Fudging dice, changing monsters and drop tables..

[Kerilstrasz]

I need your opinion

Is it ok, as DM (storyteller and combat referee) to make absurd changes to monster's tables & fudging dice when appropriate,
to make the story more solid & interesting?

example..

I want my lvl2 group (4 ppl) to fight 3 yetis (and ofc win) because it is terrain and story appropriate; but because according to their 5e tables they have no chance,
i decided to lower their stats (hit, dmg, saves, etc) & name them "Young yetis".

another example..

I want, my group to fight 2 displacer beasts , to protect a blink dog and its cubs, so i change their stats too.. (if the blink dog survive, it will offer them a solution to a main story problem)

i can keep on with examples , but i think you got me..

also.. if i see during combat that i made the monsters too strong (or week), is it "ok" to fudge the dice, to save the party or make the fight just a bit more challenging?

Keep in mind that all the fudging & monster changes, would be only to promote the story, save the party or make a fight a bit more interesting.

Thank you for your time :smallwink:

[JoeJ]

Of course it's okay. DM decisions always trump the rules. As long as what you're doing makes the game more fun for everyone rather than less, you're doing it right.

[silveralen]

Yeah, the rules are there for your convenience. Monster stats in particular should be seen as a guideline for what monsters of that CR are capable of, not the only monsters you can use, and making weaker or stronger enemies is simple.

The only real risk is that you might make an enemy too strong, or too weak, which is exactly when fudged numbers come in. Or adjust the monster's actual stats if you realize it has way too much HP or too little AC, or needs a better/worse attack bonus. If anyone at your table notices, simply mention that the value changed due to a special rule, and fudge up a decent one if they keep asking (most won't).

[Ghost Nappa]

Is it ok, as DM (storyteller and combat referee) to make absurd changes to monster's tables & fudging dice when appropriate,
to make the story more solid & interesting?

*snip*
Thank you for your time :smallwink:

Yes.

10char.

[Tenmujiin]

Why wouldn't it be? Unless your group wants to run strictly RAW, D&D is more about the storytelling than wining encounters hence why balance generally isn't an issue so long as your players are mature about not making other party members obsolete (though it is better if they don't have to worry about that). When I DM the stat blocks are more guidelines than actual rules (along with most of the rest of the rule set) though my style of DMing is more freestyle than most. The concept of the BBEG of my last adventure was designed while I was driving to the final session and his damage was decided on as he first engaged the PCs. His health was basically equal to however much kept him alive until he used up all of the party's healing pots. My players told me it was the most tense and epic BBEG that they have fought (though this was likely helped by the fact they had a history with him).

The nature of D&D combat is that it is never perfectly balanced even when you use monsters strait out of the book since CRs are often inaccurate and the PCs may not currently have the optimal means of dealing with a given threat not to mention the fact that combat effectiveness is based in large part on random chance. Fudging numbers can be risky though since if the players realise you are doing it they will likely dislike it (which is why it is usually better to fudge the stats rather than the rolls).

[MaxWilson]

also.. if i see during combat that i made the monsters too strong (or week), is it "ok" to fudge the dice, to save the party or make the fight just a bit more challenging?

IMO, this is only okay if you are transparent with your players. You stop in the middle of combat and say, "Sorry guys, I'm new to 5E and it looks like I messed up. I think I made these monsters stronger than I intended, and now they're going to kill you. Do you guys want to give it a shot anyway, or can I fix my mistake and weaken them a bit?" If they say "Sure, weaken them," you can make some of the monsters never have been there in the first place, or make them smaller/weaker/etc.

But you should never do this secretly, because if the players ever find out that you have been pulling strings during combat, it robs them of all the awesomeness that they have experienced due to cunning or sheer luck. They'll always have to wonder if they really had just enough HP to survive the lich's Dragon Staff attack with exactly 1 HP left and then get a critical hit on the lich that destroyed his staff in a retributive strike, bringing down the mountain--or if you just cheated and gave that to them because you thought the lich was too difficult. It changes D&D from "our story" to "DM's story," with the players just along for the ride.

If I found out that a DM was cheating during combat, even to save our own lives, I would be strongly tempted to just quit that campaign cold, because that DM is wasting my time as a player.

YMMV, perhaps your players would feel differently.

[JoeJ]

I would add a caution that trying to force the story to go in a particular direction (denying players the ability to change the narrative) or letting the players think that you'll fudge things to let them win every fight no matter what, are likely to make the game less fun for most people. Use your infinite power when it's needed, but use it wisely!

[Finieous]

IMO, this is only okay if you are transparent with your players.

This. I'd much rather my character die so I can roll up a new one, though I'd certainly defer to the group's decision if the DM was transparent about it in this way. If the DM is going to fudge so the PCs "ofc win," I don't really see the point of playing. Just drop me an email and tell me what happened.

[GloatingSwine]

I want my lvl2 group (4 ppl) to fight 3 yetis (and ofc win) because it is terrain and story appropriate; but because according to their 5e tables they have no chance,
i decided to lower their stats (hit, dmg, saves, etc) & name them "Young yetis".


As long as you come up with a sensible in-character reason why their stats are not as expected and the players have at least some indication that this has happened, so that they know not to expect <whatever> to be so easy in future.

[Tenmujiin]

Reading other people's responses I realise I wasn't quite clear on what I meant. Don't fudge because the PCs made bad choices or not the choices you wanted them to and don't run things like my ad-hocked BBEG too often. Don't even fudge because the rolls came up badly. The main use for DM fudging is so that you can adjust the power of encounters once you see them in action since you often can't be sure of your own balance. When I said "His health was basically equal to however much kept him alive until he used up all of the party's healing pots." what I meant was "His health was equal to what was required to make him a serious threat and possible TPK if the PCs were particularly unlucky or made bad decisions."

Fudging is a tool you should use to make sure your encounters are balanced, not to force your PCs into the story you want them to follow or to make sure they always win. Fudging because you made a monster significantly too weak or too strong is good. Fudging because the PCs made a bad choice or where unlucky is not.

[MaxWilson]

Reading other people's responses I realise I wasn't quite clear on what I meant. Don't fudge because the PCs made bad choices or not the choices you wanted them to and don't run things like my ad-hocked BBEG too often. Don't even fudge because the rolls came up badly. The main use for DM fudging is so that you can adjust the power of encounters once you see them in action since you often can't be sure of your own balance. When I said "His health was basically equal to however much kept him alive until he used up all of the party's healing pots." what I meant was "His health was equal to what was required to make him a serious threat and possible TPK if the PCs were particularly unlucky or made bad decisions."

Fudging is a tool you should use to make sure your encounters are balanced, not to force your PCs into the story you want them to follow or to make sure they always win. Fudging because you made a monster significantly too weak or too strong is good. Fudging because the PCs made a bad choice or where unlucky is not.

Encounter balancing should be done before the encounter. Once the encounter begins, it's your job to play the monster as faithfully as possible, which for an intelligent foe means trying as hard as you can to kill them in intelligent ways, and if that is impossible then to at least live to fight another day. You can't really do that at the same time you are wearing your "encounter designer" hat and tweaking stats live.

If I found out that a DM was increasing an enemy's HP in the middle of combat just because I turned out to be smarter than he thought I would be... like Finieous said, "just drop me an email." Why play? If on the other hand I am the DM and a fight goes easier than I thought it would because of an ability the PCs had that I had forgotten about, again, bully for you. I am also a big fan of the advice that encounters should always be balanced[1] for the "typical" party and never for the actual PCs, because otherwise the PCs never get any benefit from the choices the players make while building them.

Again, YMMV.

[1] Edit: I should have said "designed" for the typical party. You might design an encounter for a typical party (melee dude will probably charge, archer dudes need something to threaten them so add in a giant spider hiding in the ceiling, spellcasters may launch Fireball so the enemies are dispersed and not concentrated) and then balance it for your party by adding more monsters to provide appropriate amounts of fun. You might even give them monsters that are way too tough for them by official rules, but which you think they can handle in an epic fight. But you will not make monsters stronger because you know the Sorcerer has been saving all of his high-level spell slots for the BBEG, and you will not neglect to have the monsters use Stealth because you know that everyone has a terrible Perception due to dumping Wisdom and taking Athletics/Insight/Medicine/Persuasion. You will let the players experience the result of their own choices.

[Finieous]

Fudging because you made a monster significantly too weak or too strong is good

No it's not (IMHO). If the players are playing the game well, they should know when a monster is too strong for them before they pick a fight with it.* If that's impossible, they should retreat. If that's impossible, they should negotiate. If that's impossible, they should die with their boots on. Likewise, if you make a monster too weak, I get to enjoy my character's awesomeness and you gain a little more experience in encounter building. Win-win.

* And there should be encounters that are too strong for them. I really don't like "theme park" adventures/campaigns where every encounter is magically attuned to my character's martial prowess. Populating an adventure or campaign setting in this way fatally undermines the exploration pillar, again IMHO.

[Tenmujiin]

Encounter balancing should be done before the encounter. Once the encounter begins, it's your job to play the monster as faithfully as possible, which for an intelligent foe means trying as hard as you can to kill them in intelligent ways, and if that is impossible then to at least live to fight another day. You can't really do that at the same time you are wearing your "encounter designer" hat and tweaking stats live.

If I found out that a DM was increasing an enemy's HP in the middle of combat just because I turned out to be smarter than he thought I would be... like Finieous said, "just drop me an email." Why play? If on the other hand I am the DM and a fight goes easier than I thought it would because of an ability the PCs had that I had forgotten about, again, bully for you. I am also a big fan of the advice that encounters should always be balanced for the "typical" party and never for the actual PCs, because otherwise the PCs never get any benefit from the choices the players make while building them.

Again, YMMV.

I specifically stated that you should only fudge to fix mistakes you made not because the PCs outsmarted your encounter (good for them if they did) or decided to retard out (I had a rogue that decided to try and solo every dungeon...he died). Also I disagree that the DM's job is to play the monster as faithfully as possible. The DM's first job is to make sure the players have fun and if you messed up your encounter design the players shouldn't have to suffer the consequences (unlike if they are the ones who made a stupid decision).

[Tenmujiin]

No it's not (IMHO). If the players are playing the game well, they should know when a monster is too strong for them before they pick a fight with it.* If that's impossible, they should retreat. If that's impossible, they should negotiate. If that's impossible, they should die with their boots on. Likewise, if you make a monster too weak, I get to enjoy my character's awesomeness and you gain a little more experience in encounter building. Win-win.

* And there should be encounters that are too strong for them. I really don't like "theme park" adventures/campaigns where every encounter is magically attuned to my character's martial prowess. Populating an adventure or campaign setting in this way fatally undermines the exploration pillar, again IMHO.

Sorry, what I meant there was "significantly weaker or stronger than you intended." The PCs success should be based on their actions, not on whether the DM f***ed up with his encounter design.

[Finieous]

Sorry, what I meant there was "significantly weaker or stronger than you intended." The PCs success should be based on their actions, not on whether the DM f***ed up with his encounter design.

Still, if you have to intervene because you f***ed up (and the players couldn't have assessed the encounter's strength ahead of time), I'd just as soon you intervene via generosity in how you adjudicate the execution of our "strategic withdrawal." This empowers the players to solve the problem instead of solving it for them behind the screen. And if they choose not to solve the problem, you needn't pull any punches. They still got to make a decision.

[silveralen]

Encounter balancing should be done before the encounter. Once the encounter begins, it's your job to play the monster as faithfully as possible, which for an intelligent foe means trying as hard as you can to kill them in intelligent ways, and if that is impossible then to at least live to fight another day. You can't really do that at the same time you are wearing your "encounter designer" hat and tweaking stats live.

If I found out that a DM was increasing an enemy's HP in the middle of combat just because I turned out to be smarter than he thought I would be... like Finieous said, "just drop me an email." Why play? If on the other hand I am the DM and a fight goes easier than I thought it would because of an ability the PCs had that I had forgotten about, again, bully for you. I am also a big fan of the advice that encounters should always be balanced[1] for the "typical" party and never for the actual PCs, because otherwise the PCs never get any benefit from the choices the players make while building them.

I think it is less "the party was smart, make the monster harder to compensate" and more "the party did exactly what I expected, but I didn't realize how damaging/accurate the parties attacks were, etc".

The former should always be avoided, but the latter really depends on the table, the encounter, and the exact issue at hand.


Still, if you have to intervene because you f***ed up (and the players couldn't have assessed the encounter's strength ahead of time), I'd just as soon you intervene via generosity in how you adjudicate the execution of our "strategic withdrawal." This empowers the players to solve the problem instead of solving it for them behind the screen. And if they choose not to solve the problem, you needn't pull any punches. They still got to make a decision.

Yeah, forcing the party to retreat both means your forced them into losing, albeit not the sort of loss that involves new characters, and wasted people's time by giving them something they literally couldn't beat. You can say you prefer it in the abstract, but I've yet to meet a single group who actually enjoyed that.

[Tenmujiin]

Fair enough. I guess my stance on it comes from my players being less interested in the plot or combat than in just playing their charcters (personalities and abilities rather than numbers). This'll have to be my last reply for today, its past midnight here and I have to get some sleep.

Edit: I think Silveralen said it more eloquently than I could. And as a final attempt at making my experience with this clear, Elsin is somone who you've probably seen post quite a bit on these forums who takes RAW as the be-all-end-all, my group is basically the complete opposite of that.

[MaxWilson]

I specifically stated that you should only fudge to fix mistakes you made not because the PCs outsmarted your encounter (good for them if they did) or decided to retard out (I had a rogue that decided to try and solo every dungeon...he died). Also I disagree that the DM's job is to play the monster as faithfully as possible. The DM's first job is to make sure the players have fun and if you messed up your encounter design the players shouldn't have to suffer the consequences (unlike if they are the ones who made a stupid decision).

Well then, the OP is getting an education in possible player responses, isn't he? I wouldn't want to play in a campaign with the rules you use, because it disempowers me as a player. You presumably wouldn't want to play in a campaign that I run, because there isn't enough narrative guidance as to what you should do. (Forgive me if I misunderstand your motives for preferring active DMing.) The OP can make appropriate choices based on what he thinks his players are looking for.

[Tenmujiin]

Well then, the OP is getting an education in possible player responses, isn't he? I wouldn't want to play in a campaign with the rules you use, because it disempowers me as a player. You presumably wouldn't want to play in a campaign that I run, because there isn't enough narrative guidance as to what you should do. (Forgive me if I misunderstand your motives for preferring active DMing.) The OP can make appropriate choices based on what he thinks his players are looking for.

Its about empowering the player's choices so that a mistake on your behalf doesn't ruin their experience. If the players decided to screw the plot I've writen and head off to another continent then I'd just roll with it since by leaving my encounters easily mutable I can adapt them to the story created by the PCs. Anyway, this one really is my last post, goodnight.

[Finieous]

Yeah, forcing the party to retreat both means your forced them into losing, albeit not the sort of loss that involves new characters, and wasted people's time by giving them something they literally couldn't beat. You can say you prefer it in the abstract, but I've yet to meet a single group who actually enjoyed that.

Wow. I've been sprinkling my post liberally with IMHOs, but I'm pretty shocked you've never met players who prefer this. There are few things in the game more satisfying than returning to a lair or to a confrontation with an old nemesis that kicked your @ss once before. Quite the opposite of "wasting people's time."

[MaxWilson]

@Tenmujin,

I should illustrate why dynamic balancing a la your approach disempowers me. Say I'm a Sorcerer. I might be the kind of guy who blows his 9th level spell slots on the very first encounter of the day casting Chromatic Orb (of all things) at 9th level. I know someone like that. Or I might be the kind of guy who conserves resources as much as possible, fighting with cantrips and Web spells and distance so that when I get to the BBEG I still have the majority of my spell slots and all of my 7th/8th/9th level slots. With dynamic balancing, so that the BBEG has pretty much as much HP as it takes to survive until he's done, it doesn't matter whether I hit him with 9th level Scorching Ray for 108 points of damage or 1st level Magic Missile for 10 points of damage. Either way he's going to live the same amount of time. My choices as a player don't matter. I find that a real turn-off.


I think it is less "the party was smart, make the monster harder to compensate" and more "the party did exactly what I expected, but I didn't realize how damaging/accurate the parties attacks were, etc".

The former should always be avoided, but the latter really depends on the table, the encounter, and the exact issue at hand.

I just wanted to acknowledge that I read what you wrote here and I believe I understand your perspective. Hopefully it's clear by now why I disagree. We are looking for different kinds of games, and I think it basically comes down to simulationism vs. gamism. I'm very, very simulationist and exploration-oriented, and I am therefore totally okay with things happening like "Whoa, the big bad evil guy is actually Vecna the Lich. We cannot handle this. Let's run and hide for the rest of our lives." It's not a "loss" per se, it's just a realistic response to the situation at hand. I don't need to "win" the encounter to have fun, I just need the encounter to work like it's real.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Reskin/alter a monster before the encounter? Totally cool! It's no different from homebrew, and there's lots of situations where you might need to do it.

During the encounter? Now you're on pretty shaky ground. That said, I'd understand why you feel you need that option, because D&D players have tended to shift into a mentality of "win or die". I think that's the actual core problem. The thing is, those aren't the only two outcomes. The players can win the encounter, which gets them the biggest goods, or...


They can retreat; they've learned something about their adversaries, and can come back later with better weapons and tactics
They can be captured; this puts them in a difficult situation that they'll have to talk or think their way out of
The enemy can give them a thrashing, then leave; they were only really fighting to buy time for nefarious plots to hatch
If the enemy is actually out for blood, they can fight to the death...but why should this happen every time?


I mean, just start thinking. Why are the players fighting their enemies? Why are the enemies still fighting the players? When does the encounter end? Because "everyone is dead" isn't the only way to end an encounter. Here's a case in point: if the players are ambushed by spiders for no apparent reason, yeah..."the spiders are dead" is the only clear end to the encounter. But...

What if those spiders are protecting their eggs? Then the encounter ends when the party realizes this, and backs off. The spiders go back to their eggs, the players go on their way, everyone's happy.

[BW022]

For me, it is ok to fudge rolls in order to protect the party (and game) from a mistake, unintentionally difficult encounters, bad luck, one player's stupidity, misunderstandings, etc.

However, I think it is a terrible idea to intentionally make up encounters which the players shouldn't have any hope of getting through and then fudging everything just so that they do. It eventually becomes obvious to the player that their actions have no meaning and they might as well be reading a book as you've already determined the outcome. It is anti-climatic when they do think and play intelligently and it encourages meta-gaming, fails to discourage stupid play, and removes 'fear' and 'accomplishment' as they no longer have anyway of telling what is dangerous, impossible, or easy.

It is also unnecessary and just poor planning. If you have a good plotline involving yetis... fine. Wait until the party is 5th-level or something before trying it. Forcing 2nd-level characters into this is just silly. They'll either know this was silly or they'll actually believe they are tough enough to go after yetis, ogres, trolls, and such... and you'll either have to give them a pass then also or they'll just get horribly slaughtered and the campaign will end.

Having a good idea of what your characters can't do is important in a campaign. It gives them limits, encourages fear, and helps promote intelligent play. It also means when they do defeat something more powerful than themselves, they do get a good sense of accomplishment.

There are times when I've set up intentionally powerful encounters which the players were part of. These can lead to dramatic effect without insane "soft balling". Typically, the PCs are part of a larger group and their action turns the tide. They don't necessarily directly confront the foe (it's too powerful) by they help someone else do so, are part of a larger battle, or have some part in a larger plan.

For example, I once had a group of players help assassinate a fire giant. They were 4th-level and had no hope of dealing with the giant, but the PCs were leading a high level NPC with them. When the fight started, the NPC 'dealt' with the giant while the PCs needed to kill some bugbear guards and close the shut the doors before reinforcements arrived. I've also had cases where PCs were chased by large numbers of creatures knowing they could escape by destroying a bridge or leading them into another hostile force -- a 3-group fight where the PCs could sit back and take on the winner. I've also seen a good 1E module in which the players were give a small keep and were attacked by more powerful enemies -- but have heavy cover, ballista, arrows, oil, etc.

However, such cases require a lot of planning and need to be special. Merely having the PCs face foes which should kill them just because you have some "story" or pre-planned senses is (IMO) lazy. Save such encounters until they are higher level, switch creatures for something less powerful, or give a setup/situation/NPCs where winning such a fight would be within the sphere of possibility.

[silveralen]

Wow. I've been sprinkling my post liberally with IMHOs, but I'm pretty shocked you've never met players who prefer this. There are few things in the game more satisfying than returning to a lair or to a confrontation with an old nemesis that kicked your @ss once before. Quite the opposite of "wasting people's time."

Okay, now the thing is they do enjoy that if the enemy is properly built up, clearly a major villain, someone they aren't meant to face right now, and they knew/suspected that going in. When the guy was supposed to be a moderately challenging throw away character with almost no development? Not even slightly.


I just wanted to acknowledge that I read what you wrote here and I believe I understand your perspective. Hopefully it's clear by now why I disagree. We are looking for different kinds of games, and I think it basically comes down to simulationism vs. gamism. I'm very, very simulationist and exploration-oriented, and I am therefore totally okay with things happening like "Whoa, the big bad evil guy is actually Vecna the Lich. We cannot handle this. Let's run and hide for the rest of our lives." It's not a "loss" per se, it's just a realistic response to the situation at hand. I don't need to "win" the encounter to have fun, I just need the encounter to work like it's real.

I think my players would be more annoyed if all the sudden the standard necromancer or orc commander turned out to be venca or an avatar of grummush actually. Suddenly we have a new BBEG, a lot of previous goals and expectations are getting tossed out the window along with other ideas about how things would develop, and I'm creating a brand new villain complete with motivations and backstory on the fly. Or... I could tweak the encounter down mid battle (since the character was never intended to be that strong, regardless of what stats I had on the page) and the actual campaign can continue as it did before, without me being forced to rewrite chunks due to one screw up generating stats.

For me, the latter is going to be a better story. I don't mind improv based on character actions, that means the care enough about the story to try and change things, rather than jut running blindly to the next encounter, but for things like this it really doesn't seem to be needed.

[Finieous]

Okay, now the thing is they do enjoy that if the enemy is properly built up, clearly a major villain, someone they aren't meant to face right now, and they knew/suspected that going in.


The games I run, he becomes a major villain because he kicks the PCs @sses the first time, not because I've decided ahead of time that he's a Major Villain. It becomes a "story" not because I plot it that way, but because the PCs gain some experience and skill and go back to return the favor.

[Composer99]

OP, with respect to on-the-fly changes, it's your and your players' elfgame, and if you're all having fun doing what you're doing, keep doing it.

As you have seen on this thread, other DMs and players have differing views on what is acceptable. And that's their elfgame, so as long as they're having fun doing what they're doing, they should also keep doing it.

[Finieous]

Also OP, it's perfectly sensible and appropriate to solicit opinions on the advantages and disadvantages of various elfgame styles. The discussion might give you some ideas, and you'll discover that some of the pros and cons will be more relevant to your group than others.

[silveralen]

The games I run, he becomes a major villain because he kicks the PCs @sses the first time, not because I've decided ahead of time that he's a Major Villain. It becomes a "story" not because I plot it that way, but because the PCs gain some experience and skill and go back to return the favor.

We tend to go more predetermined major villains based on backstory with character tie in various ways. We tend to get invested in the villains before we fight them, not only if we lose to one. YMMV, but my group tends to become easily bored if they aren't given interesting reasons for the dungeon crawl pre-crawl, and the things we tend to remember are needing to kill/defeat an interesting character or snag an interesting item.

[Finieous]

We tend to go more predetermined major villains based on backstory with character tie in various ways. We tend to get invested in the villains before we fight them, not only if we lose to one. YMMV, but my group tends to become easily bored if they aren't given interesting reasons for the dungeon crawl pre-crawl, and the things we tend to remember are needing to kill/defeat an interesting character or snag an interesting item.

Yeah, that's cool. Based on published adventures and games, as well as discussions like this one, I think it's fair to say that kind of game is increasingly the preference of most players. I do think it's appropriate to hear other viewpoints, but it's also possible I'm just an old man yelling at clouds again. :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

I think my players would be more annoyed if all the sudden the standard necromancer or orc commander turned out to be venca or an avatar of grummush actually. Suddenly we have a new BBEG, a lot of previous goals and expectations are getting tossed out the window along with other ideas about how things would develop, and I'm creating a brand new villain complete with motivations and backstory on the fly. Or... I could tweak the encounter down mid battle (since the character was never intended to be that strong, regardless of what stats I had on the page) and the actual campaign can continue as it did before, without me being forced to rewrite chunks due to one screw up generating stats.

I think we are talking about different things here. I was discussing my reaction as a player to discovering that the BBEG is vastly more powerful than I had even realized--but as a simulationist I would also expect that there had been some kind of evidence beforehand that this was the case. Still, if I heard a rumor that an evil wizard had set up shop in a haunted castle and I investigated and it turned out to be Vecna[1], I would be shocked but I would have a realistic response, and I wouldn't consider retreating to have wasted my time. I would expect the DM to have some kind of interesting story in mind though. That's what I'm talking about.

You seem to be talking about having accidentally generated Vecna the Lich. I'm not sure how, since in Tenmujin's story the PCs already had a history with the BBEG, the DM just didn't have stats for him until the fight actually happened. In other words, if he was Vecna they would have already known about it. (And more importantly, the DM would have already known about it, so it's not a "new" BBEG who suddenly invalidates old plotlines--the DM knew it all along.) Please elaborate on the scenario you envisage and I will tell if you I would find it objectionable as a player or not.

[1] Bonus points to the evil necromancer if it turns out to not be Vecna, he's just pretending using illusions in order to get rid of the threat.

[DireSickFish]

I'm in the camp that prefers to tinker with monsters beforehand, or pull something and reskin it. Then once combat starts everything is "set" and it's up to the players to roll with it. I've had issues on balance and coming up with the right number of enemies at times. It's not perfect and sometimes a combat is harder than I thought it'd be or easier than I'd imagined.

Fudging mid combat can easily come off as cheating. It can be done and is sometimes necessary. I've given badguys higher initiative than they rolled to help them escape the scene. Cheating like that is not my preferred method. It can be done tactfully and in moderation. Having to fudge every fight or not use key abilities just so it goes the PC's way is not something I like.

[Xetheral]

I agree that it is absolutely important that the players feel their choices in character design and combat actions make a difference. But, as DM, you have almost total control over what the players see, and thus your players' perceptions need not necessarily be grounded in reality.

I will fudge dice rolls, change monster statistics, change reinforcements, alter victory conditions, and rearrange dungeons in my efforts to ensure that everyone has fun most of the time. Hell, if I'm improvising (which happens often), the opponents might not even have fixed stats until the party makes enough finely-grained rolls that they've figured out what hits and what misses. Similarly, dungeons may not have layouts or population until the party actually explores a particular area. I'm open with my players about the fact that I can and do alter the game world on the fly. But I'm never "caught" at it, and since I control what the characters and the players see, there is no reason I ever will be.

DMing is, in many respects, performance art. It's a combination of improv theatre, stand-up comedy, and a con game. You want them to know that their choices, both IC and OOC, make a difference even when they don't. There are many techniques for doing so:

Don't use a DM screen... roll openly, but do pay attention to who at the table has line-of-sight to where the dice end up and whether they happen to be looking, so that you know how much flexibility you have. Don't hide your notes, but also don't be afraid to have the top page showing (that you're actively consulting) be last week's meticulously pre-planned notes that actually don't have anything to do with the current off-the-cuff encounter. (Fun fact: a messy table with a lot of books/dice lying around and messy, cryptic notes are a DM's friend.) Do provide disingenuous commentary on the progress of a battle ("sheesh, you guys are hard to challenge" after a player crit 'kills' an opponent that still had HP left). Always pay attention to whether the players feel they are rolling well or poorly (which doesn't often match the statistical reality) and make sure the results of the battle align with those expectations (or establish a visceral reason why they do not).
Do it right, and you can't be caught outright. At most, a player will notice a discrepancy and inquire. At that point either own up to a mistake/math error (heavens knows I make just as many of them when I'm not fudging) and resolve the mistake in the party's favor, or double down, grin, and invite the player to pursue the apparent incongruity IC. (I've had entire fascinating plot threads originate from making a continuity error.)

Finally, remember that there is a difference between being "caught" and some or all of your players being aware of what's going on. The greatest compliment I've ever received from a player was a confession that, despite knowing that I was making half of the game up on the fly, the player could never tell when I was and when I wasn't improvising. Sometimes they inquire when I'm not wearing my DM hat, and under such circumstances, I either answer honestly or I decline to answer (usually citing potential spoilers), depending on whether knowing the truth would enhance or detract from the player's experience.

For example, I once stole a line from Terry Pratchett and confronted the party with a dungeon T-junction with a sign showing a left-facing arrow and the words "Go Right". The party spent an awesomely-fun OOC hour debating which way to go. Afterwards, a player interested in DMing techniques came up to me and inquired if it had made any difference at all which way the party chose to go. I answered honestly: I only had one room planned, and the party would have found it no matter which way they went--had they backtracked, I would have made something up. The player grinned at me, her enjoyment enhanced by having seen a bit of the behind-the-scenes magic. Had it been a player who had been frustrated with the "wasted" hour, I probably would have declined to answer, and instead truthfully apologized that my gimmick had distracted the party long enough that the player stopped enjoying themselves.

To paraphrase Sneakers: Everything in this world, especially D&D, operates not on reality, but on the perception of reality. Remember that simple fact as a DM; it means your options for making sure your players enjoy themselves are nearly limitless.

[silveralen]

I think we are talking about different things here. I was discussing my reaction as a player to discovering that the BBEG is vastly more powerful than I had even realized--but as a simulationist I would also expect that there had been some kind of evidence beforehand that this was the case. Still, if I heard a rumor that an evil wizard had set up shop in a haunted castle and I investigated and it turned out to be Vecna, I would be shocked but I would have a realistic response, and I wouldn't consider retreating to have wasted my time. I would expect the DM to have some kind of interesting story in mind though. That's what I'm talking about.

Quite simply that the stats for the enemy weren't what was intended. Threw some mishap or overestimation of the party's abilities, the enemy is clearly more than the party can take on despite being intended as a moderate challenge at best.

I'll be honest, this happened way more in 3.5 when power levels could vary so significantly. Dealing with barbarians and rogues after you got used to a party of clerics and druids could cause you to greatly overestimate the sort of enemy they could deal with, the same with going from a optimized to non optimized.

[MaxWilson]

Fudging mid combat can easily come off as cheating. It can be done and is sometimes necessary. I've given badguys higher initiative than they rolled to help them escape the scene. Cheating like that is not my preferred method. It can be done tactfully and in moderation. Having to fudge every fight or not use key abilities just so it goes the PC's way is not something I like.

I just want to say that altering the bad guy's initiative so they can escape the scene is not something I would object to from a story perspective, because that kind of thing can be necessary to keep a story cohesive enough that the DM can actually prepare a plotline. I would prefer for the DM to be transparent about it afterward. "Yeah, you guys totally were about to waste Peabody before he could even make it to the doors, but Lady Luck/The Gods of Narrative stepped in to help him. They award all of you guys 2000 XP for good play as compensation, and now they go back to watching with intense interest, to see if you can do it again."

I've thought about setting up a formalized system whereby who derail the plot can gain some kind of narrative points whereby they can at some future point alter my plot, a la:

DM: Vecna narrows his eyes and then unleashes Banefire on all of you.
PC: No, wait! [hands over narrative token] He isn't scared of us. He wants to use us as slaves, so he tries to capture us instead.
DM: [thinks briefly, then accepts] Okay, he laughs and casts Evards Black Tentacles.

I've never actually implemented this though.

[MaxWilson]

Similarly, dungeons may not have layouts or population until the party actually explores a particular area. I'm open with my players about the fact that I can and do alter the game world on the fly. But I'm never "caught" at it, and since I control what the characters and the players see, there is no reason I ever will be.

I'm totally cool with this. One fun way to run a campaign is for nothing to exist until somebody discovers it. Maybe I'm playing with Asmor.com's random encounter generator and find that a Mind Flayer and two Elves is an appropriate CR level for an 8th level party. I decide that the Mind Flayers in this campaign never lost their interplanetary empire, and the Elves are the snobby Spelljammerish type from the Imperial Elvish Navy. They are here because, hmmm, the elves got cashiered for murder and hired on as the Mind Flayer's bodyguards, but then their spelljamming ship was captured by... something nasty that lives a dozen leagues away, when they set down for water on this planet. And maybe none of this will matter in this encounter, if the PCs just attack on sight, but now that I know that elves and Mind Flayers in this campaign get along, maybe you will see some more crossovers in the future, like Intellect Devourer Bionoids. And maybe the PCs will volunteer to help them catch a lift, or will run into whatever wrecked their ship. (Green dragon?)

So yeah, I agree that you don't have to have everything planned out in advance.

*snip excellent performance advice from Xetheral*

Great ideas, man. Thanks!

[Tenmujiin]

You seem to be talking about having accidentally generated Vecna the Lich. I'm not sure how, since in Tenmujin's story the PCs already had a history with the BBEG, the DM just didn't have stats for him until the fight actually happened. In other words, if he was Vecna they would have already known about it. (And more importantly, the DM would have already known about it, so it's not a "new" BBEG who suddenly invalidates old plotlines--the DM knew it all along.)

To elaborate on my story:
BBEG probably wasn't the best term for this particular enemy. The enemy in question was actually the party rogue (the one who liked to try and solo dungeons) who had been converted into a slime monster, hence their history. The only thing he retained from his time as a PC was most of his personality and some memories and the reason I threw him at the party was because I knew we would have some spare time after the end of the adventure otherwise. I called him a BBEG because he was the big epic fight at the end of the adventure and while he didn't have hard stats until those stats actually mattered I didn't adjust them once they were set. (For example when he first attacked I decided that 2 2d6 attacks seemed reasonable but when the time came to decide what lwgendary actions to give him I realised his damage needed to be a bit higher and so made his main legendary action a 1d6 attack with 3 uses a round from the minions he was generating (they were part of his health pool and made no other actions). Once those attacks were designated they remained the same (along with his +5 to hit).

As to your comment on burning high level spells as opposed to lower level ones that still do the job. I'm not going to pull any punches because a player made a bad decision. Neither am I going to make an encounter harder because a player is doing well.

Xetheral's post is close to how I DM though I'm probably not as good as him yet (I've only DMed two full adventures).

[Kerilstrasz]

After reading all the replies i pretty much agree with all, with some more with some less.

Let me elaborate just a bit, to the reasons i want to do the above..

I have a difficult group of players, each player is different to another, but non of them have actual playing experience.
Now we will take our first shot in 5e.

So, i thought to create a campaign (campaign is ready) , that will have several stages of learning/teaching.

The problem is that the campaign is written for 3,5e & now that 5e have the monsters stats & abilities changed i decided to just homewbrew the 3,5 monsters into 5e, rather than
replace them with 5e ones, so i can keep all the puzzles, solutions, hooks, story, etc etc the same.

My 1st problem is:
If i introduce homebrewed monsters (monsters that are well known, as yetis, dispacer beasts, nymphs , etc ) and my Players learn them like this,
wouldn't that raise a future problem , when the actual monster show up?

My 2nd problem:
Each encounter is there to teach them something, like when to fight, when to retreat, how to use terrain for strategic purposes, how to tell a hard fight from an easy..

All these encounters are set in such a way that can be moved in front of them at key points and teach them.

The problem now is, that if i see mid fight that combat is going the wrong way (suppose for example to teach when to retreat, when by mistake i made the encounter way to easy)
is it ok to change certain factors to make clear that "Hey.. we can't kill them. Lets retreat and fight another day" ?

These "teaching" encounters will last for about 2-3 sessions (the hole campaign is 5 sets of about 4 sessions).


I wont protect the group over their own faults, neither will i "boost" monsters if they play smart or get lucky.
I ll just "push the favors" towards the side that will make these encounters FAN and profitable for the players experience, in those cases that the transfer of 3,5 monsters to 5e wasn't
successful.

[silveralen]

I mean, if your issue is needing to force the party to retreat, simply having some more unpleasant monsters come up is a decent idea. For example, these were baby yetis, now the parents are home. To be perfectly honest, that is a technique pretty much every DM has used at one point or another, at least unless the DM is the master of freeform improvisation. Even official adventure often have caveats about reinforcements.

Which segues into the first issue, make the enemy somehow distinct. I'm a fan of not making all orcs, trolls, or whatever the same as is, but some sort of indication is usually good. Make these displacer beasts shimmer, as if they aren't completely on top of their abilities, or just describe them as being young. Same with the yetis, they are scrawny, runty, etc. Describing enemies as well armed, disciplined, well trained, elite, etc can work as well to indicate stronger monsters. Adjectives help.

Now, if they don't remember (or hear) the tips that the monster wasn't typical for its kind, next time they meet one and remark on it being stronger, you could point out that the previous one was described as being weak. Which teaches the importance of listening to descriptions (also helpful).

[DireSickFish]

After reading all the replies i pretty much agree with all, with some more with some less.

Let me elaborate just a bit, to the reasons i want to do the above..

I have a difficult group of players, each player is different to another, but non of them have actual playing experience.
Now we will take our first shot in 5e.

So, i thought to create a campaign (campaign is ready) , that will have several stages of learning/teaching.

The problem is that the campaign is written for 3,5e & now that 5e have the monsters stats & abilities changed i decided to just homewbrew the 3,5 monsters into 5e, rather than
replace them with 5e ones, so i can keep all the puzzles, solutions, hooks, story, etc etc the same.

My 1st problem is:
If i introduce homebrewed monsters (monsters that are well known, as yetis, dispacer beasts, nymphs , etc ) and my Players learn them like this,
wouldn't that raise a future problem , when the actual monster show up?

My 2nd problem:
Each encounter is there to teach them something, like when to fight, when to retreat, how to use terrain for strategic purposes, how to tell a hard fight from an easy..

All these encounters are set in such a way that can be moved in front of them at key points and teach them.

The problem now is, that if i see mid fight that combat is going the wrong way (suppose for example to teach when to retreat, when by mistake i made the encounter way to easy)
is it ok to change certain factors to make clear that "Hey.. we can't kill them. Lets retreat and fight another day" ?

These "teaching" encounters will last for about 2-3 sessions (the hole campaign is 5 sets of about 4 sessions).


I wont protect the group over their own faults, neither will i "boost" monsters if they play smart or get lucky.
I ll just "push the favors" towards the side that will make these encounters FAN and profitable for the players experience, in those cases that the transfer of 3,5 monsters to 5e wasn't
successful.

I'm going to have to modify my answer based on the context you are giving. Normaly fudging and reskinning can be done with ought hurting the game to much, as long as it's done tactfully. This does not sound like one of those times. You are setting out to teach them about the game as is and ease them into it. I'd take the ideas of the encounters (group gets captured by level appropriate monsters, replace yetties with Bugbears/orcs/whatever is appropriate) instead of the leter of the 3.5 encounters. That way they will have context when they fight these monsters int he future.

If you -do- end up reskinning or homebrewing make sure you point out differences from normal monsters before the fight that they players might notice. The Yettis appear to be bloodied from a previous fight, the displacer beasts are larger than normal, something like that. Then once the game is over and everyone is putting away character sheets, let them in on how you scaled them. Tell them you lowerd there HP and to hit to make it a better encounter. Let them know you thought a story with Yetties would be interesting and needed them to not kill the entire party.

I've recently had to GM for a lot of new players. They are constantly asking questions about what I did as a GM and try to understand how I came to my decisions. The veterins at the table "already know" how things are supposed to go and give me an eyeroll when I explain something they don't agree with. My new players are folding that into there expectations of the game for the future.

[Vizzerdrix]

A hollow victory isn't a victory at all. How would you feel if your players decided to "fudge Rolls" to make it more exciting?

[Forum Explorer]

Changing the monsters stats around is fine, so long as you give them some knowledge of what you are doing. I mean if you are making a super goblin, I expect the super goblin to look different from the weak goblins.

As for on the fly changes? If the monster is too weak you just let them kill it, or have it run away if it's supposed to be a boss battle.

If the monster is too strong? Flat out admit that you messed up to your players and come to a mutually agreed on solution for your mistake. Perhaps they're fine with just running away, or getting the crap beaten out of them. Perhaps they want to just retcon the fight out of existence.


Most important thing though? Let them know you are homebrewing monsters right from the start.

[Person_Man]

Prior to the start of the game, I change monster statistics all the time. If adding or removing or an ability or altering their modifiers makes the game more fun, go for it. I do my best to give my players a mix of easy, balanced, and difficult encounters, but first and foremost they need to be fun. Don't get caught up in the simulationist details of being "honest" about your made up fantasy creatures.

Having said that, once a game actually starts, I let players roll virtually 100% of the dice in the open. (Occassionally there's a monster's Stealth check or whatever that I don't want players to see, but even then I usually use the passive 10 + whatever instead of rolling). Players should never feel like they're being manipulated or "cheated" or whatever. They need to feel like they are in control of their destiny. Hiding fudged dice behind a screen just leads to poor decision making, hurt feelings, etc.

Also, there is no such thing as making a monster too hard. I flat out tell my players before we start a campaign that some enemies are going to be way above their weight class, and attacking them head on would be suicide. Once they know that death is a actual thing that could happen to them and that some enemies are stronger then they are, they start actually paying attention to the game, coming up with creative solutions to things, and even retreating or surrendering when absolutely necessary. The trick is that you should rarely hide how strong an enemy is from the players. When they see the enemy, they should immediately know roughly how powerful they are in relationship to it. If you changed a monster to make it fire breathing then they need to see it breathing smoke, if you changed it to add a petrifying stare then it needs to be surrounded by statues, if its now 10 times stronger then they need to see it uproot a tree to scratch its back, etc. If they then choose go into combat and get killed by the dice, so be it. That's part of what makes the game interesting.