Coded Dice! And Other Pro-DM Shenanigans.

[ekarney]

As DM's, we all know every once in a while, we have to fudge just that one roll, whether it's to save the player who's had 3 characters die in the last 2 games due to really bad rolls, or to get back at that one guy who always seems to get 2+ 18s when you're rolling 3d6 for ability scores. Either way, we all have to fudge rolls for the sake of our players.

The tough part is getting away with it. Especially when you can't track down a DM screen that you like enough. How do you guys get away with it in this case?

So I thought about alternate solutions, and came up with nothing until I saw a dice set written in Kanji, but they've been increasingly hard to find for a decent price.

My question is, does anyone know of any other forms of 'coded' dice? Or alternatively better ways of getting away with it?
I think my players are starting to catch onto the "Well yeah, I rolled randomly earlier for this battle and wrote down the rolls, to make it more immersive!" excuse.

[kalasulmar]

I just use a screen. Most players know some fudging happens, so as long as you have built up a certain measure of trust with them you should have little problem with "adjusted" outcomes.

[aspi]

I'm really not a fan of fudging rolls to help the group, there are better ways of doing that. On the other hand, if you're actually considering fudging rolls to hinder a player, you shouldn't be running a game at all in my opinion. That's just not acceptable behavior for a DM.

So how do you keep players alive without fudging rolls in their favor? Make the results dynamic instead - who says there has to be a single, set threshold of hitpoints below which you die? It could just as well be a flexible threshold where there is a certain risk of dying, but may live if the DM sees fit. So if you do something stupid and roll bad it's lights out but if you play normally and just have bad luck the DM can be lenient. This of course requires that the group agrees roughly on what should be a deadly situation and more importantly that the group trusts the DMs judgement.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Personally, I think fudging is a disgraceful behaviour, and I reject it.

If dice rolls are taking the game out of the control of the GM, and the GM wants to have that control of the narrative, then you're using the wrong rules system.

To me, either the dice rolls are a real part of the game, in which case we take their results as rolled - the excitement of playing the game includes the random factor of the dice, including during character generation, combat and whatever - or the dice are not used for critical, life-or-death decisions and the game runs on storytelling.

You can tweak rules to make the need to fudge disappear. I've blogged on this topic, if you're interested. (http://running-the-game.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/taming-chaos-probability-and-heroes.html)

I particularly scorn the idea of pretending that you're not fudging by rolling in the open and still lying to your player group.

[Amphetryon]

As DM's, we all know every once in a while, we have to fudge just that one roll, whether it's to save the player who's had 3 characters die in the last 2 games due to really bad rolls, or to get back at that one guy who always seems to get 2+ 18s when you're rolling 3d6 for ability scores. Either way, we all have to fudge rolls for the sake of our players.

The tough part is getting away with it. Especially when you can't track down a DM screen that you like enough. How do you guys get away with it in this case?

So I thought about alternate solutions, and came up with nothing until I saw a dice set written in Kanji, but they've been increasingly hard to find for a decent price.

My question is, does anyone know of any other forms of 'coded' dice? Or alternatively better ways of getting away with it?
I think my players are starting to catch onto the "Well yeah, I rolled randomly earlier for this battle and wrote down the rolls, to make it more immersive!" excuse.

If you don't want a monster's attack to kill the hard-luck player this time, you probably have other options for the monster's actions.

If you're fudging 'to get back at' a player -for lucky rolls or any other reason - that sounds like a serious problem with the dynamic of the game.

If you don't have a DM screen that you like, you can still roll behind books, a laptop, or another object that 'screens' the dice from the players' sight.

If you're fudging often enough that your players are starting to catch on, you're probably fudging too often.

[ekarney]

First of all, I don't railroad. At all. Currently one of my groups has 3 players in it, and most of them are pursuing their own slightly inter-tangled stories doing quests for respective guilds they've joined, working with and against each other depending on the uneasy alliances. I gave them the option to do one of several stories, and gave them an in-game explanation of what would happen.
They chose the crime syndicate quests over Suzail V. Orcs, Lot's of Gangs and What Happened to the Prince?
Which were respectively, a combat focused line, a RP heavy, with combat when they feel like it and a political intrigue line.
From there I gave them the choice of how they wanted to go through the quest line and so on, I'm guilt of probably giving them too much choice, so I don't use the dice to force a narrative onto people.
Heck, when it comes to diplomacy bluff and intimidate I usually have the players debate, lie to or intimidate my person in a way their character would to avoid the rolls.

As for the fudging itself, my players are well aware I balance fudging, if they find out they escaped a 48 damage crit at level 1 through my fudging they know I'm going to balance it out by having the enemy pass their a spellcraft/concentration/whatever check with flying colours and I don't make a habit of it, the dice are only fudged when it's a very special occasion (It's their first session with a new character their very proud of, it's the player's birthday, I screwed up something big time last session because I didn't sleep the night before, I'm being hammered by assignments and I'm not going to have time to prepare several new plot piece for a new character. Those sort of things)

That being said, I'm not here to discuss how ethical wind blowing dust into the enemies eyes once or twice is.
Though, once I've gotten a few answers I'll be happy to discuss it.


Edit: @Amphetryon I don't punish for lucky rolls, but when I use a 3d6 ability system and a player routinely gets multiple 18s when he rolls characters when I'm not there then there might be something fishy, you feel?
The possiblity is under 5% for one 18 in an ability block isn't it? So several of them seems reasonably improbable, and when he consistently gets them across multiple characters?

I'm a firm believer in once I've announced an action, I carry through with it and I enforce that with my players.

As for catching on, it's not that I'm doing this in the same campaign, I have a couple of player who I DM multiple campaigns for.

[Amphetryon]

Edit: @Amphetryon I don't punish for lucky rolls, but when I use a 3d6 ability system and a player routinely gets multiple 18s when he rolls characters when I'm not there then there might be something fishy, you feel?
The possiblity is under 5% for one 18 in an ability block isn't it? So several of them seems reasonably improbable, and when he consistently gets them across multiple characters?

I'm a firm believer in once I've announced an action, I carry through with it and I enforce that with my players.

As for catching on, it's not that I'm doing this in the same campaign, I have a couple of player who I DM multiple campaigns for.

If you're changing rolls to 'get back at' a player for lucky rolls, what do you call that if not punishing him? If you think it's fishy enough that you suspect cheating, then you're compounding the issue by not addressing it out of game, but instead passive-aggressively responding with your own version of cheating by fudging rolls.

The number of campaigns is irrelevant; if you're doing this with enough frequency that you have players catching on, that could very well be an indicator that you're fudging too often, and should consider switching to a game system with more built-in narrative control than 3.X if that's really an important feature for you as DM.

[PsyBomb]

I actually built a Fudge version straight into my houserules any setting where appropriate. Karma increments in their favor 1-2 points per session, depending on RP. Significant enemies also have Karma.

Players do not know their raw score, but can invoke it after a roll to cause it to shift in their favor to a bare success, using up that much Karma. They know, though , that negatives favor the enemy, so are hesitant except in emergencies.

It lets me fudge rolls for drama in both directions when I want, and the players know that I am honest on my running total. Works for everyone.

[Frostthehero]

With all due respect, fudging die rolls is an integral part of the game (it's mentioned in the DMG). In the campaigns I run, I want randomness, but I also want a certain level of control over the game system.

In order to more easily fudge rolls, I recommend using a dice app, or the rolling system on the SRD.

[Curmudgeon]

With all due respect, fudging die rolls is an integral part of the game (it's mentioned in the DMG).
I think that's a poor practice. I like transparency in how much dice affect things in the game, so I roll an extra-large d20 in plain sight.

What I do to smooth things over is have very few single opponent combats. If one critter is enough to be an appropriate challenge, a few lucky/unlucky rolls can make a significant difference in the outcome. What I do instead is have multiple opponents, with reinforcements showing up to enrich the encounter. If the dice are rolling poorly for the PCs or well for their enemies the reinforcements might be late, or not show up at all. If the dice are rolling well for the PCs the reinforcements can show up more promptly, or include a third wave. I get to make things challenging without needing to fudge the dice.

[Blackhawk748]

Im not against fudging dice rolls to save players from god awful luck. (i had a player who, for several sessions, couldnt roll above a friggin 8 on his d20) So if the fight goes totally haywire and they cant seem to hit the thing to save their rear end, and the beast cant stop trying to murder them (i have legitimately rolled 5 confirmed crits on 5 seperate attacks in a row, thankfully it was split up amongst 3 different targets, but dear lord) i have no problem making it "miss" a few times.

Thankfully i havent had to do this very often, im pretty sure its been less than half a dozen times in my 6 year DMing career, as even if things go haywire my party can usually still pull off a win.

[Threadnaught]

For secret rolls, like Saving Throws against Disease, Will Saves, Bluff, Hide, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand and Sense Motive Checks made by NPCs, and Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive Checks made by the PCs. Try doing these before the session and write them down somewhere, check them off as players do stuff.

I can get away with rolling at the time, because there's no risk of players seeing my dice. However I have absolute faith in my players' honesty and hope non of them would abuse my trust.


You wouldn't be able to use these coded dice as a player in most DMs' games, they're really best reserved for special stuff. If you're using them on your players, then in order to prevent Circa from calling you out too quickly, you'd need a number of special dice to roll for each individual type of roll. Not insane numbers, but definitely enough to have a small collection of dice.


Also even though I'm not physically present when you're rolling your characters' stats, I do get you to announce out loud what your rolls are so it's as legit as I can get it. And yes, you're going to have to roll your Gestalts and post the results, the usual high power rolls. And do not reveal what those rolls are here, I have a reputation as a DM whose players hate him, and who is a complete jerk to his players. I can't have people thinking I'm soft on you guys with stat rolls.

[atemu1234]

I remember once a player rolled a 1 on a save-or-cease-existing spell, so I looked around and said, "We all saw that was a 20, n'cest pas?" And everyone nodded slowly.

[Crake]

I remember once a player rolled a 1 on a save-or-cease-existing spell, so I looked around and said, "We all saw that was a 20, n'cest pas?" And everyone nodded slowly.

Why even use save or cease existing spells if you arent gonna follow through with their result? Seems pointless to me, and I'd imagine it would make your players feel a little patronised by just handwaving away a failure like that. Fear of loss, and to a lesser extent, actual loss is what keeps players attached to things. If everything is guarenteed to be safe forever, then the game loses interest. At least, that's my experience.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Eh, if the issue is a player rolling really lucky on his stats, just make him roll them in front of you in the first place.

In my group, I have a designated pinch-roller. Why, you ask?

Because I usually have a combined stat modifier of +2 as a personal average best. Sometimes, that dips to a -2 average.

The player who rolls for me? He's just super-lucky when it comes to stat rolls. He'll use anyone's dice, and without fail roll at least 3 +16s every time.

And I roll REAAAALY bad throughout most sessions. No d20 rolls above 12, all the time.

...Until something really big and dangerous shows up, then I'm rolling +17 until the thing dies. And I don't swap dice sets. It's just uncanny...

[Phelix-Mu]

I generally view dice fudging like sleeping pills. Can be really useful in the occasional difficulty, to carry you through a tough spot and make it out to the other side.

But also very habit-forming; if said habit is formed, the results can be extremely detrimental.

To me, the story and fluff are king; Lady Luck is around to add some tension and unpredictability. But, as usual, she bites, and sometimes that isn't good for the story. But the DM must always be sure that any fudging is done in service to the story (and it's cooperative nature), in service to the fun.

I'd also like to add that doing a campaign over skype or similar voice chat requires an even greater amount of trust (or on-the-fly fudging) than normal, and can really be a bit of unexpected stress for the DM.

[Threadnaught]

I'd also like to add that doing a campaign over skype or similar voice chat requires an even greater amount of trust (or on-the-fly fudging) than normal, and can really be a bit of unexpected stress for the DM.

Indeed, my players have been attacked by opponents who have successfully saved against their best abilities and I'd waited about 20 seconds after the roll to decide the villain lived.
While in other cases, an interesting villain would be caught and ganked by the players, completely failing to incapacitate one of the PCs or survive the PCs' relentless assault, I'd roll and.. They'd... Drop dead to the PCs' attacks.

I am really glad they can't see my face. A bad pokerface, combined with the fact that I laugh at pretty much everything I find funny, I just wouldn't be able to lie to their faces, or present and obvious trap as an obvious trap without using the "T" word and use their greed/ego to walk them into it.


MetaMyconid knows what I'm talking about, his character lost his identity because of one. :smallamused:

[atemu1234]

Why even use save or cease existing spells if you arent gonna follow through with their result? Seems pointless to me, and I'd imagine it would make your players feel a little patronised by just handwaving away a failure like that. Fear of loss, and to a lesser extent, actual loss is what keeps players attached to things. If everything is guarenteed to be safe forever, then the game loses interest. At least, that's my experience.

It was PvP, not my choice.

[rgrekejin]

The tough part is getting away with it. Especially when you can't track down a DM screen that you like enough. How do you guys get away with it in this case?

...

My question is, does anyone know of any other forms of 'coded' dice? Or alternatively better ways of getting away with it?

My group has a set of transparent, non-colored dice that get passed to whoever DMs. They're virtually impossible to make out from any distance whatsoever. They're occasionally useful for when you have to fudge a die roll, but they're constantly useful for frustrating my players' attempts to ballpark a monster's attack bonus and saves.

Edit: These exact dice, in fact.

http://www.amazon.com/Polyhedral-7-Die-Translucent-Chessex-Dice/dp/B000X7ADMK

Edit 2: Check that, those dice have white painted-on letters. Our DM dice don't. They're clear on clear, which is what makes them so hard to see.

Edit 3: Ah-ha! These are them - precision edge clear.

http://www.chessex.com/Dice/Raw/raw_dice_home.htm

[Knaight]

With all due respect, fudging die rolls is an integral part of the game (it's mentioned in the DMG). In the campaigns I run, I want randomness, but I also want a certain level of control over the game system.

For an integral part of the game, it sure came out easily with no adverse effects. Sure, a replacement of some sort helps (bennies/fortune points/hero points/whatever), but even that isn't necessary, and by house rules standards it's really, really minor and easy.

[ekarney]

Those dice would be great! @rgrekejin and they seem much easier to get a hole of than the Kanji ones!
Which, whilst far harder to discern the number, would be easily foiled by my players carrying a Kanji conversion sheet.
Plus these look cool!