|
2 years ago ::
Oct 01, 2011 - 8:53AM
#21
|
|
|
I never fudge the dice rolls. If you start messing with the dice scores what's the point of playing with dice at all. The amount of math and number crunching I have to do as DM is crazy. The least the players can do is except their fate when the dice are rolled.
All DM's fudge dice rolls - ALL. The "controversy" really only arises in regards to fudging dice rolls FOR COMBAT. Anywhere the rules provide for a die roll to take place but the DM foregoes a die roll because they desire a specific outcome, the DM is fudging. Anywhere a die roll is altered or ignored by the DM, whether it's in combat or not, the DM is fudging. Deviation at any time in any way from the rules is technically fudging things. Once upon a time the rules and the people who wrote those rules actually said that deviating from the rules is to be expected because the rules do not encompass absolutely all possible situations when playing a game. It is actually part of the JOB of the DM to decide when the rules should apply and when they shouldn't. This extends beyond the game in general to combat rolls. Over the years as the rules have actually improved DM fudging of rules has been less necessary but it has never and will never be eliminated completely because the rules will never be perfect and absolutely comprehensive.
I may change monster stats at the last second. Just before the monster attacks, if I feel it is to powerful for the players current condition, I'll lower the monsters AC or damage score by a few points.
Then you are fudging just as much as if you were fudging the die rolls themselves. There's no real difference between altering a monsters stats to suit yourself and altering your die rolls to suit yourself. Your goal is the same. Don't kid yourself that combat die rolls are sacred while you freely extemporize what effect those die rolls are going to have anyway.
A DM should always remain impartial, even if his most interesting plot point goes undiscovered.
The DM is the most partisan participant at the table! When you become the DM you are taking it upon yourself to create the game world, the adventures, the rules themselves in order to provide everyone at the table (himself included) an enjoyable experience. A DM who places impartiality above all is actually disregarding to one degree or another the potential for greater enjoyment of the game. Now that doesn't mean that all DM's must always fudge all combat die rolls. It means that fudging die rolls is a tool that DM's possess. It doesn't mean that choosing never to use that tool is necessarily wrong either. It also doesn't mean that fudging die rolls is always right - just because the DM CAN do it doesn't mean it's the wise thing to do. What would be wrong is to suggest that any DM who EVER fudges die rolls is somehow out of line. For the same reason that a DM can decide better than the dice when an encounter should even take place, or what the monsters will choose to do he CAN take that principle down to the point of deciding that an individual roll hits or misses, or precisely how many points of damage it does, or that an NPC saving throw succeeds or fails, etc.
Believe it or not there ARE "D&D" games out there (or were once upon a time) in which the DM doesn't even roll dice for combat - they simply dictate it as they see fit based on the principles described above. Now that sort of thing takes a DM who is highly creative, but also one who is not so much "impartial" but who is committed to a good time being had by all which is often going to mean telling "the rules" and the dice to take a hike when they interfere with that goal.
Fudging die rolls can be a DISASTER, no doubt about it. When some DM's realize that they DO have this power but haven't had it explained to them why they should be cautious, use restraint in exercising it, even avoid it as much as possible, they will run amok with it. That's not an issue with fuding itself (since as I indicated at the outset ALL DM's fudge things because that's their JOB) but DM's not being familiar enough with what their job really IS much less how best to go about it.
IF you can accomplish your goals as a DM WITHOUT fudging then by all means you should do so, but remember that the DM is not just a ENFORCER of rules without thought or care (which is the implication of saying the DM must be "impartial") but is the primary instigator and facilitator of enjoyment at the table. The dice can easily get in the way of that job. DM's can be fooled into thinking that they can let the dice do that job for them and I've seen too many begin using the dice as an excuse for outcomes that completely destroyed players enjoyment of the game. Cruel impartiality and dispassionate enforcement is NOT always the best way to go. Knowing your players and what THEY want out of the game is also important in this issue. Some players DO want combat die rolls to be treated as untouchable because they derive thier enjoyment from the game entirely from crunching numbers and rely upon the statistical variations to provide them with valid feedback on their efforts. Others would rather play diceless than have a good story or exciting combat brought to a screeching halt because of a few wild die rolls.
This issue is not just deciding whether fudging is good or bad because it isn't either one at all times. It's more about when you do it, WHY you do it, and not just whether you do it at all.
Old School: It ain't what you play - it's how you play it.
My 1E Project:
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/Building%20D&D/buildingdnd.htm
"Who says I can't?"
"The man in the funny hat..."
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 01, 2011 - 9:55AM
#22
|
|
|
I believe the appropriate quote is "if you're all having fun, you're doing it right". So I see fudging as a game style choice.
However, I'm pretty anti-fudging in games I play and DM, since when I play I really hate the idea that my actions have reduced consequence, or are being judged by the DM, who might be protecting my character so the plot continues as planned, or over-compensating because my character build or tactics are good. I view dice fudging as a kind of rail-roading - the DM is ensuring the "right" thing happens independently of the game rules.
Often fudging means gaining short-term "fun" (i.e. an individiual combat is in the zone for challenge rating) and losing long-term relevence (i.e. the game becomes less under player control because the success/failure branching is controlled secretly by the DM fixing the results)
For those that do fudge, if you sometimes have monsters fail or fall over easily when they start winning, when do you decide not to do this and let the dice have control of the result - what criteria apply? And same question for thsoe that fudge the other way - when do you decide to just let the players have an easy win, and benefit from better surges etc in the next battle.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 01, 2011 - 3:20PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2007
|
I fudge like a student chef working on the fudge section of his course. However, I fudge with an eye t make the game a cool action adventure, or Discworld novel, or any cool stuff.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 01, 2011 - 5:19PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
I roll in the open both in my Tabletop game and on the D&D Virtual Table. And as a Player, i prefer when a DM do too. This even if the dice are too cold
Show
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 01, 2011 - 8:00PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2007
|
If I didn't fudge the odd die roll my party would be dead. I roll so many dice and I roll a fair number of criticals. If I plan a difficult encounter it doesn't take too many die rolls in my favor to drop the party to dead. Overall, I probably fudge less than 2% of my die rolls, but when you roll a LOT of dice, it turns into a decent number.
Some rolls have to happen behind a screen, like NPC bluff checks. When I do let the dice fall I will ocassionally lift the screen so the players can see that I did in fact roll those two criticals and they have to eat them, however a larger number of criticals often get turned into misses.
I never fudge dice to increase the difficulty of an encounter, I use a plot element for that like bringing in renforcments or adding a trap component. If I realize a monster AC is too low, I may change it in the first few turns but that's more tweaking, I almost never scale the difficulty up in my games. I run a tough enough game as it is I feel.
Tolkein was a jerk. Seriously, what DM sends 9 Wraith Lords at a Lvl 2 party of Halflings.
The only 'correct' way to play D&D is by whatever method is making the group you have at that session, have the most fun.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 02, 2011 - 1:20AM
#26
|
|
|
If I didn't fudge the odd die roll my party would be dead ...[snip]... I run a tough enough game as it is I feel.
This is what I was referring to in my post. From your quotes, you appear to run a "tough" game, then protect the PCs from being killed.
Doesn't that make the toughness rating you choose actually irrelevent, because there is no real consequence to the PCs or storyline from it being tough?
At most, it looks to me that numerically tough encounters routinely drain PC resources (to the point they sometimes need assistance from dice fluffing), so it simply feels tough, provided the players never catch on to the protection you grant them.
But surely then looking back at the game and how it went, the results will show that the game is not tough at all, but easy to the point that PC success is a foregone conclusion . . . How do you prevent yourself getting into that situation? How do you asess when not to grant protection and let the PCs lose because that's "fair" and good for the story?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 02, 2011 - 6:36AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2007
|
If I didn't fudge the odd die roll my party would be dead ...[snip]... I run a tough enough game as it is I feel.
This is what I was referring to in my post. From your quotes, you appear to run a "tough" game, then protect the PCs from being killed.
Doesn't that make the toughness rating you choose actually irrelevent, because there is no real consequence to the PCs or storyline from it being tough?
At most, it looks to me that numerically tough encounters routinely drain PC resources (to the point they sometimes need assistance from dice fluffing), so it simply feels tough, provided the players never catch on to the protection you grant them.
But surely then looking back at the game and how it went, the results will show that the game is not tough at all, but easy to the point that PC success is a foregone conclusion . . . How do you prevent yourself getting into that situation? How do you asess when not to grant protection and let the PCs lose because that's "fair" and good for the story?
An excellent point. For the most part I try to let the dice fall where they fall, but if you're rolling any sets of dice that are even decently random, eventually the numbers are just NOT going to fall in the PCs favor no matter how good their tactical planning, skill or whatever. They basically crap out. (Craps being the game)
To me, having my players ;lose' the game and end up abandoning several months to years worth of played game time because of a string of bad die rolls just doesn't hold my interest, I'd rather fudge that 3rd critical in a row against the wizard who has no more healing surges than kill his character because of letting the dice fall where they fall.
The difference is if the players are doing something diliberatly dangerous or blatantly stupid, then absolutly Tim the Dim needs to die.
That's basically my marker for when to fudge or not. If I have a player who's a rogue, let's say, and his last two trap attempts failed, so he's down some healing surges, then they get into combat, he's doing his job, he's flanking with the fighter but getting caught in odd fireball blasts and taking hits by some offhand strikes, but playing his character class well and working with the team, but somehow works himself down to 0 healing surges and the rest of the party is at maybe 3/4 to 1/2 their surges left... Other DMs are suggesting to have the monsters start targetting the other players, that makes sense but is fudging of a different sort. By not rolling in the open you can still tell that player that the last arrow missed, so they have a sense that their character is very nearly about to die.
The alternative, is you kill that character and the player then needs to roll up a new one, or the party has to get him ressurrected. Both options are going to impact my storyline, but they may not be in ways I want to deal with at the moment. If the party is doing a pre-quest that has them gathering the magically gate key that only works on the full moon and the full moon is tomorrow (next game session) then suddenly Robert Rogue bites it, they don't have the time between sessions to get him rezzed. Asking Robert to sit out a session isn't a really nice thing to do either.
Really for me it's a mix between how the story is running and how the players are playing. If the players are low level and still learning the game and making poor tactical errors because they are new, beating them into the ground is going to sour the experience.
So, reasons to fudge:
1) to protect a plotline where player death would interfere or de-rail
2) to protect a postitive play experience.
Reasons to let the dice fall as they do
1) the characters are doing something obviously 'dumb' examples, metagaming "The DM would never put a dragon we couldn't defeat so let's just attack it' or 'let's just attack wolves in the forest and level up before we go inside the cave of eternal horror so we're over-leveled for the content'
also "The DM would never kill me, he's got so many questlines wrapped up in my character, so I'll just run around like I'm immortal"
and 'We barely won that last fight, the party resources are drained and we're all almost dead, but the DM won't kill us so let's go kill the Ironhide the golem of untold evil and destruction then take an extended rest.
finally "Wow, this huge monster of unspeakable horror is really hard to hit, isn't even at bloodied and pummeled the crap out of us down to almost no healing or potions, but that small cave to the north is too small for it to follow us and the path we came in here is also wide open and only full of dead monsters, but we'll continue the fight even though all signs are telling us we're going to die because we're heroes!"
2) it would be compelling for the story, sometimes going on that quest to find a fellow PC's soul so you can ressurect them is a good questline and it might be time it finds it's way into the campaign arc
3) it would be dramatic, if the party is almost tapped out and they are starting to flee but the paladin steps up tells the rest to flee and holds the door, ala Gandalf "You shall not Pass!"
In the end, either choice, to roll openly or not is valid. The advantage to rolling openly is your players know that you're just ref-ing the dice and that you aren't just picking on a certain player, they know for sure that you're being fair, at least for combat.
The downside is that when you throw that fistfull of criticals, and the players are rolling a string of misses and '1's for damage, that fight with the goblins that should have been a gimme is going to kill them and possibly send home some unhappy players.
Tolkein was a jerk. Seriously, what DM sends 9 Wraith Lords at a Lvl 2 party of Halflings.
The only 'correct' way to play D&D is by whatever method is making the group you have at that session, have the most fun.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 02, 2011 - 10:35AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
..., All DM's fudge dice rolls - ALL. ...,
This issue is not just deciding whether fudging is good or bad because it isn't either one at all times. ...
Wrong not all dms fudge dice rolls. I never fudge dice rolls, nor has a game been ruined or players fun ruined over dice rolls. The games I Dm do not focus arround statistics and statistical variation, they are always focused on a ever expanding narrative. Players do get upset when the dice seem to work against them. Despite the dice rolls, Pcs can always find success and those successess are all worth the moments of consternation when the dice fall and therefore the narrative turns against them. A dm does not disregard a compelling narrative by never fudging a dice roll. That is a false assumption argued by The_Man_in_A_Funny_Hat, against never fudging dice. We agree that fudging is neither good or bad. I will go further and say a good Dm will always have a fun game as long as the narrative and the narration are fun and compelling, regardless if a dm fudges or does not fudge dice rolls.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 02, 2011 - 3:51PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
I've heard of DM ignoring Crit but i also have heard of DM turning miss into Hit or cranking up damage of low rolls. I as a Player would rather have my PC not die because he was rescued by a NPC, another PC or some sort of external event (ex. the ceiling crack and falls on the enemy) than because the DM ignored the rolls against me and Fudge a Crit. But that's just me. PS To me, Fudging rolls in D&D feels like cheating in Book Where You Are The Heroe or other Solo adventure relying on chapter reference. Its honor based. Why playing if you skip unfavorable outcome ? Why rolling if you are to change the outcome and call the shots ? 
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 03, 2011 - 12:36PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
If I didn't fudge the odd die roll my party would be dead.
fwiw: sometimes they might surprise you. The most memorable encounters I've ever had were when a seemingly inevitable TPK was turned around without fudge (indeed, 4e is actually balanced to do this frequently). Conversely, I've had some excellent, tense moments ruined by a soft DM.
Not saying your situations were like that, just saying that now you'll never know.
|
|
|
