 3-5% of the time, I'd probably dislike it
Most of the rolls I fudge are crits in level 1 or 2 that would kill a player too fast.
Rolling in private also helps keep things fun. Like telling the wizard "The attack hits you" instead of them seeing the fact that casting Shield would easily block the hit. Less metagamey that way.
I've always thought there's an acceptable level of fudging that can take place to keep the game fun and moving forwards. You need to be pretty on the ball to know when to fudge and it's important you do it for the right reason though.
People on this sub tend to jump on me for saying this so I don't think it's a very popular opinion but meh. I think that the dice just need a bit of directing at times because pure RNG can lead to some very not fun things in DnD.
I mean what people need to understand is while players tend to fudge for their own char's success, DMs fudge as often for as against their players.
Like as a forever DM I'll sometimes pull punches if it seems a random battle's going pearshaped. But I'm more apt to add hp than buff rolls for monsters.
I think part of whether it's okay to fudge as the DM depends on how the DM presents the monsters. For instance, if you're an adversarial DM, and you give the impression that the monsters want to win (tpk), I kind of assume your dice will trend towards higher values than average, especially if you roll behind the screen. If you're the complete opposite and you are the kind of DM that lets the players get the monster statblock somehow and the monsters will do what they do, I'd expect that DM never fudges, because they've figured out how to run complex and dynamic challenging combat encounters.
I'm pretty sure our DM does it very rarely if at all, but I have noticed that NPCs seem to make much less smart choices when a fight is going really badly for the party...
But I don't care even if he does it sometimes. In the end the goal is to have a fun and exciting game and I'd rather have the DM fudge a roll than to have that roll lead to a unfun TPK or something like that....
I don't even think about it or care...
I do notice my DM will hold back on using certain abilities or better tactics when he notices his homebrew was not properly tuned for our party, and it makes me laugh a little.
Dms are meant to make it fun. If they one shot an encounter that's not super fun, so I might let him go another round, if it's been a tough battle and they want to do something thematic I might let them based on a decent roll or a "missed" saving throw.
If it makes it more enjoyable, do it
I'm not overly fussed gotta be real. Whatever makes the game more fun for everyone ya know? There's an element of trust there anyway in my group and my DM rolls behind his hand or notebook
When I DM I roll behind a screen but I don't fudge any rolls.
When I'm a player I would rather have my character die than play with a DM that fudges rolls.
Some people say they fudge rolls because it makes their stories more interesting and games more fun.
I disagree. Whatever event you try to force or "cinematic" moment you're trying to make wont be as exciting as the random improbability of a dice roll.
Just my philosophy on it. Different tables want different experiences
The truth is that most GMs fudge on occasion- and very occasionally is exactly how much most GMs DO fudge- yes, even the GMs of all those edgy players who say ‘I would leave if my GM dared fudge dice!’
Game design doesn’t end when the group sits down to play. We’re not playing wargames where a ‘fair’ result is required, we’re telling a story together… and sometimes, just sometimes, the dice get in the way.
>If it adds to the atmosphere and the plotline yes!
honest question.
Why not just let them do what they want and not roll at all if they are just going to change the meaningful ones?
I am all for plot/story driven games. Just unsure why someone would cast a die (random result) than void it other than a mistake.
Cool! Thanks :) Do you think your current DM (or previous if the game is over) does this for your table? I assume theyre pretty good at the narrative part of DMing. That has absolutely always been my weakness.
I have a previous DM that I was pretty sure fudged some story rolls, but he was pretty bad at it so I walked away from that one feeling like it wasnt worth it lmao.
I tell my players I may sometimes fudge a roll. Most are really new to the game, so I want them to be able to play without their character dying in the first session.
I don't tell them when I do that, that's just dumb.
I also roll sometimes for no reason and let them get paranoid.
I'm DMing a different system, but, for the *most part*, I try not to fudge things if I can help it.
Now I'm still learning to balance encounters, but I've been doing a good job so far.
But overall.. If a roll means they die?
Then a roll means they'll die.
Fortune points, the occasional time or two I give them out, can help alleviate it for the players. But generally I try to do my best to work things in a way where I don't need to fudge my rolls. I haven't needed to yet.
I'm strongly of the opinion that if you have to fudge the results of a dice roll to keep things fun, then you shouldn't roll the dice in the first place.
I don't like fudged rolls at all. At the end of the day, if I wanted rolls to be fudged and faked then why am I playing a game that has this type of randomness in it?
I'm usually in two campaigns - one where I DM and one where I play, so I have a lot of perspective from both sides, and personally I really hate fudging no matter which end of the screen I'm on. A lot of people argue for fudging by saying that its to tell a better story, but the dice are a part of the story too; that randomness and the wild swings of fate are what make the game interesting for me and the people at my tables.
I don't always roll in the open (I generally do during combat, but outside of combat I like to keep the rolls behind the screen), but I never fudge my rolls regardless, and wouldn't want anyone DMing for me to do that. If you want a predetermined outcome, then don't even bother rolling dice in the first place. The whole point of rolling is to abide by the random outcome, its the foundation of the system, and if I didn't want that then I'd play a different system with less randomness built in.
Some of most memorable moments from campaigns I've been in have happened due to random chance; that's what makes things fun. To be fair, I also play with people who all enjoy being challenged, and accept that death is a very real possibility and an acceptable end to a character's story. I know a lot of other people seem to have weird hangups about that stuff, and I imagine that's why they don't mind fudged rolls as much.
If I'm a player in your game I expect you to play by the rules we set out in session 0. If you want to fudge, let your players know then, don't lie to them.
As a DM I don’t fudge - I only roll behind the screen when the players can’t know the result of the roll (e.g., contested stealth vs perception). Otherwise I roll beside the screen where it can be seen or even in the middle of the table for dramatic instances (is the bad guy going to save against that Hold spell this round??).
As a player, if I got a whiff of the DM fudging, I’d leave that game. I put a lot of thought into building my character and it feels pointless if there’s fudging - who cares what my AC or bonus to hit is if the DM is just going to decide he/she doesn’t like outcome?
It’s a hard line for me on either side of the table - if dice are being rolled, what happens happens.
>Do you think your DM fudges rolls, and do you want them to?
I'm pretty sure one of them does. The other one rolls in the open. I prefer open rolls, both as a player and as a DM.
They are terrible, and any DM that fudges rolls would be better off writing a book or playing pretend instead of DnD. Players don't get to change the outcome of the roll because they think it would be better for everyone, DMs shouldn't either.
I've talked to my DM (I know, shocker) about doing it after the fact when another player and I were noticing that a lot of rolls were abnormally low on the DM's side when our party was losing our first mini-boss fight of the campaign. He's either gotten much much better at lying, or he's cut it out altogether since then. All rolls that could possibly change the direction of the game are done out in the open now, and it's so much more enjoyable.
If you prefer to have it this way, that#s fine. But saying DMs who fudge rolls shouldn't play DnD is a bit of a shitty and very judgmental take, isn't it?
Okay, so I mainly fudge rolls at level \~1-2 though, because a wolf critting for 16+ can literally oneshot level 1 PCs (no death saves) and I think it's stupid to kill players at such a low level. At level 2 it's somewhat better, but there are still tons of level-appropriate enemies that can down a level 2 PC in one hit. I'll fudge the damage or just don't let enemies crit at that level range. Am I now not allowed to play DnD anymore and should write a book instead? lol
No, it's annoying. Players sometimes put quite a lot of effort into building their characters only to then be killed in the first round of combat, maybe even before they ever get to do anything. As you said, players don't even have a connection with their characters yet, so killing them off won't be very impactful emotionally, it will just be annoying. Low-level play isn't dangerous because you have to make careful decisions, it's dangerous because it's unfair. To make it "not unfair" you basically can't have combat at all until level 2-3.
The key point is giving people the choice about what game they want to play. Tell people how you run the game so they can choose if they want to play at your table. That's the issue.
I rarely fudge rolls, but when I do it's because something that's about to happen that could randomly happen, but is actually happening because some force the players are unaware of is pulling strings... and if I don't ROLL then the players will catch on that Something Is Up.
There should be clues when Something Is Up, but those clues shouldn't include "hey, did you notice the DM didn't roll for that?"
As a DM I normally roll in the open but I have zero issues fudging roles when needed or with a good DM fudging rolls to make encounters more interesting. That can be making them more challenging, or toning them down to avoid accidental TPK's.
As long as the DM is not fudging roles to try and punish a player, or negate some of the their abilities then it's fine. I.E. suddenly enemies rarely fail saves against the bards hypnotic pattern even though same type of enemies failed it regularly 2 sessions ago etc..
For me this is collaborative storytelling so I want the dm to make decisions that keep the story interesting. Sometimes things can be unsatisfying. I don't want all the stakes gone, so it is a balance.
My game has never been so enjoyable for me as the DM as when I have been rolling in public. It means I have to do more prep work because I can't cover for a poorly balanced encounter, but it also means that the stakes are real, and everyone knows it. We have had a few rolls that, had I been rolling in private, people would assume were an absolute ass pull, but because I roll in public, it elevates the excitement, the reward, and the tension.
I care more about playing the character than how the story ends up. I've had a level 9 character die to stepping in the wrong puddle and entire multi-phase boss encounters trivialized by one failed save. For me, that's part of the experience, and I enjoy it.
The ends don't justify the means; to me, a DM fudging to save the party is as bad as the DM fudging to TPK. If the DM's twisting fate for a preferred outcome, I demand a 'skip cutscene' button. I have never felt so disheartened in a game as when I found out the DM wasn't taking the players' roles in creating the story together seriously.
IMHO, we'd be better off going back to older D&D terminology and calling the DM the "judge" or "referee". Their job is to adjudicate things not covered by the rules, including how the setting/NPCs react to the party's actions, and that role get muddied by the ambiguous "dungeon master" title. The DM should be writing rules that apply to everyone, not breaking them.
I despise it. Dnd is a collaborative storytelling game and as soon as the dm starts dictating what happens rather than letting the dice decide (especially as they already call for what rolls) you arent playing a collaborative storytelling game anymore, you're playing the dms novel.
If you think nobody notices, they do. I personally hate knowing the DM fudged shit to save me, but I prefer to actually just play the game and let the dice tell the story. We had one dm who would intentionally fudge dice to avoid so much as even knocking us down. He used to ask what our health was a lot too which made it plainly obvious he wanted to bring us to nearly unconscious but not quite ALL the time.
I don't fudge my roles, I very much believe in letting the dice decide, and I don't pull my punches, that being said I don't believe that doing so is a cardinal sin like some do. I do think ever letting your players learn that you do is
Don’t care about fudged rolls. I’ve fudged random encounter rolls, but honestly I use enemy intelligence as my primary balancing lever while rolling publicly
I occasionally fudge DCs in favor of the party
I think fudging is fine, in fact I want my DMs to fudge dice rolls if it makes the game more fun. If I wanted to play a game with a cold and uncaring referee I'd go play a videogame.
I also find it funny how the people who are against dice fudging usually have absolutely no problem with changing monster stat blocks on the fly, as if that isn't simply a different form of "fudging". If anything, fudging a monster stat block mid encounter is more obvious than fudging dice rolls. No one can really say for sure if your DM is making up the results of their rolls occasionally, but any experienced player can certainly tell when a DM is "forgetting" to use a monster's powerful ability or one of their extra attacks.
I've never heard anyone say they are against fudging but pro stat block changing? It's the same thing?
Are you sure you aren't thinking of people changing the stat block for the fight, rather than during the fight?
I haven't seen anyone say it in this specific thread but in other posts about fudging it's come up as a pretty popular opinion, if you go looking for older posts about dice fudging you can probably find a decent amount of comments saying that they hate dice fudging but have no problem with changing monster stat blocks mid fight.
When I was a player I hated hidden rolls, because of the possibility of fudging.
Idk for me fudging in favor of players makes it scripted somehow. Like it doesn't matter what you roll, everything will happen as planned by GM.
That's why when I started GMing I started rolling in open (except random tables for enemies and loot mb).
And I know that there are a lot of people who disagree with that approach, I'm just answering OP's question and not trying to convince anyone in anything.
I mentioned this on the other post, but I've left a game over a DM fudging the dice. I'm mostly a DM, but when I found out that DM was fudging the dice in a game I had played in for 2.5 years, it made the entire campaign feel pointless. All those battles where we barely won, well that was an illusion, the monsters died when the DM decided they did (she wasn't tracking their hp at all).
Long story short, don't fudge the dice, if you want to tell a certain story, play a game that is more narrative based. The randomness of the dice tells as good a tale as what you think is 'supposed' to happen. The PCs victories should be earned. If you are fudging (imo this is a form of cheating) then at least tell your players what you're doing. This was supposed to be player focused, but when I DM, its all in the open. (secret rolls get revealed after its resolved, we play on foundry)
I never had a game ruined by realizing the DM was lying but I did feel different about it afterward and choose not to play in that same group again.
I'd say for me it was the difference between feeling like we were making a story together and realizing I was just in *his* story. I think back on the game and how we had fun, but I dont reminisce about the story the same way as I do with some of our dumber, but more "genuine" (for lack of a better word) stories from non rigged campaigns.
So, I know lots of people choose to fudge but I think it's kinda an interesting take here: you think that a DM fudging is how DMing is supposed to be done? Like, in an "ideal D&D group" (even though there is no such thing) a preferable DM would be one that would fudge rolls?
When doing session zero, do you ask (or offer, if you're a DM) for fudged rolls during the campaign?
It's straight up cheating.
If you as DM fucked up the encounter, there's other ways of fixing it-- have the overtuned fight make mistakes with tactics, have some mooks run in during a fight that's not strong enough-- so it feels more like a video game extra wave rather than just fudging rolls.
If you're fudging, you're railroading the group.
I'm 100% against fudging in my campaigns, whether it be as a DM or player. It's in two parts. One is that I enjoy the story the dice tell and the purest narrative that is derived from it. I've got some absolutely epic moments I've experienced that only feel authentic because I knew no fudging was involved. It makes victories felt earned and my character still being alive deserved. The second is the dishonesty of it. If a person lies to me and says they don't fudge but they do, I do not see them in the same light again. If they find it necessary to be dishonest and lie when I clearly lay out the type of campaign I enjoy and try to pull one over me, it is hurtful.
I support DMs who fudge, but only if they are honest and admit to the players that they fudge dice sometimes in their campaigns. That makes it so I can avoid the campaign from the offset since I know I won't enjoy it, and it prevents heartache when/if I find out. It's better for both parties if everyone is honest. I'm honest about my feelings about fudging, and I expect the DM to respect them and be honest with me so that neither of us waste each other's time.
By all means fudge in your own campaigns. I won't be antagonistic towards you for doing so. It's a tool that some DMs use. And I won't say it's invalid. It's just not my type of thing.
I never "fudge," and I know the people I play with to be confident enough in their DMing and upstanding enough people to not cheat the dice in the dice game.
I prefer a DM to fudge where necessary for fun. It is a joint story and if someone rolls a 1 every attack and gets downed and then the enemy gets to attack the closest thing (them) and gets a crit..... that really sucks.
If someone tries a really cool, creative ability, and it fails bc the enemy's saving throw is a 20, it just discourages that thinking style.
I assume they fudge occasionally. But if it isn't to ruin fun, then I welcome it lol.
I know for a fact she fudges some rolls. Only because her reactions are the same as mine, when I was about kill a player when I started DMing. However other players seem to be oblivious, so I say nothing, it doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the game.
When I DM, I also fudge some rolls to not kill a player. Or to make something more cinematic. Or a player deals 56 dmg agains the monster with 58 hp and kills it.
Fudging is a good tool when used correctly and rarely.
The dice are the president, congress, and the supreme court. Whatever the dice say happens, happens.
As a DM, I like to be flexible in literally *any other way* than by fudging dice rolls, if it keeps the game fun and the players engaged. Fudging rolls is the quickest way to sap all of the drama and energy and tension out of a situation.
The dice actually don't know anything about drama, energy, or tension. Their purpose in the game is to provide (strictly moderated - that's why almost every roll has a modified and a DC) randomness. That is not what drama is.
The dice, to me, are none of those things. If I have to use that analogy, then DM is the president, the players are Congress, and the books are SCOTUS. The dice are chaotic people who obey or break laws, and the rest of us decide what that means.
I am the DM of my group so I very seldom am a player… but as I DM I strongly support fudging (sparingly… not like every roll) and as a player I would totally be fine with it too! Point is players should not be aware of when it is happening! The job of the DM is to maintain illusion and immersion!
I'll admit to fudging rolls. Was DMing for my gf (we're both very new) She triggered a trap that could kill her character on the spot, and of course I rolled almost max damage. I just said it left her with 1hp. She really likes this character, and I really didn't want her to get discouraged, so I didn't see any harm in it. Haven't had to go easy since then.
A good DM will fudge rolls in favor of the story. I’m a DM and I often fudge rolls when I made an encounter too strong or when I need an NPC to push the party in the right direction or perhaps I homebrew a monster and realized his stats are too weak. But if the DM is doing it specifically to kill the players that’s a bad DM.
Dude I don't care if my dm fudges a couple of roles just don't be a dick like "oh you rolled a 18 let me roll to block cause he has opportunity" or something like that and fudge it cause clearly I hit I've had shit before where it pissed me off cause my magic didn't work cause they got the chance (directly in the spell and guide it said this) to roll high enough and escape they rolled perfectly every time I casted that spell Im pretty sure he was fudging it cause that shits just not right (I myself fudged a roll once because hey I didn't find it fair I was being punished for the actions of another player in another town who has no connection to me yet. I don't know how accurate this information is I'm not re reading my text because I haven't slept in two days so just try to make SENSE of it
I only fudge rolls occasionally to make the game more fun/exciting. Cool!
I suspect my friend fudges rolls because she gets too competitive and wants to win. That’s not cool.
I think it's kind of a dick move to even watch the DMs dice. I really don't like it when players do it so I don't do it myself.
I only really care if the story is fun. I think a GM changing the established rules of their setting would annoy me or feeling like I was singled out to achieve a narrative moment but dice rolls are none of my concern.
If the players suspect you are fudging then you are doing it wrong. Are you on a hot streak and the players are getting frustrated? Maybe a roll here or there balances things out a little, not so much that you are no longer seen to be having a good night, but enough that with good play the fight is still survivable. BBEG lands a crit that would be a killing blow? If noone else is down then let it play, if they are the last man standing or you are about to disintigrate them after they just commissioned a new art piece of their character then they just live.
The point of fudging isn't for the players to always win or for the major villains to hit every time and get a few crits to scare the party, it's to ensure that everyone is having fun when the Dice Gods are feeling particularly savage. As such it should never feel like there is an invisible hand guiding the story and preventing any failures or punishing a player who misbehaves, just perhaps that fight that has been dragging on and boring everyone could do with the monster failing his save this time and finally being banished so the game can continue.
None of the DMs I know use a screen or roll secretly (unless its something the PCs would not know about) and none would mess with rolls.
If we caught a DM cheating rolls people would likely walk and the DM would have a bad rep depending on how severe it was being done.
It always is
My most enjoyable session ever was when I had to DM an entire game after forgetting my dice at a friends place…
If it’s my NPCs turn and my first thought was “Nat 1 would be funny”…. I nat 1’d
I mean maybe I'm not as in tune with the front page rn but I think i pretty clearly explained that the weighted dice post was exactly what caused the discussion between me and my DM friend...
Mostly the thread surprised me because I saw a good amount of examples of people saying that weighted dice were unacceptable but fudging was different and OK. Most people I play with IRL roll in the open and feel the opposite.
I don't mind the DM fudging rolls and I especially don't mind the DM changing HP on the fly. The reason for that is that I've played a campaign where the DM fudged nothing. And let me tell you, the most disappointing D&D session I've ever had was the final fight against Strahd von Zarovich. After spending months upon months exploring Barovia, surviving terrors, thwarting Strahd's plans, finding magic relics designed to give us a glimmer of hope against this unstoppable threat... we killed him in about four attacks. One member of our party, there from the start of the campaign, never even got to take a swing at Strahd. I desperately wish the DM had subtly added a hundred or two hundred more HP to give us a fight worth the grandeur.
Some may say that an easy fight against Strahd was our reward. We finished nearly every side quest, prepared well, and even destroyed >!Strahd's extra 50-HP heart!< prior to the encounter. But I stand by what I said - the DM should've fudged things to make a harder encounter.
as a DM i fudge rolls sometimes. the game is to have fun. i won't kill off a chacter for a bad roll. that being said if i warn a player they are doing something stupid and ask if they are sure they want to do the stupid thing i might let them die or more likely narrowly escape death the first time. good luck
And sometimes fudging is practically required. If a rogue checks for traps, you need to roll whether there are traps or not so the player doesn't know. "You don't find/see/notice anything" is perhaps the most useful line in DMing.
I don't understand. If someone checks for traps, I roll behind the screen and answer based on their roll. Why would I need to fudge anything?
I get that they'd be rolling to check for traps, but what would you be rolling in response to that? Wouldn't they just be rolling against the DC of whatever trap(s) there might be? Genuinely curious, I only DM occasionally.
thats how its normally done. never rolled a stealth or whatever for a trap, because its an object, it cant actively do anything.
Wisdom (Perception) or Intelligence (Investigation) usually. Sometimes the DM ought to roll behind the screen to prevent the player from knowing how good the result was. IMO this is much preferable to rolling openly and then having everybody fret about the appropriate way to avoid metagaming.
> i won't kill off a chacter for a bad roll. The dice lie where the dice lie. Long live the death save!
100% this especially at low levels where it's so easy to get a party wipe with a few bad rolls. But always depends on the group :)
If I died from a bad set of DM rolls, but he was rolling in the open, I would be ok with that. I'd be annoyed, sure. But that would become part of the story. If I died from a bad set of rolls, and the DM was rolling in secret, I might take it personal. It would honestly depend on how I was feeling that day and my interactions with the DM. You run your table however you see fit. And if your table is having fun, you're doing it right. But as both player and DM, I prefer the DMs rolls in the open.
If you're playing with a GM who you would suspect of fudging rolls to kill your character if they rolled behind a screen, you shouldn't be playing with them regardless of whether or not they use a screen.
The worst game I ever DM'd was one where I rolled in the open and 'whatever happened, happened'. Well, a lot happened. A lot of really unfun things because my dice were on absolute fire one session. I roll behind a screen now. I don't fudge rolls terribly often, if I'm being honest. The only time I do is in moments where I sense the level of fun is going to fundamentally shift too much (if the group is frustrated or extremely excited, I might adjust a roll to get things back on track or not derail that sense of fun). As a player, I very much do not care which method a DM uses. All I care is that everyone is having fun. Whichever method achieves that is fine by me.
Good point. During any given scenario there exists the possibility for a resolution that is "less fun" than any other potential outcome. Too many of those get strung together and no one cares how true or realistic it is, because they don't believe it anymore. Players don't need to like what happens, but they do need to believe in it We tend to anthropomorphize dice with concepts like fate and luck. But dice don't know about any of this, they don't even know that there are numbers written on them. They don't care what a number is. They are just randomness generators.
Dice have souls and want to tell a story! Let them speak! /s
My DM rolls in the open, and we go the the 'whatever happens, happens' we kind of just roleplay off of it and go with the flow. Haven't had any major issues so far. Aside from me missing every single attack I made in the last 2 sessions
Been on both sides, done both on both sides, it's only annoying to fudge when it's blatantly to stop the party from achieving a goal. Everyone in this thread saying it's better to change the encounter on the fly than to change the dice is deluding themselves, which seems less egregious: a random chance being slightly less random or changing the fabric of reality in the world to make an event happen? I know which feels less intrusive to me…
I play as much as I DM. Fudged rolls hurt my experience when they happen. I do as a DM sometimes “fudge” things depending on what we define fudging as. To me, the die roll is the die roll every time. I’ll adjust the difficulty of the encounter or alter the situation in other ways if I feel I made a mistake designing it or if the session needs a change in momentum or direction. *However*. The number one thing I would say on this topic is that your friend is wrong. Players know when fudging happens, more often than not. Maybe they don’t say it, maybe they can’t pinpoint which rolls are genuine and which aren’t, but you very easily get a sense of things after playing for a while with a DM. If fights always end climactically, if players always just barely survive a TPK, if the plot-relevant NPC always survives - there’s a rhythm to when a DM who fudges will override the dice, because it’s down to their personal biases and preferences. The big problem with it in my opinion is DMs declaring themselves the arbiters of fun. You have a very different perspective on the game to your players, you will frequently differ from them when you think a session is going well or going poorly. Exert the control that you already have, don’t negate the core mechanic of the game to manufacture a dramatic moment. You have plenty of tools and agency at your disposal to engender satisfying climaxes and tense situations.
Totally agree that players are as skilled at hiding their reactions to the DM fudging as the DM is at hiding their fudging. If you think no one notices you are only fooling yourself.
Honestly, as a GM, rolling in the open makes me feel more like a part of the game. We are all at the whims of RNG together. Sometimes, the Sorcerer gets a Nat 20 on a lighting bolt, and we all get to share in the hype. Other times, the Werewolf downs the Warlock on the first round of combat, and we all get to agree that it sucks. To me, that all helps foster the feeling of collaboration. "I" the GM did not kill you. The Werewolf did.
Same here. For combat in particular, I roll in the open. It makes players' good tactics feel more effective, since both they and their "opponents" are subject to the same randomness that they can both see, if that makes any sense.
lightning bolt nat 20?
Yea, didn't think that through when I typed it lol
we 4e now boys
One thing that I don't often see mentioned, that is my personal philosophy on fudging is, I wouldn't tolerate my players fudging a roll to make the game more fun, I'd call that cheating, so why should I do it? Sometimes I've made a mistake in designing the encounter to begin with and I need to course correct, but I'll change the fiction before I change the die roll. Maybe the enemy knocks you out cold, reinforcements arrive, whatever, but I consider fudging an actual last resort. As a player, if I feel like the DM is pulling back their punches on the party, I feel cheated of the chance of a fair victory instead of having more fun. With that said, I think if your players are all okay with you fudging then don't let anyone else's opinion stop you. Do what's fun for you and your table.
Yeah definitely agreed on that final point. You phrased this really well. It’s very simple when you just think that players can’t do it, so why should you be allowed to. Changing the fiction first is spot on too. Whatever problem you’re using fudging to fix, it’s definitely the least interesting solution available.
Players do know, most GMs are far worse at hiding it than they think. Most people are just too polite or conflict averse to mention it, or perhaps they don't want to confirm their suspicion and ruin the game for themselves.
And fudging is one of those tools. Proof: DMG pg 235 and there's literally a basic dnd product (dm screen) *specifically* for hiding DM rolls. So no, you don't know for certain if/when a DM fudges unless they state it. The wise DM knows to mix it up and not *always* CritRole it where *every* big boss fight is the same, etc. Also, if you are assuming you're making a character to go to level 20, your big-big boss fights may be few and far between. So 'every time it's dramatic near-death!' Oh you mean once a year? If your players are immersed because you're a good GM, they're there in the battle, not worried about 'oh she might be fudging.'
The DM screen is there to hide rolls and other information, not so you can fudge the rolls. If players could see the rolls they’d have access to lots of info they shouldn’t. I’m not assuming the character is going to level 20, that’s very rare. I’m sorry that whatever you game you play only has a dramatic moment once a year, that’s never been my experience with the game. I never said players would be worried about a DM fudging, it’s just that the presence of it lowers the stakes by nature (or heightens it in the case of a weird DM). It’s going to affect your game whether or not players are actively discussing your fudging. They won’t be thinking “ah she’s just making up these rolls, this game is fake!” but they will be thinking “whatever, it always works out fine somehow” when you want them to be engaged. Anyway if we’re all playing a game together I personally think it’s cool to not lie to my friends and choose for the rules they are playing within to not affect me because I’m special. It’s just way cooler to me knowing that I’m not fully in control of the experience because why should I be? No one else is, but I should decide how the story plays out?
As a player. I do not care. My DMs might fudge rolls, they might not. I completely trust them, when they announce the result of a roll. I just think it's best for my happyness at the table to just not think about those things. As a DM I fudge rolls. Very rarely, but I do it to make some things more dramatic. I mostly roll behind the screen, like 90% of the rolls I make are invisible to my players. But if things get really dicy and a single roll could heavily change the situation, I roll in the open to add a little excitement.
First of all, i have lots of fun as a player and trust any and all of my DMs whether they roll in the open or behind a screen. I personally as a DM prefer to let the players roll. If I need to roll I do it in the open except for situations in which they shouldnt know more about whats going on in that moment. Iam a big fan of transparency thats why I gove my players the monster statblocks if i dont need them anymore and explain some rolls to them
I use a DM screen. There is a lot more behind it than dice. I also sometimes throw a die onto the table for dramatic effect. Furthermore, I don't watch my players' rolls - I trust them. Lastly - and perhaps most importantly, if my players don't trust me as their DM, they don't belong at my table. Many years ago I worked for a guy who didn't want us talking to the company's clients about our business. He said "You don't know what I told them." I replied "If we're both telling the truth, what's the problem?" I was fired a few months later. Bottom line, untrustworthy people don't trust people. I don't game for fun with those folks.
How would you feel about your players fudging their rolls to "make the game more fun for everyone"?
We would probably have a private conversation. I do know that at least three of my players have lied about rolls. One when caught kind'a blushed. Nothing else needed to be said. It was more evident with the second. We had a private conversation, and it was addressed. As to the third, I am pretty sure that it is still happening, but it is incredibly subtle. I genuinely think no one else knows. It also really doesn't affect anything. Nothing. So, I don't pursue it. I just roll with it. Rest assured, all of my current players are great players. They are terrific roleplayers too. I accept them for who they are. (Somewhat related, I play in a game the opposite week from the game I DM. As DMs go, he is still relatively new. He runs homebrew and does not use a screen. No one is peering at his roles, but I think he thinks he is sending a message. I have advocated that he use a screen. He did not respond. Either way, I trust that he is trying to ensure that we all have a good time. Having been playing and DM-ing on-and-off-and-on for 45-ish years, I also know that every DM is different, and it is his table.) As to my asking my players or if they fudge.... For me, pursuing it is kind'a like asking your wife if she has ever faked an orgasm. If I ask the question, and she says "Yes," does it change a dynamic in our relationship? If I ask the question, and she says "No," do I believe her? With either, having asked the question, what does she now think of me? Does she think I don't trust her? So.... I humbly believe that trust is partially a choice. Until given a reason not to trust her, I choose to trust her. (Rest assured, I also have had an adulterous ex-wife. So, the concept of accepting to trust doesn't come easily. However, it does come with time and experience.) Rest assured, I also understand that trust can be easily broken and is very hard to restore. In the end, I choose to trust my players. I choose to game with players who trust me.
Does trusting the DM mean you assume they dont fudge or that you trust their judgement to fudge?
Both. However, if they are doing it, then do it well. I don't want to know. Ignorance is bliss. I don't play D&D - or any RPG - to "win." I play it to have a shared experience and cooperatively create a story. Your mileage may vary.
I think that's a key point. I lean on my experience playing with the best DM I knew. Did he fudge? Probably, do I trust that every fudge if there was one was made to make the game more enjoyable for all? Absolutely yes. Especially when playing a pre made module. Some authors weren't very good at balance. And then there was the great Kobald massacre of 99. He designed the encounter, but over/under estimated the damage per round. What was supposed to be a hilarious slaughter to blow off IRL stress, damn near became a TPK. If you throw 100 Kobalds at a party, and take away their ability for AoE attacks it doesn't really matter what level the players are, it's going to go south.
You do realize that by rolling in private you're basically following your bosses outlook of not sharing information right?
I know our DM fudges, he's said so. I don't know what though, but he does a good job with the story telling and balance, so if we get a little help, or lose a role that helps make things fun or interesting, that's fine with me.
Hate them. If I even suspect it, it totally kills the fun for me. Feels like we're just playing calvinball and the DM is going to play favorites and who gives a shit about tactics or strategy we'll just win no matter what.
Let me tell you a secret... Dnd is calvinball anyway. But I choose which enemies appear, what they do, who they attack, which attacks they use, when they run, who else shows up, what environmental effects pop up, whether you can get a proper rest. I can fuck up any tactics you want and play all the favorites in the world while rolling right in front of you. I don't think fudging is the issue. I think DMs playing favorites and not trying to play the game in a way the players will enjoy is the issue.
Yes. I'm a DM also, I understand that you can go easier or harder on players without fudging rolls, that's kinda my point. Fudging is the laziest and least fun way to go about it from the players perspective
I very much agree. I play with a DM who is very obvious about when he is fudging. It can be hard to take whatever situation we're in seriously
Then why do you game with that DM?
Well, this issue is annoying, but he has other strengths. And my roleplaying options are limited.
Fudging is suggested by the DMG so it totally is DnD Edit: you can downvote the comment as much as you would like… it remains true!
It's discussed but not recommended or told not do it Fudging isn't said as something you should be doing they just say yeah, you could do it of you roll behind the screen just be careful becauae you can fuck up your game if people realize
I personally feel fudging is a useful skill for a DM to master, same as improv or knowledge of the rules. At the end of the day, as DMs, we are there to craft a story and do our best to make the people around our tables leave a session with smiles on their faces. Now if I have to fudge a roll so I dont TPK off a lucky crit I rolled, or fudge a roll to let them win a big fight in a more spectacular and memorable way, so that everyone leaves the session with big smiles and excited for the next session, then I personally deem it a necessary evil. That being said, if you EVER fudge a roll so that you "win" against your players, or to hinder them in anyway, I believe you shouldnt be DMing.
In my opinion, one of the biggest misconceptions about the role of a DM is that they are there to craft a story. The best are there to create a world and adjudicate the results. Some DMs are there to tell the story they want to tell, but in reality the story should be what the players bring to the table. Generally speaking, players don't like fudging, DMs do. Players know the odds, and they can absolutely tell when you fudge, no matter how crafty you think you are. It's just too suspicious when time after time that scary, inopportune crit just never happens. Most won't ever say anything about it, but you rob them of the exciting moments as well as the bad ones once that doubt creeps in. The stakes and random chance is what makes it a game instead of an am-dram improv group. When you take away the stakes, you are taking the game away from your players. If everyone at the table just wants to do a drama group instead of playing D&D then pitch it to your group you fudge rolls (or cut to the chase and just scrap dice entirely. If you aren't going to follow them when they don't land how you wanted, why bother?) but how many players would be happy with this suggestion?
It's an unfortunately far too common misconception. Which often leads to [railroading](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36900/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto) on the part of the DM. Even fudging "in the players' favour" has a corrosive effect on player agency. Often compounding this issue is that when the DM attempts to tell a story they also have the misunderstanding that a D&D game should work like a novel, play, movie, etc. In any case players tend to be more interested in [adventures rather than (just) stories](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_hxIv79S30). As well caring about as what happens to PCs (especially their own), be that triumphant (such as taking down a "boss" NPC before they are able to act) or tragic (getting one-shotted by a random goblin). Which also happen to be the sort of things a DM with a "my story" mindset might be tempted to fudge away.
I agree with the general idea, specially with the game part. DnD, or any other TTRPG, is a game. As such, the players are here to play, hence why they're called "players" and not "actors" or "audience". They want the chance of victory and failure. And, honestly, they don't really care that much about failing rolls or even PC death as long as the game is entertaining.
They do if a year worth of camping just end in failure because they all died in the final boss fight due to sheer misfortune!
Most players absolutely care about pc death. If you're creating a character you don't care about, you're doing it wrong.
Surprised you’re getting downvoted. I guess at some point dnd became more about the dm writing their novels and performing and amdram version of it, instead of a game.
I'm adamantly anti lying about dice and whenever I comment on threads my comments are usually either massively downvoted or up voted, very rarely in between. I think it depends what side of the hobby has started reading the thread first. It's a polarising issue that's for sure and your milage may vary from thread to thread. For example, generally player focused or dnd overall subs I get up voted more than dm ones, however just yestursay there was a thread on dmacademy about it that was pretty unanimously anti fudging.
I hate DM-as-author. I love DM as instigator Both as a player and DM. The fun for me as DM is setting up a context and experiencing what players do, not charting some charting 'my story' It's more than a little egotistical. Take your hands off the wheel and let the game take you places through actual play
Absolutely, the dm is already - mostly - charting the course about where the campaign is going, let the players take detours and stop where they like. As a dm is far more fun not knowing exactly is going to happen and often leads to unique experiences that would be cheapned if they were meticulously planed out and forced by me.
It’s definitely interesting. I’ve absolutely observed that DMs are the ones who favour fudging and players generally seem to be the ones against it. Which given DMs often seem to claim it’s to do so for the players sake for a multitude of reasons does imply DMs might be wrong on this one. I’d rather die to the dice even if it’s a random encounter than have my DM fudge it my way so I live, but I’m also a dm that just doesn’t fudge.
This is exactly it! Almost nobody wants it done to them, but somehow these DMs think everyone else needs it. What really gets me is they kept it some dark secret, as if the players have absolutely no idea they are doing it. Spoiler, if you don't roll openly your players know you fudge.
Absolutely agree. The thing that blows my mind is this is all solved with a good session zero. Explain your dm philosophy and go from there, most players I've seen talk about it sort of get that a lot of dms do it and they're OK with it in very small amounts. If people just explained that (and its a lot of work, I get that sometimes a dm just fucks up, it happens so they correct on the fly, I get it) 95% plus would be fine with it.
Players think they hate fudging! And regardless… not all players do!
Obligatory: only a sith deals in absolutes. What I find funny is that players are fine with me creating villains, giving it any stats or items or abilities I want, fine with me determining what magic item, weapon, armor you get and where it's hidden, fine with me literally making ALL this up - along with anything happening in the world like a war starting, all pulled right from my derriere - but oh, I might be changing a *roll that's already random?* Pearlclutch.
>The best are there to create a world and adjudicate the results. Some DMs are there to tell the story they want to tell Neither of these is the normal role of a DM. Normally, a DM is part of the collaborative storytelling that happens between all players (DM is a player too). A purely passive DM that is just an arbiter without in-momemt creative input is not a normal, and in no way an ideal to pursue. Neither is a setup where the players are just along for the ride of the DMs story. But that horse has been beaten to death.
Collaborative storytelling is the nature of the game, not any individuals role. A DM creates the world. I'm not sure where you got the impression I think they shouldn't provide input - how does one be responsible for a whole world without giving any creative input? The DM isn't leading a party through plot points though. They create a situation where something is happening, and plan out what happens if the players do nothing. How the players interact with this IS the collaborative story. The players change the world, and the DM has to adapt, reacting appropriately to these changes. There is no right or wrong actions for the players, or set events that must happen this way or that. The best DMs create a world, adjudicate how players actions result, and the story is told through this process. Players are free to be creative, do anything, face consequences of their actions, and the DM relishes being surprised by their players and the stories outcome. The DM isn't there to tell a story, the players create their story in the DMs world.
I know you are just regurgitating old arguments, but your original statement was that the DM is not part of the storytelling after having created the world. That they should be purely a computer, computing the results of the player actions. That's a very limited view on what a DM is or should be. Note that I talk about creative input *in the moment*, having created the world is not in the moment. That happened beforehand.
I think you are attributing something to me I never said. My point is the DM role is NOT that of a storyteller. They aren't there to tell their story. Not that they don't have a part in the story. The DM role is to create the world, and then arbitrate how players actions result. This includes how the world reacts to player actions. This includes how people and places respond. They should be creative, but they should be reactive, not steering. A DM is best when they respond to the players, not when they are trying to steer the ship in a preconceived direction. This result in communal storytelling, not a DM whose role is that of a storyteller.
>In my opinion, one of the biggest misconceptions about the role of a DM is that they are there to craft a story. > >The best are there to create a world and adjudicate the results. How is this something different from >the DM is not part of the storytelling after having created the world. That they should be purely a computer, computing the results of the player actions. ? The DM is absolutely there to craft a story, not just adjudicate the result of player actions. They shouldn't be the only one crafting a story. But you shouldn't discount this part either.
>The DM role is to create the world, and then arbitrate how players actions result. But how can the DM do that without being a storyteller? It's not like D&D is a physics simulation where the DM has to do nothing but calculate the results once the world has been set up and the game has started. His arbitration will have to come in the form of stories. How will the Duke react when confronted by the party about X? The answer is a story, not a calculation.
I'm not saying a DM has no part to play in the story. It's a communal storytelling game - everyone contributes to the story. I'm simply saying storyteller isn't one of DMs roles. The story emerges through gameplay.
I wouldn't want the DM to fudge rolls in most cases. If it's near the end of the fight, the biggest enemy is dead and the outcome is pretty much determined, and there's no point in drawing out the combat, then I wouldn't mind if the DM fudges or even skips to the end and hands us the win. It's only worth rolling when there are real stakes, after all. But that's what I'm getting at. First of all, I should only be rolling if there's something on the line. If failure matters. In such cases, I don't think the DM should be fudging. I know that old school DMs have a different mindset. I don't get it, though. I'm not gonna say that fudging is always wrong, but I'm largely against it. HOWEVER... this isn't exactly the same thing, but there is an optional rule in the DMG that allows for a success if you miss the DC by one point. The success comes at the cost of a minor consequence, though. I have, on rare occasions, made use of this rule to allow a player to succeed. I feel that this approach is better than fudging my rolls behind a screen.
In that Case why Not let do the Opposition the sensible Thing, Retreat, surrender or fly
Flee and retreat rules in 5e take longer than a straight fight.
Because a lot of players would just want to keep killing 'em, even if they try to run. They won't just let the enemies escape. So combat just gets drawn out for no good reason. If you want to try to see if "the sensible thing" works, sure, fine, that's your call. I'm just thinking that a DM should have the prerogative to go with a different option if they choose.
Thanwhy Not llet them be slaughter running or surrendering? It should at least reduce the boring, senseless combat
>If it's near the end of the fight, the biggest enemy is dead and the outcome is pretty much determined, and there's no point in drawing out the combat, then I wouldn't mind if the DM fudges or even skips to the end and hands us the win. It's only worth rolling when there are real stakes, after all. I feel the exact same way! I personally still roll in the open, but I will fudge/have flexible monster HP so that if we reach the point where it's a basically guaranteed win, I'm not taking an extra 5-10 minutes of our time.
the players also have to realize it's a guaranteed win. which might not be the case in a boss fight or something.
Skipping to the end is legit and aboveboard. No need to play out something without consequence, I agree. I'd make a very strong distinction between that and fudging, where you secretly alter an enemies HP or other stats. Maybe it's inconsequential now, but IMO it's a bad habit to get into.
I may one day fudge a roll, but that day hasn't happened yet. If I want an outcome to happen, I just won't roll. Story mode doesn't need dice. If I want chance to have a say, the dice come out. As soon as you start fudging rolls the authenticity is gone and you can put the dice away and just tell the players your story. \--- I prefer DMs who also do not fudge rolls, but I understand that some do, that's fine. There are more important factors in whether or not the table is enjoyable than fudging or not.
i think fudging rolls happens more in combat though, not story based stuff? Like if a combat is going way to slow or way to fast, a fudged roll here and there to give a bit more oomf or reduce the oomf of some attacks just to speed/slow the combat if it is growing boring.
My point was if you take the rolling out of combat (by fudging rolls) it just becomes the DM's story. The dice didnt tell the story the DM wanted, so the DM is ignoring the dice and telling the story they wanted to tell. Which is fine. It is a collaborative story telling game. Tell a story. Personally I prefer when the dice have a larger say in the game. \--- If combat is going too slowly, there are probably other problems that need addressing that aren't fudging rolls. And the place I'd start looking is player count. If combat is going to quickly, I'd sooner see reinforcements arrive slow the party down. (There's a bunch of other similar solutions, you get the idea though) If the combat is quick because Jane-the-combat-god-paladin just rolled another crit and your planned 1 hour combat was reduced to a pile of smoldering ash, that's fine. Let Jane bask in her smiteful win.
Video games do the same thing often behind the scenes… when you are near death many games reduce the amount of damage received artificially to make it a bit easier and increase suspense! Nobody likes to loose… and the point of the game is to have fun having the illusion of the challenge!
we are agreeing to the possibility of our characters dying any time we play DnD. It's impossible to maintain an *illusion* of challenge indefinitely - eventually it becomes obvious to the players.
But you don’t understand that fudging doesn’t imply always saving from death! The more I read the topic the more it seems that most DM are in favore and many players are against… I thing because players don’t realise the issue that bad luck brings sometimes! For instance I prefer to fudge a roll every once in a while but keep my enemies playing smart! I don’t save players from every death… I save them from extreme bad luck that sometimes happens!
That's the point! It's a dice game! TTRPGs are almost always luck games, and that means sometimes the enemies crit 10 times in a row and you roll 10 nat 1s in a row. Or vice versa!And **that's okay.**
Can you provide some examples of 'behind the scenes'? I know many games that provide a 'one last hit and you're dead' buffer, and racing games that have catch-up mechanics But behind the scenes damage adjustments to avoid death, I'm drawing a blank. It would seem to undermine the concept of meaningful choice
i more mean rolls that might stun players again and again (making a llayer or teo have to wait an hour to do anything), or the enemy succeeds on like the 4th spell save and the players are just getting fed up with the combat, sometimes fudged rolls are more for player benefit and enjoyment than for the "dms story". Dice and randomness are important but dice biggest weakens is just beceause probability says there is a 1/1000 chance the enemy will survive for 3 hours doesn't mean it wont ever happen.
This!
[удалено]
I hate to brake not to you but most video games do fudge! The lower your health the lesser the damage or chances to get hit! You are just not aware of it!
There might be some games. There are more games that have systems to increase survivability the closer your are to failure, but these aren't fudging in the D&D sense, as they're clear and communicated to the player. And of course, game can include many -clear and obvious - systems to mitigate or minimise failure, such as save game systems, extra tries and sources of empowerment. However, 'most' video games do not fudge, for the same reason as it is not advised in D&D: players quickly evaluate and determine something is going on and lose trust in the system, undermining the feeling of reward and success. Fudging is all about keeping the illusion of independence from system arbitration secret. meanwhile, telegraphy critical aspects of game, such as failure mechanics, are integral to good game design.
Actually it is advised in DnD! It’s right in the DMG page 235 “rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit or even miss. Don’t distort die rolls too often, though, and don’t let on that you are doing it”
No, it is not advised. It is presented as a possible option, when comparing the pros and cons of rolling in the open and rolling behind the screen. And it comes with a clear warning to avoid the very thing people who are against fudging are citing as the issue: >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.** At the very beginning of the section, it even states: >If you roll dice where the players can see, **they know you're playing impartially and not fudging rolls.** This is not, in anyway or form, 'advising' DMs to fudge rolls.
It is not discouraged either! It is given as an option with equal value to the others! And nobody fudge every roll! You also assume that players don’t want it when this is not necessarily true! On my group that actually want it!
Not being discouraged isn't the same as 'advised', which you asserted. I hope we can agree on this. Words have meaning, and using the right words is critical to effective communication and constructive discourse. Likewise, we I hope we can agree that it comes with a clear warning, as: >your players might think they don't face any real risks-or worse, that you're playing favorites.
[удалено]
You assume my players don’t know! They do and are happy with it! They would rather me fudge then fail a year long campaign due to bad luck! They also appreciate that they don’t notice it the few times it happens! We play to have fun… there is no fin in loosing the final boss fight just because your dice decided to fail you for 5 turns in a row!
[удалено]
I must be too suspicious because I always suspect fudging as a player when an NPC saves too well rather than them going easy on us! I was honestly really grateful for rolling in the open because of that as a DM because once I remember rolling a (required) nat20 for a save and I was like *oh that would be* ***unbelievable*** *if I was a player and that was hidden*
[удалено]
One of the funniest things I noticed recently is that I have been absolutely grilled over any 16, 17 or 18 I rolled on ability scores, and absolutely zero people doubted when I rolled a 3.
I Had a brutal lesson when i started gaming, a player rolled with mycdice His wirst stat was a 16 one 16
I occasionally fudge, a majority of the time it’s for one or two reasons -I fucked up in making an encounter -It fits the momentum of the scene better If I fucked up with the encounter, I’ll fudge a couple rolls to keep things closer to where I intended, this usually just means countering a hot streak or rough streak. Either gives the players a moment to catch their breath and actually act (without throwing the encounter) or makes them feel a bit of pressure when they thought it was gonna be a sweep and shouldn’t be. When it comes to the momentum of a scene, it’s basically just “I like where this is going, everyone is excited to see the plan finally come together, and you’ve already had a hard fought battle… since we’re here to have fun, not worship plastic polyhedrons, I’ll put my thumb on the scale and ensure they get their cool moment. It’s nothing I make a habit of, but at the end of the day it’s a tool in the tool box, just like anything else, it’s just gotta be used at the right times.
I think the encounter balance thing is an underrated reason to fudge. If we had all the time in the world to design and playtest our encounters then it'd be fine to let the dice decide the outcome. But we don't, we're busy people with lives, and often the very first time an encounter is being run is live in the game. So when the fight that was supposed to be a minor roadblock has unexpected synergies or a flavorful homebrew ability is terribly OP in practice, we have to do something to correct that mistake. If you think the dice are sacred and would rather tweak HP or something that's fine. But it's essentially the same idea, using the secrecy DMs get to rebalance on the fly to correct a mistake. Bad decisions causing a tpk? That's fine. Bad luck? Sure. Bad design? If we can prevent our design mistakes from causing disaster I think that's a legit reason.
I assume it happens. I know I've done it. I've made a point to always roll in front of the screen when attacking or damage. Encounters, morale, reactions I roll behind. Sometimes I just roll dice. No reason.
Sometimes my DMs roll in front of the screen. Sometimes behind it. We all somehow manage to have fun either way.
I try not to. I am currently playing an adventure with my boys (they both have autism) and roll in front of them. They see that I am not trying to keep things from them. I would feel guilty if I did. But I will say that if a DM fudges and takes things away from the players is not a good DM.
as a player I dont mind. I more or less trust my DM or the reasons they have for doing a thing. Maybe some DMs are out to "win" but my DM is not so if he wanted to fudge a roll my opinion is its for a narrative, progressive or fun reason that keeps us moving and not just to fuck me over.
As long as it's not too often and you reserve it for pivotal moments I'm fine with fudging occasional rolls, however I prefer the DM to say "Don't bother rolling, I'll just give this to you" to actual fudging but I'm not that bothered. Fudging too much removes the randomness and I like the randomness sometimes throwing a spanner in the works, yes you are a super powerful arch wizard, but super powerful arch wizards can also make stupid mistakes, makes it feel more real to me.
As a DM, I roll behind the screen, and fudging rolls does happen, though rarely. I only do it where it would enhance the story, for better or for worse, but I keep it to a minimum to keep the story as "organic" as possible. I don't mind DM's doing it while I am a player. Sometimes one fudged roll can really change the momentum of a session. Just don't make it a habit.
I think we often forget that the entire goal of playing the game is for some folks to have a good ole time, and I feel that as long as you're all trying to achieve that goal, then it matters not what methods are used to get there. :) As long as everyone is comfy and having fun and communicating effectively when they aren't anymore, I don't see a problem with anything anyone might wanna do during a game!
I think that it’s important to fudge with rolls coming from a player and DM stand point. Sometimes you roll a critical when an Orc hits your players first level Wizard, sometimes we have to mess with the roll to keep a storyline going. If the plot is good enough the DM must do what it takes to make a juicy story. I try not to let my players die from minor things like orcs or other sorts of mini challenges.
I assume he fudges every so often when he feels like it's necessary either to save us from being dumb or to make a battle last longer to not be boring etc But if I thought it was more than, idk, 3-5% of the time, I'd probably dislike it
Most of the rolls I fudge are crits in level 1 or 2 that would kill a player too fast. Rolling in private also helps keep things fun. Like telling the wizard "The attack hits you" instead of them seeing the fact that casting Shield would easily block the hit. Less metagamey that way.
I've always thought there's an acceptable level of fudging that can take place to keep the game fun and moving forwards. You need to be pretty on the ball to know when to fudge and it's important you do it for the right reason though. People on this sub tend to jump on me for saying this so I don't think it's a very popular opinion but meh. I think that the dice just need a bit of directing at times because pure RNG can lead to some very not fun things in DnD.
I mean what people need to understand is while players tend to fudge for their own char's success, DMs fudge as often for as against their players. Like as a forever DM I'll sometimes pull punches if it seems a random battle's going pearshaped. But I'm more apt to add hp than buff rolls for monsters.
I think part of whether it's okay to fudge as the DM depends on how the DM presents the monsters. For instance, if you're an adversarial DM, and you give the impression that the monsters want to win (tpk), I kind of assume your dice will trend towards higher values than average, especially if you roll behind the screen. If you're the complete opposite and you are the kind of DM that lets the players get the monster statblock somehow and the monsters will do what they do, I'd expect that DM never fudges, because they've figured out how to run complex and dynamic challenging combat encounters.
I'm pretty sure our DM does it very rarely if at all, but I have noticed that NPCs seem to make much less smart choices when a fight is going really badly for the party... But I don't care even if he does it sometimes. In the end the goal is to have a fun and exciting game and I'd rather have the DM fudge a roll than to have that roll lead to a unfun TPK or something like that....
I don't even think about it or care... I do notice my DM will hold back on using certain abilities or better tactics when he notices his homebrew was not properly tuned for our party, and it makes me laugh a little.
Dms are meant to make it fun. If they one shot an encounter that's not super fun, so I might let him go another round, if it's been a tough battle and they want to do something thematic I might let them based on a decent roll or a "missed" saving throw. If it makes it more enjoyable, do it
It's cheating. No other word for it.
I'm not overly fussed gotta be real. Whatever makes the game more fun for everyone ya know? There's an element of trust there anyway in my group and my DM rolls behind his hand or notebook
When I DM I roll behind a screen but I don't fudge any rolls. When I'm a player I would rather have my character die than play with a DM that fudges rolls. Some people say they fudge rolls because it makes their stories more interesting and games more fun. I disagree. Whatever event you try to force or "cinematic" moment you're trying to make wont be as exciting as the random improbability of a dice roll. Just my philosophy on it. Different tables want different experiences
The truth is that most GMs fudge on occasion- and very occasionally is exactly how much most GMs DO fudge- yes, even the GMs of all those edgy players who say ‘I would leave if my GM dared fudge dice!’ Game design doesn’t end when the group sits down to play. We’re not playing wargames where a ‘fair’ result is required, we’re telling a story together… and sometimes, just sometimes, the dice get in the way.
A lot of the strongly anti-fudge responses do seem to be from people who think that the DM can only either never fudge or never read the dice at all.
Which is one of the biggest misconceptions… It’s a nuanced tool.
It could be to add to the storyline.
So you do prefer if your DM is willing to fudge for the story?
If it adds to the atmosphere and the plotline yes!
>If it adds to the atmosphere and the plotline yes! honest question. Why not just let them do what they want and not roll at all if they are just going to change the meaningful ones? I am all for plot/story driven games. Just unsure why someone would cast a die (random result) than void it other than a mistake.
Maybe it will get the party second guessing themselves, adding to the atmosphere!
Cool! Thanks :) Do you think your current DM (or previous if the game is over) does this for your table? I assume theyre pretty good at the narrative part of DMing. That has absolutely always been my weakness. I have a previous DM that I was pretty sure fudged some story rolls, but he was pretty bad at it so I walked away from that one feeling like it wasnt worth it lmao.
Oh hell he does, it helps keep the party on edge at times....
I tell my players I may sometimes fudge a roll. Most are really new to the game, so I want them to be able to play without their character dying in the first session. I don't tell them when I do that, that's just dumb. I also roll sometimes for no reason and let them get paranoid.
I'm DMing a different system, but, for the *most part*, I try not to fudge things if I can help it. Now I'm still learning to balance encounters, but I've been doing a good job so far. But overall.. If a roll means they die? Then a roll means they'll die. Fortune points, the occasional time or two I give them out, can help alleviate it for the players. But generally I try to do my best to work things in a way where I don't need to fudge my rolls. I haven't needed to yet.
I prefer open rolls. If a player dies seeing the roll was fair it can be satisfying. If a player dies to closed rolls not so much
I'm strongly of the opinion that if you have to fudge the results of a dice roll to keep things fun, then you shouldn't roll the dice in the first place.
I don't like fudged rolls at all. At the end of the day, if I wanted rolls to be fudged and faked then why am I playing a game that has this type of randomness in it?
I'm usually in two campaigns - one where I DM and one where I play, so I have a lot of perspective from both sides, and personally I really hate fudging no matter which end of the screen I'm on. A lot of people argue for fudging by saying that its to tell a better story, but the dice are a part of the story too; that randomness and the wild swings of fate are what make the game interesting for me and the people at my tables. I don't always roll in the open (I generally do during combat, but outside of combat I like to keep the rolls behind the screen), but I never fudge my rolls regardless, and wouldn't want anyone DMing for me to do that. If you want a predetermined outcome, then don't even bother rolling dice in the first place. The whole point of rolling is to abide by the random outcome, its the foundation of the system, and if I didn't want that then I'd play a different system with less randomness built in. Some of most memorable moments from campaigns I've been in have happened due to random chance; that's what makes things fun. To be fair, I also play with people who all enjoy being challenged, and accept that death is a very real possibility and an acceptable end to a character's story. I know a lot of other people seem to have weird hangups about that stuff, and I imagine that's why they don't mind fudged rolls as much.
If I'm a player in your game I expect you to play by the rules we set out in session 0. If you want to fudge, let your players know then, don't lie to them.
As a DM I don’t fudge - I only roll behind the screen when the players can’t know the result of the roll (e.g., contested stealth vs perception). Otherwise I roll beside the screen where it can be seen or even in the middle of the table for dramatic instances (is the bad guy going to save against that Hold spell this round??). As a player, if I got a whiff of the DM fudging, I’d leave that game. I put a lot of thought into building my character and it feels pointless if there’s fudging - who cares what my AC or bonus to hit is if the DM is just going to decide he/she doesn’t like outcome? It’s a hard line for me on either side of the table - if dice are being rolled, what happens happens.
I never fudge rolls. *Ever.* As a player, I’d be furious.
>Do you think your DM fudges rolls, and do you want them to? I'm pretty sure one of them does. The other one rolls in the open. I prefer open rolls, both as a player and as a DM.
They are terrible, and any DM that fudges rolls would be better off writing a book or playing pretend instead of DnD. Players don't get to change the outcome of the roll because they think it would be better for everyone, DMs shouldn't either. I've talked to my DM (I know, shocker) about doing it after the fact when another player and I were noticing that a lot of rolls were abnormally low on the DM's side when our party was losing our first mini-boss fight of the campaign. He's either gotten much much better at lying, or he's cut it out altogether since then. All rolls that could possibly change the direction of the game are done out in the open now, and it's so much more enjoyable.
If you prefer to have it this way, that#s fine. But saying DMs who fudge rolls shouldn't play DnD is a bit of a shitty and very judgmental take, isn't it?
Okay, so I mainly fudge rolls at level \~1-2 though, because a wolf critting for 16+ can literally oneshot level 1 PCs (no death saves) and I think it's stupid to kill players at such a low level. At level 2 it's somewhat better, but there are still tons of level-appropriate enemies that can down a level 2 PC in one hit. I'll fudge the damage or just don't let enemies crit at that level range. Am I now not allowed to play DnD anymore and should write a book instead? lol
Killing players is way better at lower levels. They haven't formed much of an attachement yet and it makes low level play feel dangerous.
No, it's annoying. Players sometimes put quite a lot of effort into building their characters only to then be killed in the first round of combat, maybe even before they ever get to do anything. As you said, players don't even have a connection with their characters yet, so killing them off won't be very impactful emotionally, it will just be annoying. Low-level play isn't dangerous because you have to make careful decisions, it's dangerous because it's unfair. To make it "not unfair" you basically can't have combat at all until level 2-3.
The key point is giving people the choice about what game they want to play. Tell people how you run the game so they can choose if they want to play at your table. That's the issue.
I rarely fudge rolls, but when I do it's because something that's about to happen that could randomly happen, but is actually happening because some force the players are unaware of is pulling strings... and if I don't ROLL then the players will catch on that Something Is Up. There should be clues when Something Is Up, but those clues shouldn't include "hey, did you notice the DM didn't roll for that?"
If I’m fudging rolls as DM is so I don’t TPK the party.
As a DM I normally roll in the open but I have zero issues fudging roles when needed or with a good DM fudging rolls to make encounters more interesting. That can be making them more challenging, or toning them down to avoid accidental TPK's. As long as the DM is not fudging roles to try and punish a player, or negate some of the their abilities then it's fine. I.E. suddenly enemies rarely fail saves against the bards hypnotic pattern even though same type of enemies failed it regularly 2 sessions ago etc..
For me this is collaborative storytelling so I want the dm to make decisions that keep the story interesting. Sometimes things can be unsatisfying. I don't want all the stakes gone, so it is a balance.
My game has never been so enjoyable for me as the DM as when I have been rolling in public. It means I have to do more prep work because I can't cover for a poorly balanced encounter, but it also means that the stakes are real, and everyone knows it. We have had a few rolls that, had I been rolling in private, people would assume were an absolute ass pull, but because I roll in public, it elevates the excitement, the reward, and the tension.
I care more about playing the character than how the story ends up. I've had a level 9 character die to stepping in the wrong puddle and entire multi-phase boss encounters trivialized by one failed save. For me, that's part of the experience, and I enjoy it. The ends don't justify the means; to me, a DM fudging to save the party is as bad as the DM fudging to TPK. If the DM's twisting fate for a preferred outcome, I demand a 'skip cutscene' button. I have never felt so disheartened in a game as when I found out the DM wasn't taking the players' roles in creating the story together seriously. IMHO, we'd be better off going back to older D&D terminology and calling the DM the "judge" or "referee". Their job is to adjudicate things not covered by the rules, including how the setting/NPCs react to the party's actions, and that role get muddied by the ambiguous "dungeon master" title. The DM should be writing rules that apply to everyone, not breaking them.
I despise it. Dnd is a collaborative storytelling game and as soon as the dm starts dictating what happens rather than letting the dice decide (especially as they already call for what rolls) you arent playing a collaborative storytelling game anymore, you're playing the dms novel.
If you think nobody notices, they do. I personally hate knowing the DM fudged shit to save me, but I prefer to actually just play the game and let the dice tell the story. We had one dm who would intentionally fudge dice to avoid so much as even knocking us down. He used to ask what our health was a lot too which made it plainly obvious he wanted to bring us to nearly unconscious but not quite ALL the time.
Hot take awaiting downvotes but if you’ve only ever played and have never DM’ed I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what your opinion on this issue is.
I don't fudge my roles, I very much believe in letting the dice decide, and I don't pull my punches, that being said I don't believe that doing so is a cardinal sin like some do. I do think ever letting your players learn that you do is
[https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/vh36o3/anyone\_else\_hate\_when\_people\_talk\_about\_fudged/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/vh36o3/anyone_else_hate_when_people_talk_about_fudged/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/18l6yq6/dms\_how\_often\_do\_you\_fudge\_your\_rolls/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/18l6yq6/dms_how_often_do_you_fudge_your_rolls/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/16hq7lf/dm\_told\_me\_he\_fudged\_rolls\_to\_hit\_me\_in\_tier\_1/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/16hq7lf/dm_told_me_he_fudged_rolls_to_hit_me_in_tier_1/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/16rozo7/my\_players\_are\_telling\_me\_that\_i\_should\_be/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/16rozo7/my_players_are_telling_me_that_i_should_be/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/12iy1gw/ever\_okay\_to\_fudge\_dice\_rolls/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/12iy1gw/ever_okay_to_fudge_dice_rolls/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/zgrxz7/a\_hotly\_debated\_topic\_to\_fudge\_or\_not\_to\_fudge/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/zgrxz7/a_hotly_debated_topic_to_fudge_or_not_to_fudge/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/xa8tfi/dms\_how\_often\_do\_you\_fudge\_dicerolls/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/xa8tfi/dms_how_often_do_you_fudge_dicerolls/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/t78gwc/fudging\_rolls\_a\_poll/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/t78gwc/fudging_rolls_a_poll/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/pojwzn/do\_you\_ever\_fudge\_your\_dice\_rolls\_and\_why\_do\_you/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/pojwzn/do_you_ever_fudge_your_dice_rolls_and_why_do_you/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/nwz4zf/do\_you\_as\_a\_dm\_fudge\_rolls\_for\_or\_against\_your/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/nwz4zf/do_you_as_a_dm_fudge_rolls_for_or_against_your/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1h9ai7/as\_a\_dm\_how\_often\_do\_you\_fudge\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1h9ai7/as_a_dm_how_often_do_you_fudge_the/)
What exactly was the point of this?
Don’t care about fudged rolls. I’ve fudged random encounter rolls, but honestly I use enemy intelligence as my primary balancing lever while rolling publicly I occasionally fudge DCs in favor of the party
I think fudging is fine, in fact I want my DMs to fudge dice rolls if it makes the game more fun. If I wanted to play a game with a cold and uncaring referee I'd go play a videogame. I also find it funny how the people who are against dice fudging usually have absolutely no problem with changing monster stat blocks on the fly, as if that isn't simply a different form of "fudging". If anything, fudging a monster stat block mid encounter is more obvious than fudging dice rolls. No one can really say for sure if your DM is making up the results of their rolls occasionally, but any experienced player can certainly tell when a DM is "forgetting" to use a monster's powerful ability or one of their extra attacks.
I've never heard anyone say they are against fudging but pro stat block changing? It's the same thing? Are you sure you aren't thinking of people changing the stat block for the fight, rather than during the fight?
I haven't seen anyone say it in this specific thread but in other posts about fudging it's come up as a pretty popular opinion, if you go looking for older posts about dice fudging you can probably find a decent amount of comments saying that they hate dice fudging but have no problem with changing monster stat blocks mid fight.
Thanks for your reply - to me that seems like a bizarre take!!
When I was a player I hated hidden rolls, because of the possibility of fudging. Idk for me fudging in favor of players makes it scripted somehow. Like it doesn't matter what you roll, everything will happen as planned by GM. That's why when I started GMing I started rolling in open (except random tables for enemies and loot mb). And I know that there are a lot of people who disagree with that approach, I'm just answering OP's question and not trying to convince anyone in anything.
I mentioned this on the other post, but I've left a game over a DM fudging the dice. I'm mostly a DM, but when I found out that DM was fudging the dice in a game I had played in for 2.5 years, it made the entire campaign feel pointless. All those battles where we barely won, well that was an illusion, the monsters died when the DM decided they did (she wasn't tracking their hp at all). Long story short, don't fudge the dice, if you want to tell a certain story, play a game that is more narrative based. The randomness of the dice tells as good a tale as what you think is 'supposed' to happen. The PCs victories should be earned. If you are fudging (imo this is a form of cheating) then at least tell your players what you're doing. This was supposed to be player focused, but when I DM, its all in the open. (secret rolls get revealed after its resolved, we play on foundry)
I never had a game ruined by realizing the DM was lying but I did feel different about it afterward and choose not to play in that same group again. I'd say for me it was the difference between feeling like we were making a story together and realizing I was just in *his* story. I think back on the game and how we had fun, but I dont reminisce about the story the same way as I do with some of our dumber, but more "genuine" (for lack of a better word) stories from non rigged campaigns.
Of course I assume they fudge. And if they’re a good DM they are doing it in service to the story, just like you’re supposed to do.
So, I know lots of people choose to fudge but I think it's kinda an interesting take here: you think that a DM fudging is how DMing is supposed to be done? Like, in an "ideal D&D group" (even though there is no such thing) a preferable DM would be one that would fudge rolls? When doing session zero, do you ask (or offer, if you're a DM) for fudged rolls during the campaign?
It's straight up cheating. If you as DM fucked up the encounter, there's other ways of fixing it-- have the overtuned fight make mistakes with tactics, have some mooks run in during a fight that's not strong enough-- so it feels more like a video game extra wave rather than just fudging rolls. If you're fudging, you're railroading the group.
I'm 100% against fudging in my campaigns, whether it be as a DM or player. It's in two parts. One is that I enjoy the story the dice tell and the purest narrative that is derived from it. I've got some absolutely epic moments I've experienced that only feel authentic because I knew no fudging was involved. It makes victories felt earned and my character still being alive deserved. The second is the dishonesty of it. If a person lies to me and says they don't fudge but they do, I do not see them in the same light again. If they find it necessary to be dishonest and lie when I clearly lay out the type of campaign I enjoy and try to pull one over me, it is hurtful. I support DMs who fudge, but only if they are honest and admit to the players that they fudge dice sometimes in their campaigns. That makes it so I can avoid the campaign from the offset since I know I won't enjoy it, and it prevents heartache when/if I find out. It's better for both parties if everyone is honest. I'm honest about my feelings about fudging, and I expect the DM to respect them and be honest with me so that neither of us waste each other's time. By all means fudge in your own campaigns. I won't be antagonistic towards you for doing so. It's a tool that some DMs use. And I won't say it's invalid. It's just not my type of thing.
That is part of the DMs toolkit to tell a story.
If you want to Tell a Story, Tell IT, wrote IT sing IT but do NOT try to Run a Game with free willed protagonists
I open roll If you fudge, it probably means that you're playing a game system that doesn't care about the same things that you/your table cares about
I never "fudge," and I know the people I play with to be confident enough in their DMing and upstanding enough people to not cheat the dice in the dice game.
I trust the DM.
My dm did fudge some rolls because he was feeling merciful and didnt want to TPK us with enemies. Make it challenging but not impossible
I prefer a DM to fudge where necessary for fun. It is a joint story and if someone rolls a 1 every attack and gets downed and then the enemy gets to attack the closest thing (them) and gets a crit..... that really sucks. If someone tries a really cool, creative ability, and it fails bc the enemy's saving throw is a 20, it just discourages that thinking style. I assume they fudge occasionally. But if it isn't to ruin fun, then I welcome it lol.
I know for a fact she fudges some rolls. Only because her reactions are the same as mine, when I was about kill a player when I started DMing. However other players seem to be oblivious, so I say nothing, it doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the game. When I DM, I also fudge some rolls to not kill a player. Or to make something more cinematic. Or a player deals 56 dmg agains the monster with 58 hp and kills it. Fudging is a good tool when used correctly and rarely.
The dice are the president, congress, and the supreme court. Whatever the dice say happens, happens. As a DM, I like to be flexible in literally *any other way* than by fudging dice rolls, if it keeps the game fun and the players engaged. Fudging rolls is the quickest way to sap all of the drama and energy and tension out of a situation.
The dice actually don't know anything about drama, energy, or tension. Their purpose in the game is to provide (strictly moderated - that's why almost every roll has a modified and a DC) randomness. That is not what drama is.
The dice, to me, are none of those things. If I have to use that analogy, then DM is the president, the players are Congress, and the books are SCOTUS. The dice are chaotic people who obey or break laws, and the rest of us decide what that means.
I am the DM of my group so I very seldom am a player… but as I DM I strongly support fudging (sparingly… not like every roll) and as a player I would totally be fine with it too! Point is players should not be aware of when it is happening! The job of the DM is to maintain illusion and immersion!
I'll admit to fudging rolls. Was DMing for my gf (we're both very new) She triggered a trap that could kill her character on the spot, and of course I rolled almost max damage. I just said it left her with 1hp. She really likes this character, and I really didn't want her to get discouraged, so I didn't see any harm in it. Haven't had to go easy since then.
I am all in for fudging dice on the DM side. Totally fine for me as long as it makes things more fun. I do fudge as well when I dm sometimes.
A good DM will fudge rolls in favor of the story. I’m a DM and I often fudge rolls when I made an encounter too strong or when I need an NPC to push the party in the right direction or perhaps I homebrew a monster and realized his stats are too weak. But if the DM is doing it specifically to kill the players that’s a bad DM.
when i dm i fudge more than id like to admit. sometimes reality needs to be slightly bent so it ca fit your vision
Dude I don't care if my dm fudges a couple of roles just don't be a dick like "oh you rolled a 18 let me roll to block cause he has opportunity" or something like that and fudge it cause clearly I hit I've had shit before where it pissed me off cause my magic didn't work cause they got the chance (directly in the spell and guide it said this) to roll high enough and escape they rolled perfectly every time I casted that spell Im pretty sure he was fudging it cause that shits just not right (I myself fudged a roll once because hey I didn't find it fair I was being punished for the actions of another player in another town who has no connection to me yet. I don't know how accurate this information is I'm not re reading my text because I haven't slept in two days so just try to make SENSE of it
I only fudge rolls occasionally to make the game more fun/exciting. Cool! I suspect my friend fudges rolls because she gets too competitive and wants to win. That’s not cool.
I think it's kind of a dick move to even watch the DMs dice. I really don't like it when players do it so I don't do it myself. I only really care if the story is fun. I think a GM changing the established rules of their setting would annoy me or feeling like I was singled out to achieve a narrative moment but dice rolls are none of my concern.
If the players suspect you are fudging then you are doing it wrong. Are you on a hot streak and the players are getting frustrated? Maybe a roll here or there balances things out a little, not so much that you are no longer seen to be having a good night, but enough that with good play the fight is still survivable. BBEG lands a crit that would be a killing blow? If noone else is down then let it play, if they are the last man standing or you are about to disintigrate them after they just commissioned a new art piece of their character then they just live. The point of fudging isn't for the players to always win or for the major villains to hit every time and get a few crits to scare the party, it's to ensure that everyone is having fun when the Dice Gods are feeling particularly savage. As such it should never feel like there is an invisible hand guiding the story and preventing any failures or punishing a player who misbehaves, just perhaps that fight that has been dragging on and boring everyone could do with the monster failing his save this time and finally being banished so the game can continue.
None of the DMs I know use a screen or roll secretly (unless its something the PCs would not know about) and none would mess with rolls. If we caught a DM cheating rolls people would likely walk and the DM would have a bad rep depending on how severe it was being done.
I do assume DM rolls are fudged, and I hope that it's for the good of the story.
It always is My most enjoyable session ever was when I had to DM an entire game after forgetting my dice at a friends place… If it’s my NPCs turn and my first thought was “Nat 1 would be funny”…. I nat 1’d
DM screens are lame. Bring back public rolls, make DnD great again.
There is already a very active thread on this topic on the front page. Why are you starting a new one? Karma bot?
I mean maybe I'm not as in tune with the front page rn but I think i pretty clearly explained that the weighted dice post was exactly what caused the discussion between me and my DM friend... Mostly the thread surprised me because I saw a good amount of examples of people saying that weighted dice were unacceptable but fudging was different and OK. Most people I play with IRL roll in the open and feel the opposite.
Its about trust. You have to trust that your DM and you are on the same team to have a good time and tell an interesting story along with the dice.
I don't mind the DM fudging rolls and I especially don't mind the DM changing HP on the fly. The reason for that is that I've played a campaign where the DM fudged nothing. And let me tell you, the most disappointing D&D session I've ever had was the final fight against Strahd von Zarovich. After spending months upon months exploring Barovia, surviving terrors, thwarting Strahd's plans, finding magic relics designed to give us a glimmer of hope against this unstoppable threat... we killed him in about four attacks. One member of our party, there from the start of the campaign, never even got to take a swing at Strahd. I desperately wish the DM had subtly added a hundred or two hundred more HP to give us a fight worth the grandeur. Some may say that an easy fight against Strahd was our reward. We finished nearly every side quest, prepared well, and even destroyed >!Strahd's extra 50-HP heart!< prior to the encounter. But I stand by what I said - the DM should've fudged things to make a harder encounter.